Linux-Advocacy Digest #312, Volume #30 Sun, 19 Nov 00 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Bob Lyday)
Re: wahoo! I'm running now ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux as a file and print server platform? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux trips over itself once again (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory??? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: wahoo! I'm running now (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory??? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: It's even worse than I thought. ("Frank Van Damme")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:12:14 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > I have given several code snippets which show issues you raise as
> > > incorrect. I am still curious as to why you have the opinions that you
> > > do. Can you post a code snippet that supports at least one of your
> > > claims so that I can try to understand your points?
> > >
> > > --
> > > http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > Well, I want to write a program to operate a combined
> > standard/high-definition TV. It will run on an 8502 with 8k RAM and 64k
> > ROM. It will handle all the TV setup, maintenance, and operation.
> > Convergance (making white lines one white line instead of a red line and
> > a blue line and a green line) is a particular problem. The development
> > system doesn't have a C++ compiler. What do I do? Did I mention that
> > this also runs the menu and remote control system?
>
> You have stated that C++ is much slower than C. I have given snippets
> which refute your points. I am only asking you if you can show me some
> code snippets that display the behavior of which you complain. You come
> back with a response about embedded applications. The point of this
> thread was a C++ phobia. Although not explicitly stated, but could be
> inferred by the thread, context, and title that it is about general
> computing and application development.
>
> I have done a few embedded applications and have had some success with
> the Z80 based hitachi controller. As you know embedded apps are very
> funky. I would not even go as high as C, I'd stay in assembler. 8K is
> not a lot of ram.
>
> All I am asking is if you can show me some code that displays the
> behavior that "C++ is almost as slow as Java" as you claim.
>
> The point about this thread is that a lot linux people seem to have
> opinions of C++ which are not based on fact. They are of the opinion
> that C++ is bad, facts be damned, and they'll make up whatever "facts"
> they need. I just want to understand why, and as yet, have no idea why
> people claim the things that they do.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
//hello.cpp
#include <iostream.h>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
inline void pr_message(string s = "Hello World!")
{cout << s << endl;}
int main()
{
pr_message();
}
/*hello.c*/
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void){
printf("Hello, World\n");
return (0);
}
Hello.cpp :71670 bytes assembly, 27,606 bytes execuitable
Hello.c : 412 bytes assembly 11,411 bytes execuitable
same optimization, same debug, same warnings.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:13:52 GMT
In article <8v8ear$jbt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8v7qvr$vtm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>>
>> <Snip> The point would have been well taken in the late 80's or
>> early 90's.
>>
>> The real point here Todd is with the next version of Windows
>> released, the full install will be over $500 and the upgrade
>> will be past $250. The release after that one will top $800
>> for the full install and $350 for the upgrade.
>
>You don't know this for a fact. This is just your speculation.
>
>The Windows ME upgrade is $49 from Windows 98. A far cry from $250.
>
UHMM UMM. Yes upgrades are getting more expensive also.
Thank you Todd.
Todd, you have your head rammed up your butt boy.
Windows has consistently been more expensive with every
release. Microsoft has consistently bragged about their
cash outflows in creating the next new release. They
said Windows 2000 cost them $2 billion in cash to reach.
The ONLY thing I DON'T know about the next release is
whether it will make it out the door by 2002 or will
they actually get it out in 2003.
>> The #1 cost of owning and operating a computer system has
>> been and will always be the cost of the software.
>
>Boy, you are *way* off here. The #1 cost of operating a computer system is
>the cost of labor that maintains your system(s) in a datacenter type of
>environment.
>
NO, this is totally untrue. The #1 cost is the cost of software.
>The cost of an OS is almost an irrelenvant topic.
>
Wrong again. The #1 cost of owning and maintaining a computer
is software.
>I can see you haven't actually worked in a *real* computer environment.
>
>-Todd
>
I have 20 years experience with the insurance industy
and I don't like kids cruising around throwing crap.
Beat it kid before you momma finds out you've been on the
internet and spanks your little bottom.
Charlie
`
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:14:04 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Todd wrote:
>
> "Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
> >
> > Note that in this survey of the longest uptimes, every single one of
> > them is running some form of Unix. Not even one single one is running
> > any Microsoft OS, even Windows 2000, which ZDNet just stated is the
> > best webserver of all in a recent issue.
