Linux-Advocacy Digest #314, Volume #30 Sun, 19 Nov 00 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: wahoo! I'm running now (Gary Hallock)
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Linux Sux (mark)
Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years? (John Hasler)
Re: It's even worse than I thought. (mark)
Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory??? (mark)
Re: Linux trips over itself once again (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux trips over itself once again (Charlie Ebert)
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Mike Byrns)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 09:12:41 +1000
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:...
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > Maybe in Microsoft OSes, but do UNIX/Linux GUIs attempt to blur the
> > > distinction?
> >
> > The good ones do. KDE, GNOME etc.
> >
>
> Of course, KDE doesn't associate shell scripts with an interpreter
> by default.
Strawman. KDE "blurs the distinction", which was the point.
> > It quite simply is the whole point of the "modern" GUI (ie "desktop
> > metaphor") - to not have to worry about programs, but concentrate only
on
> > the data.
>
> But why does this require blurring the distinction between programs
> and data?
Because the objective of those GUIs to to make "knowing" anything about the
program unecessary. Why should I have to know about what program opens my
word documents ? All I'm really interested in is the data inside.
> > > the user
> > > does not know that it is a program).
> >
> > If they can't figure out it's a program in Windows, they'll ahve even
less
> > chance in Unix.
> >
>
> But unless they're running as root, they still have less chance of
> shooting their feet.
This was about Win2k, if I'm not mistaken, so the same applies.
You are neglecting, of course, the vast majority of people that run as root
most of the time. The proportion of new users who do this is quite high,
but even those who shoudl "know better" often do it.
> > > Your preference (and MS OSes appeal to that preference) of a
consistent
> > > GUI over a consistent OS is far more damning thab anything I could
say.
> >
> > You'll notice I sai *UI* consistency. Unix lacks consistency in its
CLI
and
> > GUIs.
> >
>
> Yeah, but it still doesn't sacrifice stability for a UI.
What stability does Windows sacrifice for a UI ?
> > > > > > > But would the person have known that it was a shell script,
or
> > even
> > > > > > > what a shell script is?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They would have known it wasn't the usual text file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And if they didn't, it wouldn't have made a difference anyway.
> > > >
> > > > ANd if it happened on any other platform, it wouldn't have made a
> > difference
> > > > anyway.
> > >
> > > Accept that other platforms don't associate shell scripts with
> > interpreters.
> >
> > Wrong.
>
> And which other OSes do this?
Any Unix with #!/bin/<shell> in a text file and the file set to executable
has essentially done this.
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:14:19 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
>
Hey, Claire, go back and read my post. I said LEFT to copy, MIDDLE to paste always
work. You really have to learn to read. Besides, the menus on kwrite DO work.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Date: 19 Nov 2000 23:15:49 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Here's one where I will AGREE with Claire.
: The price of Suse, Mandrake, RedHat Deluxe, and others have
: risen to $80 from $45-55 range.
: I have one word which covers this subject.
: DEBIAN.
Debian's a great distro for folks who know what they're doing, but
Mandrake and SuSE come with buttloads of software and enhancements
that I feel are well worth the somewhat higher price, especially for
newer users. Also, RedHat, Mandrake, and (I think) SuSE spend a fair
portion of their revenues to employ important hackers to work on the
Linux kernel, KDE, Gnome, XFree86, and various other projects.
I don't mind spending money to gain convenience as long as it doesn't
diminish (and, hopefully, does help to further) the cause of freedom.
And I do believe that those of us who benefit from Linux and other
free software have an ethical and moral obligation to help to support
it in some way, if we can, whether financially, through advocacy, by
developing additional high-quality free software, or some other means.
(Thus, even when I've used Debian, the only noncommercial distro, I've
bought "official" boxed sets, most of the price of which help support
Debian development.)
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:04:18 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 19:32:02 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>
>
>>I have to say that the idea of Linux not working with Madams
>>fascinating. Can we assume that the accounts of your
>>average bordello are handled by Microsoft systems only?
>>
>>Mark
>
<cut.
>
>Penguinista's are probably bad for business in a Bordello anyway. I
>mean, I've heard that they rarely bathe?
>
Hmm, is this now on the linux myths page as well?
Mark
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: True GTK+ will eliminate Qt in next few years?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 22:19:41 GMT
James Hutchins writes:
> Pardon my lack of sophistication, but if I do the analysis in C++, and
> expect to use OpenGL, why would another approach be better for the
> graphics and? This is a sincere question.
The function of the analyzer is to produce a lump of data to be displayed
or otherwise manipulated or stored. The function of the displayer is to
display a lump of data. The two need only agree on the format of the data.