>
> If you actually *read* the FAQ regarding uptime, you would have seen this:
>
> "Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
> timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
> point, while HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD also cycle
> back to zero after 497 days. "
>
> So, NT could not possibly 'beat' any system.
It ought to stay up for at least a day. Starbucks was unable to do
so. Is there something wrong with their sysadmins?
>
> Regarding Windows 2000, SP1 debuted recently and the system does need to be
> rebooted for it to take effect.
>
> However, 'Availability' is what *users* are concerned with, and with Windows
> 2000 Advanced Server, you can easily set up clustering (built into Windows
> 2000).
>
> Clustering provides high availability even if the software or *hardware*
> fails on one of the machines.
>
> A much better setup than relying on just one machine.
Novell, OS/2, any *nix are all better than Windows 2000. It is a lot
better than NT but it is still the worst server out there.
--
Bob
"Nigeria is a continent." "Trade with Mexico is not foreign trade."
"Is our children learning?" "People from Greece are called
Grecians." "Social Security is not a federal program." George Bush,
Einsteinian genius, ex-con, ex-cokehead, ex-adulterer, ex-drunk and
popularly defeated Presidential candidate, demonstrating his stunning
intellectual breadth and encyclopedic knowledge.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:15:26 GMT
For an engineer you really should learn how to read better, Gary
I said USE THE MENU'S, NOT the buttons.
Now try it that way and tell me it works and you will be lying.
claire
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 16:55:05 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:31:12 -0500, Gary Hallock
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Yes, Linux does, if you use the standard Unix approach - copy with left mouse
>> >key, paste with right. The only time I have had this fail on any version of
>> >Unix is if numlock is on.
>> >
>> >Gary
***********************READ THIS GARY*****************
>> Try it using the menus from KDE editor (either one) into a field on a
>> webpage using Netscape.
>>
>> Or just try Select all text from the KDE editor menu and try and use
>> the buttons to paste it into a field in Netscape.
>>
>> It doesn't work at least on a Thinkpad 765L which I'm sure you have to
>> test it on.
>>
>> claire
***************************STOP HERE************
>Yawn. We have been through this before. I just tried what you suggested and
>it worked just fine. I am currently using KDE 2 and Netscape 4.72, but the last
>time this this lie came up, I tried it using KDE 1.1.2 and it worked fine then
>also. kedit and kwrite both work - left to copy and middle to paste.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux as a file and print server platform?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:15:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Jeff Turley wrote:
>>
>> I currentley work on a High Schools LAN and we are using all Novell for our
>> file and print services. We are looking to make a move to a new network
>> operating system in the next year to year and a half. I am looking for a
>> source on good information on the use of Linux as a file and print serving
>> platform. I currently have 8 file servers 1 intranet server with
>> aproxmentley 550 clients and about 25 to 30 printers. Is this an
>> environment that SAMBA could support? I need good perfromance but I also
>> need ease of administration. If anybody can give me some feedback on this
>> or some good web sites to go to that would be great. Thanks
>
>I am not really an expert on SAMBA, but I would guess that there would
>be no problem, except that it may be a bit hard to use.
>--
>http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
I would recommend using WEBMIN for new users.
With WEBMIN you can set up Samba and Apache in less than
20 minutes.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux trips over itself once again
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:17:17 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Once again Linux, in this case Mandrake 7.2, has failed to install on
> a system that has easily installed Windows.
Claire, you can have the same kind of stories on Windows...
Story number one
My brother bought himself a USB scanner. He followed the instructions
carefully (not being at all computer literate) and kept finding the setup
would hang when he got to the Finish button. After about an hour, he called
me, and I talked him through it.
Somehow he had run setup.exe three times! The instructions and setup.exe
don't match in what actually happens, so it made it all the more confusing
(what README would he go for here, I wonder?).
Anyway, he got it to work and is happy now, but not happy that it wasn't a
pleasant process.
Story number two
I was trying to install Windows NT on a machine and every time it would get
to a point in the setup and hang. I had to reboot to get out of it. I
didn't know it at the time, but if I had waited around five minutes (!), it
would have continued. This was a bug in setup. It disappeared in the next
version.
And of course, you can get the same kind of story on Linux, Story number
three
I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2 trying to make sure KDE2 and its
development libraries were installed after mucking them up. I choose to not
install everything as I did before, and ended up with a system without ppp!
Now, I don't recally anything that indicated that wouldn't be installed. I
did turn off installation of database software, yet I found mysql was
installed.
With the package manager I installed ppp and removed mysql and everything
is just fine.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:17:16 GMT
Yea yea, there ia always a FAQ or How-To somewhere to be found.
Why can't Linux just get it right the first time instead of relying on
all of these FAQ's to fix obvious flaws in Linux itself?
claire
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:06:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Sun, 19 Nov 2000 16:19:05 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Yea, you're trying to run Linux.
>
>Exactly. Everyone should know that they should run Windows 2000,
>Personal Edition. It's the best danged operating system out there
>that will sit on your desktop and do everything that you want it to.
>
>Spot The Sarcasm.
>
>(Did I mention that this is covered in the FAQ and already
>answered by other posters? Edit /etc/lilo.conf, add the line
>
>append="mem=128M"
>
>somewhere near the top, rerun /sbin/lilo, and you're all set.)
>
>>
>>claire
>>
>>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:35:35 GMT, Jolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>I bought a new mother board, PC chips' VIA KT133 board, with duron and
>>>128 M Pc133 RAM.
>>>But my linux can't recognize all my memory. It tell me that all I have
>>>is only 64M RAM!!!
>>>I tried Mandrake 7.0, Redhat 6.0(RH6.2 doesn't work), the same results.
>>>
>>>Under win98, 128M Ram is recognized.
>>>
>>>Anybody know the problem?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Jolf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory???
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:19:35 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Yea, you're trying to run Linux.
>
>claire
>
More importantly however, notice how people have interest in Linux.
Notice he wasn't bitching about his DVD player or USB not working
in Windows 98. He was trying to figure out how to type a line
into LILO.CONF file located in etc. He will soon figure
out how to read a man page, man lilo, and he will be on his
way.
It really makes you wonder why people who are so satisfied with
Windows will immediately take the plunge into Linux.
Interesting, very interesting.
Windows must be an extremely satisfying experience for it's
users. It's SO EASY.
Thanks Claire.
Charlie
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 02:35:35 GMT, Jolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I bought a new mother board, PC chips' VIA KT133 board, with duron and
>>128 M Pc133 RAM.
>>But my linux can't recognize all my memory. It tell me that all I have
>>is only 64M RAM!!!
>>I tried Mandrake 7.0, Redhat 6.0(RH6.2 doesn't work), the same results.
>>
>>Under win98, 128M Ram is recognized.
>>
>>Anybody know the problem?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Jolf
>>
>>
>>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:23:25 GMT
In article <j2TR5.779$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Chris Spencer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a17eeac$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Why in God's name would any Linux user use Notepad?? Oh man...that would
>> have to be this week's signt that the apocalypse is on us...
>
>
>Perhaps if you had half a clue and at least a 2 post attention span, you would
>know that we were discussing Wine ability, or inability rather, to run even
>the most simple Windows applications.
>
>-Chad
>
There are actually 4 ways people can run Windows programs on a Linux box.
#1 is to dual install Windows then Linux.
#2 is to run VMware and have BOTH running at the same time.
#3 is to run WINLIN and install windows inside LINUX!
This is very funny and it works well. When Windows blue screens
it just dies and you restart it via WINLIN. It's kind of like
watching a virus breed.
#4 is of course, WINE. Wine is how Corel got word perfect to run
on a Debian system then sell it in a box.
Thanks for the free Linux Advertising Chad.
Hope that clears this up.
Charlie
>
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > If I want a quick & dirty text editor, notepad is my choice.
>> >>
>> >> Not on Linux. So why bother with running notepad under wine?
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > And in case you didn't notice, notepad is a windows tool.
>> >> > It's apperantly very complex one, WINE hasn't been able to make it word
>> >> > correctly.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. I just tried notepad under wine and it works fine. Have you?
>> >
>> > Go to file -> print
>> >
>> > What happens?
>> >
>> > -Chad
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:28:17 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > The biggest problem I have with VC++ at the moment is version control.
> > If I want to change some small thing, I have to check out everything. If
> > someone else wants to make a small change somewhere else, they have to
> > also check out everything. This translates into a branch/merge problem
> > at check in time. Given limited SCM support, this is a real pain.
>
> What are you talking about? You don't have to check out everything. You
> need only check out the files you are working on. What makes you think you
> have to check out everything?
Vc++ creates and modifies a lot of files automatically. I have to check
out all those files, in addition to the *one file* I am working on.