There is no reason why your choice of tools for the analyzer should
influence your choice of tools for the displayer.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:21:50 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Hauck wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:11:49 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>Bob, she wasn't talking about Windows, she was talking about how Linux
>>wasn't ready for the desktop.
>
>Nothing in "her" post said anything about Linux. It was just a story
>about a bunch of fools wandering the aisles at CompUSA.
As fiction goes it was quite well written - although perhaps it was
factual.
>
>
>>It's clear that UNIX/Linux geeks will never understand why people don't
>>*want* an OS, they want to be able to DO things.
>
>And "geeks" don't want to do things?
People buy goods for a huge range of reasons, but a rational decision
to 'do something' is almost never one of them. More probably because
a marketing campaign told them to, their friend has one, their neighbour
has one, they saw one on television, etc., etc.
The geeks are probably unusual in that they do want to do something,
and are in a near unique position to be able to determine the correct
tool for the job somewhat independently of marketing hype.
>
>
>>Linux ain't even *close* to being *considered* to be deployed to the common
>>consumer.
>
Considered by whom, I wonder? Linux is certainly already on sale to the
most common of consumers in computing stores, in bookstores and on magazine
covers.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory???
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:33:08 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Know how many documents I had to read to run Windows, all the way from
>Windows 2.0 (yes that's 2.0) to Win2k?
Yeah, but Claire (or whoever), if you run linux, you have time to read
the documents, because you're not rebooting all the time like you
have to in windows.
Mark
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 18:25:02 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux trips over itself once again
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Once again Linux, in this case Mandrake 7.2, has failed to install on
> a system that has easily installed Windows.
>
> System:
> Thinkpad 765L with a 3gb drive, external floppy drive and a
> Sigma Data 24x CDROM in the ultrabay. PCMCIA cards include a TokenRing
> and modem. BTW I tried it with and without the PCMCIA cards installed.
> Hard drive is freshly formatted with DOS and is one large partition.
> Since this machine will not boot from the CDROM I had to use one of
> the other methods according to the Mandrake readme.
>
What, is this another one of your personalities that doesn't know what
the other one did? You have been claiming for a while now that you
successfully installed Linux on that Thinkpad but you have been unable to
get the token ring card to work. Now you claim you can't even read from
the CD. Which is it?
But, just so you think I',m not helpful. Turn the machine off, open it
up, pull out the CD drive, and plug it back in. Sometimes those CD
drives will pop out slightly during transit if you didn't properly lock
them into place.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux trips over itself once again
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:38:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Once again Linux, in this case Mandrake 7.2, has failed to install on
>a system that has easily installed Windows.
>
And once again you've proven yourself to all to be
a completely rediculous asshole.
>System:
> Thinkpad 765L with a 3gb drive, external floppy drive and a
>Sigma Data 24x CDROM in the ultrabay. PCMCIA cards include a TokenRing
>and modem. BTW I tried it with and without the PCMCIA cards installed.
>Hard drive is freshly formatted with DOS and is one large partition.
>Since this machine will not boot from the CDROM I had to use one of
>the other methods according to the Mandrake readme.
>
IBM has guaranteed support for Linux. Call them.
Linux is their base install for ALL Thinkpad's.
>claire
You bought IBM. Then you HAVE IBM support idiot!
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:46:05 GMT
In article <8v9mv5$qee$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Here's one where I will AGREE with Claire.
>
>: The price of Suse, Mandrake, RedHat Deluxe, and others have
>: risen to $80 from $45-55 range.
>
>: I have one word which covers this subject.
>
>: DEBIAN.
>
>
>Debian's a great distro for folks who know what they're doing, but
>Mandrake and SuSE come with buttloads of software and enhancements
>that I feel are well worth the somewhat higher price, especially for
>newer users. Also, RedHat, Mandrake, and (I think) SuSE spend a fair
>portion of their revenues to employ important hackers to work on the
>Linux kernel, KDE, Gnome, XFree86, and various other projects.
>
>I don't mind spending money to gain convenience as long as it doesn't
>diminish (and, hopefully, does help to further) the cause of freedom.
>And I do believe that those of us who benefit from Linux and other
>free software have an ethical and moral obligation to help to support
>it in some way, if we can, whether financially, through advocacy, by
>developing additional high-quality free software, or some other means.
>(Thus, even when I've used Debian, the only noncommercial distro, I've
>bought "official" boxed sets, most of the price of which help support
>Debian development.)
>
>
>Joe
Debian has 6000 packages.
Suse and Mandrake combined don't have 4000.
There is nothing on Suse or Mandrake or Redhat
that you won't find easier to do with Debian.
It's the same software.
Never overlook the obvious.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:46:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 18 Nov 2000 07:09:36 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Organization: Self
>Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Followup-To:
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joseph T. Adams
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>>on 17 Nov 2000 00:52:50 GMT
>><8v1vh2$7sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>: Oh, yes.
>>>: If Whistler is as good from 2K as 2K is from NT & 98, then Linux\Unix has a
>>>: reason to be *really* afraid, and by the release of the system *after*
>>>: whistler, I wouldn't be surprise if those a minority even on the server.
>>>
>>>
>>>Even if Microsoft released a version of 'Blows that didn't blow, I
>>>still wouldn't use it, because:
>>>
>>> (a) I don't willingly support criminal organizations, with my money
>>> or by any other means.
>>
>>I'm not sure this has been proven either way yet, although the
>>findings of fact were interesting.
>>
>
>#1. The Microsoft trial is OVER. They have been found guilty.
>#2. Microsoft is APPEALING the trial. This APPEAL may reduce
> their sentence for the crimes they've been found guilty of
Ah, I see. I haven't been keeping track.
Oh well.
> but there still guilty. They will never be aquitted.
>
>
>>>
>>> (b) I don't trust criminal organizations with my data. In fact, I
>>> generally don't trust any proprietary software vendor with my
>>> data.
>>
>>I'm not sure I'd trust any organization with my data. It's
>>my data, thank you very much; I'd like to hold onto it.
>>The notion of storing my personal, private data remotely
>>frankly doesn't appeal to me -- but the idea apparently is
>>that MIcrosoft, for its infinite wisdom, would do just that
>>and rent software to access your OWN data by the hour!
>>
>>(Is anyone else reminded of library typewriters? :-) )
>>
>>Of course, there are exceptions, but then, is my credit card
>>number really mine? How about my car's license plate?
>>Social Security number? This is where it gets slightly
>>peculiar -- but I do generate data (actually, software source
>>code; I happen to like to write the stuff in addition to
>>writing things at work -- I could easily see others, such
>>as consultants, writing more than me, even, and wanting to
>>keep their current work away from prying eyes).
>>
>
>I more or less agree. Using Microsoft to safeguard your
>data would be identical to pulling your pants down below
>your knees and bending over. It will be painful.
Ah, but it feels so good when it stops! :-)
>
>>>
>>> (c) Freedom is very important to me, and I do support, with my money
>>> and by other means, those who respect and promote it.
>>
>>I wish I had more money to do so, myself. :-)
>>
>
>I think people confuse freedom with slavery when it comes
>to Microsoft. They feel their freedom is being limited
>by the encroachment of Microsoft by Linux.
Freedom to what? Run crappy software?
Good question! Of course, this sort of thing predates Microsoft,
anyway; one of _1984_'s central tenents was "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY".
One hopes we're not that easily confused.
>
>As Linux advances the cost of the Microsoft Windows OS goes up and
>up. I don't consider a $1000 a copy Windows OS of 2005 to be
>an encrouchment on anybody's freedoms. This was the same GAS
>they were trying to pump me up with when I started bitching
>about those annual $3,500 bills to keep my Microsoft Certifications.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, Microsoft is a hobo and he can hit the road.
He's a damned rich hobo, though. :-) It's not every trainhopper that
can afford to buy the whole railroad if he wants to....
>
>>>
>>> (d) Even if 'Blows were free (in the sense of freedom), didn't suck,
>>> and were not manufactured by a criminal organization, Linux
>>> meets my needs far more effectively than any non-free or non-
>>> POSIX operating system possibly could.
>>
>>I am an engineer myself, and am in a similar position.
>>
>
>Considering that Microsoft Source Code was stolen from
>Asia, you might just see a free CD someday. You will
>probably also see about 1,200 specialized viruses designed
>to cripple Microsoft Windows products also.
Didn't we already? :-)
After all, it's not that difficult to capture ILOVEYOU and mutate it,
especially if one doesn't have Office. In fact, I think we've seen
one mutant strain already.
>
>
>>>
>>> (e) Microsoft has less than no credibility in the server world,
>>> while UNIX and Linux have proven themselves admirably.
>>
>>I wouldn't say that; IIS is in fact used in a number of places.
>>However, it's far from clear that IIS is as powerful as
>>Apache, although it may depend on the application.
>
>
>If "far from clear" = "it's on it way out and it didn't make the
> performance cuts" then I suspect your right.
>
>I don't understand the part about depending on the application.
>In a simple print serving contest, Linux wipes a windows server.