Otherwise, I nothing works because they are read only. At the end I have
to check them back in otherwise my changes don't take, ie, the
autogenerated code for the button is lost.
VC++ has projects and project spaces. I create a project space for me
with a collection of files. My co-worker creates a project space with
the same files. The Version Control software has a project containing
the files. Version Control will let me check out one file at a time. But
if all the autogenerated files in my project space aren't rw, nothing
works, nothing is saved to check in. The class tab doesn't work, the
resources tab doesn't work. The debugger, however, is glad to jump to
the middle of some ms library so that we have no clue as to why it would
be somewhere we never explicitly sent it.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:31:42 GMT
In article <8v8jct$llk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Todd wrote:
>
>"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://uptime.netcraft.com/today/top.avg.html
>>
>> Note that in this survey of the longest uptimes, every single one of
>> them is running some form of Unix. Not even one single one is running
>> any Microsoft OS, even Windows 2000, which ZDNet just stated is the
>> best webserver of all in a recent issue.
>
>If you actually *read* the FAQ regarding uptime, you would have seen this:
>
>"Additionally, NT4 uptimes cycle back to zero after 49.7 days, and give
>timestamps exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at this precise
>point, while HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD also cycle
>back to zero after 497 days. "
>
Incorrect SIR! Your using the Linux mark from 2 years ago.
Linux uptime is now 4 digits.
>So, NT could not possibly 'beat' any system.
>
>Regarding Windows 2000, SP1 debuted recently and the system does need to be
>rebooted for it to take effect.
>
>However, 'Availability' is what *users* are concerned with, and with Windows
>2000 Advanced Server, you can easily set up clustering (built into Windows
>2000).
>
>Clustering provides high availability even if the software or *hardware*
>fails on one of the machines.
>
>A much better setup than relying on just one machine.
>
>-Todd
>
I suppose next we will be told by this insaine child that
Windows invented Clustering.
To run a computer facility based on a Microsoft model
is only to show the entire world you have your head
in a bottle.
Thanks for the free advertising - {TODD}
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:35:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2000 06:54:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Topaz Crow)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Simple example: Two mouse clicks to cut and paste in Linux. Six in Windows.
>>Hmmm? I don't think Linux is any less productive on the desktop. I use it
>>on mine and have not used Windows on my computers for more than a year. I'm
>>very happy with it.
>
>
>Windows cut's and pastes between all it's applications. Does Linux?
>Nope.
>
>claire
You can cut and paste between applications in Gnome.
I can cut from Star and paste into Gedit!
What the hell you mean here?
You can even cut and paste from the terminal windows
with gpm!
But that's alright Claire! I've heard this
argument before from 1997.
Tell Bill that if you want to re-new your contract
as a COLA wintroll he will have to get an updated
list of things you can read off to bitch about.
Thanks for the FREE ADVERTISING!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory???
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:36:08 GMT
Ian Pulsford wrote:
>
> munke wrote:
>
> > Jolf wrote:
> >
> > > I bought a new mother board, PC chips' VIA KT133 board, with duron and
> > > 128 M Pc133 RAM.
> > > But my linux can't recognize all my memory. It tell me that all I have
> > > is only 64M RAM!!!
> > > I tried Mandrake 7.0, Redhat 6.0(RH6.2 doesn't work), the same results.
> > >
> > > Under win98, 128M Ram is recognized.
> > >
> > > Anybody know the problem?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> >
> > Redhat always seemed deficient in this area.......Mandrake has a dialog
> > box in the expert install process.
> >
> > When prompted to enable hdparm et cetera there is an option "append" here
> > you can choose to specify your own memory settings in MB.
> >
> > You can also enter this line at the lilo prompt
> >
> > before the kernel boots
> > example:
> >
> > LILO: # at this prompt type
> >
> > LILO: linux mem=128M
> >
> > this will have to be done each time you startup
> >
> > or you can edit the file /etc/lilo.conf
> >
> > add this line to lilo
> >
> > append="linux mem=128M" this will ensure that your mem is detected
> > everytime...
> >
>
> Not until he runs 'lilo' at the prompt though.
>
All the distributions I have seen have a prompt at set up asking if you
want to pass extra parameters at boot time. That is when I enter any
special data for memory, cdroms, etc. Those entries are placed in the
/etc/lilo.conf file.
> >
> > i have since switched to Caldera 2.4 running Helix Gnome as the
> > desktop....the best yet
> >
> > /\/munke
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:45:25 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > > Anyway, Microsoft continues to learn lessons from UNIX, which
> > > is to their credit.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > >
> >
> >
> > You mean: It is to their Bank Credit that Microsoft copies the functionality
> > and other ideas from other operating systems
>
> Spare us the sanctimony. As much is copied from Windows as MS copies from other
> OSes, if not more.
On the other hand, Bill Gates did often say, during the
early development of Windoze: "Can't you make it more
like the Mac????"
Let's face it, all these OS's run in a very similar universe of
functionality. Maybe Plan 9'll be different.
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:48:49 +0100
In article <9277v8.6ju.ln@gd2zzx>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>
> <huge snip>
>
> Excellent post Charlie. Couldn't say it any better. Claire's remarks
> about her/his trip to CompUSA was interesting. Do you really hear all
> that just walking around a store? Those were the sort of anecdotes only
> a person working in the store would get. Yup, Claire must be a sales
> person in a computer store somewhere. Probably shows a fair amount of
> cleavage to distract the customer from what they are buying. :-)
I'm not too sure. Actually the greater part of all computer users are
people like that, knowing nothing about computers and being unable to
solve problems of their own. I've explained my mother the difference
between ram and disk space a 100 times, she cannot remember it. With a
bit of luck you can hear more stories like this than the six claire wrote
down. Those people need help for setting up Windows, too.
Where does help usually come from: friends'n family, dealer, instructions on the
box.
What if you use Windows?
The instructions on the box normally work, well you got a big problem
when they don't.
Dealers are used to help above-described people. 95% of the average
computer users use Windows.
And for Linux users?
Forget the on-the-box instructons. "Designed for win9x", damnit. OSses and
software are meant to run on hardware, not the other way around. =
Windows-fixation.
Dealers dunno anything about Linux, usually.
The difference nowadays between the average Windows user and te average
Linux user is that the average Windows user is someone who thinks Windows
is the only way to make a computer work, see Claire's description, and
the average Linux user is someone who usually knows more about computers,
has something to do with Linux in his/her job, who is eager to know more
and starts experimenting. Finally, you end up with Linux, because you
read about it, or because some enthousiast recommended it to you.
Consequence: everyone supposes that all Linux users are freaks.
Consequence: "they'll figure it out themselves". Ignoring the newbies
under us. Yes, Linux is hard to configure (sometimes). Your soundcard box
has a cd in it, and on this cd are Windows drivers. Period. As a Linux
user; you need to know that you must run sndconfig, and take your manual
to check the IRQ settings and so on (and hope that the win98 on your
dual boot system doesn't screw these up) . Linux users are supported in
other ways: learn to read ng's, it takes 5 minutes.
I agree that nowadays Linux for "normal" people still has to go some way.
Some things can be hard to manage, yes, but I don't think it's true for
both platforms. I know that Joe or Jane Sixpack is not interested in an
extra 10 or 20 % improve in performance if setting up his machine is an
odyssee, or he needs to type crazy things like 100-character commands
full of -,% and / . But:
1/ all this lack of user is not only the fault of Linux itself, economy
plays it's role too. (Which is not an excuse, from the viewpoint of
J&JS.)
2/ Well, they're working on it. usb support is under development,
hardware detection is under development,...
3/ Things don't need to be exaggerated either. There are always sources
for support. Claire has been posting queries from linux groups for some
time now, but I don't think they can actually be used as a proof of
Linux-un-user-friendlyness. Windows users have other sources of
information, as I allready said. btw, windows ng's have traffic, too.
Windowsers usually call their dealer, a support line,...
4/ The fact that Linux users are spending time tuning up their system
(kernel recompilation,...) doesn't mean all this is necessary. Linux just
offers the possibility.
5/ It is also exaggerated that you read tons of documenteton and man
pages to become an average, evryday user. Just choose a windowmanager you
like and start word-processing.
To put an end to this post: my experiences with hardware weren't too bad
up to now. Only my cheap-crap trident vga card wasn't recognised by
Mandrake, Redhat did recognise it. For now, I can't get my onboard
soundcard to work, but I think it must be a mechanical problem because
Windows doesn't recognise it either. (And there were Windows divers on
the CD, no Linux drivers :-( ).
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