Can't say I fully understand all this either. I'm merely
hypothesizing that there are circumstances where IIS may be
preferred, especially by the more pointy-haired types. I know
of at least one case where ASP would be a bit of work to replace;
without a compelling need, it's not clear how much work one should
do to replace it with e.g. JSP.
On the other hand, JSP is probably more reliable. :-) (And probably
easier to work with, since VBasic doesn't have a clue as to what
a structure is!)
>
>
>>One issue that bothers me is how to effectively determine
>>which *is* best, mostly because IIS and Apache aren't used
>>in isolation. There are other things involved, such as
>>a database, or perhaps a system such as Java J2EE, or
>>Microsoft's .NET (if and when it comes out!), or
>>other things.
>
>It's very simple. Microsoft likes to work with crap
>like Active X which is Microsoft proprietary. When
>the average cost of a windows upgrade is over $600
>a throw, nobody will be using it. Therefore using
>a Microsoft Web server at the THEN price would be
>just as insane.
>
>There just isn't anything to argue about here.
>Microsoft has picked a path they have to follow
>now. And that path is a dead end.
One hopes. :-)
However, I strongly suspect Microsoft won't die a quick death.
If it *is* dead, it hasn't stopped moving yet.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> (f) The Win32 API is a convoluted mess.
>>
>>Amen! And it appears to be getting worse every year.
>>At least Win 3.1 was more or less understandable, though
>>annoying when one had to change pens or brushes (can one say
>>"inadvertant memory leak" if one doesn't read the documentation
>>very carefully? Arrgh...)
>
>
>Most of their operating system problems revolve around
>Microsoft's strange interrupt handling methods and the
>FACT that there is no true multitasking. If you
>started 5 programs which were designed to do file I/O and
>math for 5 minutes each; start a then b then c then d then e
>in that order; every test you ran would produce different
>results with d and e finishing first almost every time.
>
>Microsoft seems to give the last program in the mix the
>most priority.
I suspect it depends on the operating system. Are you referring
to Win95/98/98SE/Me, or WinNT3.51/4/2k?
(Personally, I suspect their scheduler sucks in all cases, although
part of it might be the disk I/O; NTFS, if one uses software such as
Diskeeper Lite from ExecSoft (?), seems to have some very strange
notions of where to put data blocks. And that MFT is an abomination.
Yeee-uck.)
>
>>
>>>
>>> (g) 'Blows doesn't have native POSIX support, and its design
>>> makes certain POSIX calls very difficult to implement, thus
>>> crippling industry-standard server software such as Apache.
>>
>>I was under the impression that POSIX support is somewhere
>>within NT? Mind you, I've heard it sucks rocks through
>>a soda straw, and cannot be used in conjunction with Win32.
>>Bizarre!
>
>UMMM. You might be right on this one. They had another
>standard for about 7 years which died out also. What was it?
Can't say I remember, unless you're referring to something like DDE,
which isn't dead; it just mutated into ActiveX or DCOM.
(I still have a Borland compiler -- pre-Inprise -- that has DDE support.
Wine still can't quite run its linker, though -- and I'm not sure
how to debug the issue. :-) OTOH, there's better tech out there
already -- Mingw32 -- and I'll have to set it up again at some point.)
>They don't support any standard than their own in 2000.
Actually, they do support TCP/IP, [D]DNS, and Kerberos. However, the
Kerberos support has the usual "embrace and extend" crap, and
their DDNS sounds a little weird. Dunno if the TCP/IP stack is
vulnerable to fragmentation attacks.
>They had experimented with several things in the past when
>there was an OS/2 to compete with. They don't feel they
>have a reason to now, however.
As far as I can tell, they're still experimenting. RDO becomes ADO,
DLLs/COM becomes ActiveX or something (I'm still trying to figure
out what), and J++ becomes C#, which is being integrated (hmm, did IE
ever "integrate"?) into something called .NET. What the hell that is,
I have no clue...
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> (h) There is no reason to change from Unix or Linux + Apache or
>>> SAMBA, because this combination has proven itself to be
>>> reliable, fast, and cost-effective, with no major drawbacks;
>>> there is no reason to "fix" what not only isn't broken but
>>> works wonderfully.
>>
>>You're confusing several things here; Unix/Linux is an OS, whereas
>>SAMBA is a program that emulates whatever Windows calls its
>>file access protocol (probably 'SMB') to a sufficient extent
>>to allow data transfer from NT to Linux and vice versa.
>>
>>What you probably meant to say was "from NFS to SAMBA", or
>>perhaps "from Apache to IIS"; with either correction, I more
>>or less agree with you. However, I'll also point out that there
>>are a number of other factors in selecting a web service,
>>some of them rather ugly (inter-departmental politics, for one;
>>dependencies on already-existing ActiveX and ASP software,
>>for another).
>>
>
>That's another beauty of Linux is your don't have to
>push it at the office. It just bleeds in.
You mean "blends in", I think, but you're right. :-)
(Could be a mix between that, and "bleeding edge"... :-) )
>
>At my office, they SWORE anybody dragging it in would be
>fired. 6 months later it was in.
Ooooh, how pointy-haired.
>
>Due to Linux's cost effectiveness, it's double the performance
>of Windows in speed and reliability, it's tremendous UPTIME,
>it's taking over the Windows server slots and also SCO slots
>all over my company. By December of next year it will have
>eaten all the servers probably. Then there's the WEB appliances
>comming out of the woodwork for our clients and customers to use.
>That will be introduced next year.
Indeed, and their costs are reduced because no one has to pay
for WinCE licenses.
>
>>Still, welcome to the fray. :-)
>>
>>>
>>>Joe
>>
>>--
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>
>Windows days are definitely numbered. I think by 2005 it will
>be clearly evident who the winner was for the global OS of the
>21st century. And I'm sure it's not going to be Windows.
>
>Clients keep screwing up Windows based VB installs, getting
>network settings wrong, getting drivers all knarled up.
>
>And these Windows Clients are $2,500 each for the PC and
>the software before we add our package.
>
>For $200 we can go the WEB appliance way and do the upgrades
>from our office over the interent without the customer being
>involved. The WEB appliance also has a 10 year life span.
>
>Windows is finished my freind.
Don't be too sure yet.... .NET is still out there. I have no idea
at all what that will do -- although I hope it's not much. :-)
And Windows still dominates the desktop. And what can you say about
a clientele that is willing to *pay* $30 a pop for beta software?
Strange....
I will also say that Java is a fairly mature -- more than .NET, anyway --
technology with great potential. While it's not the greatest language
(the Smalltalkers in particular point out its many faults, and even
I do wonder what they were thinking at times), it is easy to work
with and kinda nice not to have to worry about whether I need to
deallocate memory.... :-)
I do hope Windows dies a quick death -- but I suspect it's a forlorn hope.
>
>Charlie
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random hope here
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:43:51 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS/PL wrote:
>
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Goldhammer wrote:
>> >
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >
>> > > > Why use a junky editor such as notepad on Linux when there are
>> > > >so many better editors available?
>> > >
>> > > If I want a quick & dirty text editor, notepad is my choice.
>> >
>> > If I want a quick and dirty gui text editor under windows,
>> > I'll download a decent one.
>> >
>> > It's beyond my understanding how MS, a billion+ dollar
>> > company, can ship an OS with such a shit default text
>> > editor. With all their massive resources, they still
>> > haven't ever provided the user with basic text editor
>> > fuctionality.
>>
>>
>> That's because Micro-sheep are too stupid to demand better.
>
>It's an operaiting system, not a text editor.
>The second that they include a text editor with any advanced fuctionality
>whatsoever the ant-ms crowd will start weeping and wailing that they're
>trying to put the little guy making a text editor out of business.
>
>
Certainly the text editors which come with the debian linux distro are
far superior to notepad.exe which comes with windows. I like vi, but
joe is interesting, and emacs is nearly an os anyway. There're stacks
of them and all seem better than notepad.
Mark
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 23:51:54 GMT
mark wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS/PL wrote:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Goldhammer wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> > > > Why use a junky editor such as notepad on Linux when there are
> >> > > >so many better editors available?
> >> > >
> >> > > If I want a quick & dirty text editor, notepad is my choice.
> >> >
> >> > If I want a quick and dirty gui text editor under windows,
> >> > I'll download a decent one.
> >> >
> >> > It's beyond my understanding how MS, a billion+ dollar
> >> > company, can ship an OS with such a shit default text
> >> > editor. With all their massive resources, they still
> >> > haven't ever provided the user with basic text editor
> >> > fuctionality.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's because Micro-sheep are too stupid to demand better.
> >
> >It's an operaiting system, not a text editor.
> >The second that they include a text editor with any advanced fuctionality
> >whatsoever the ant-ms crowd will start weeping and wailing that they're
> >trying to put the little guy making a text editor out of business.
> >
> >
>
> Certainly the text editors which come with the debian linux distro are
> far superior to notepad.exe which comes with windows. I like vi, but
> joe is interesting, and emacs is nearly an os anyway. There're stacks
> of them and all seem better than notepad.
>
> Mark
How many do you need? There are actually three editors that ship with
Windows, notepad, wordpad and edit. To each his own.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
