Linux-Advocacy Digest #397, Volume #30 Fri, 24 Nov 00 15:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Linux trips over itself once again (Jose Mirles)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Stuart Fox)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT registry... (was Re:
The Sixth Sense) (Curtis)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Sigvaldi Eggertson)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (mark)
Re: And yet another satisfied Linux user. (mark)
Re: Windows SUX (Glitch)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:48:37 -0500
T. Max Devlin wrote...
> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 09:04:17 -0500;
> >Ayende Rahien wrote...
> >> > And so now suddenly you're suggesting that others should give a shit
> >> > about languages they don't use, even though you just said previously
> >> > that you see no reason to do that yourself.
> >>
> >> They shouldn't, they give shit about what *they* are using.
> >> Got that?
> >
> >That's the practical approach. Why should I care that Windows supports
> >Japanese? If it does, good for the Japanese, but I don't really care.
> >It's for MS to care since they wish to market their OS to the Japanese.
>
> Now if only MS marketed their product (as in, presented it to a free
> market), you're ideas might make sense. They monopolize; they don't
> market.
What the hell does that have to do with their supporting language X or
not?
> There is a cost/benefit analysis that goes in to including
> support for a language.
Yes. We all know that.
> Ayende's "most people don't speak English"
> loses some of its punch when you recognize that *most* people do, in
> fact, use one or more of a very small handful of languages. Microsoft's
> 'carpet-bombing' approach is obviously keyed towards removing any reason
> to avoid the software, rather than providing any actual profitable
> value.
Haha. Neat! :=) A nicely paranoid statement. You take this a step too
far. Are you saying it's not profitable for them to support all these
languages?
> >The same goes for the OS features. I only care about the features I wish
> >to use and how they're implemented. I couldn't care less about the
> >features a sysadmin would need. That's for MS and the sysadmins to care
> >about.
>
> Well, then I presume that means you don't care about any features,
You presume too much wise guy ...
> because these are *personal computers*, and there is no real difference
> between 'sysadmin' and 'user'.
In the context I meant, oh yes they are. I will not however try to
elaborate because you'll only play difficult since it suites your
vitriolic arguments.
I guess if I said Linux is OSS while PGP is not, you'd say no to that
right? ;=)
> Unless you're in a professional
> environment, in which case you don't make any choices, so your point is,
> again, moot.
I agree on that, but that's not what I'm referring to. A large portion of
PC's in use are not used in a professional environment where they are
maintained and administered by trained professionals.
> Considering the ideas you've presented here, I'd say your
> best choice would be a Mac.
Nope. My best choice is Win2k at present. You don't know what I need,
therefore you cannot make my choice. Would you please stop making these
assumptions about what I think and what I need. You're doing terribly. Is
this your level of performance with respect to what you think people need
after 12 years studying this?
> Treated in this kind of hopelessly over-simplified way, you have a
> choice to present a clear ethical underpinning to your thinking, or
> become deluded into thinking that monopolization is "just" doing
> business.
My arguments have nothing to do with monopolizing perse. But since you're
so fixated to an almost pathologic level with MS and their monopolizing,
you tend to twist any argument with the word Microsoft in it, into one of
defending the fact that they don't monopolize. I agree that they
monopolize OK? There's no need to build the strawman.
> It is not. That last bit, btw, where you indicated that a
> customer has a different perspective than wanting to meet their needs or
> preferences, doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
Read again. A customer will buy what suites their needs .... to the best
of their ability. Now PLEASE ..... this is not about MS alone. This is a
general statement. Please ... No more MS is a monopoly argument.
A customers concerns are not the same as those of the service provider or
vendor. The customers concerns are selfish. The vendor has to consider
different customer types and their concerns. The vendor will be concerned
about multiple language support if they wish to market internationally.
The customer is concerned only about his language being supported.
> >> > Of *course* Microsoft supports as many languages as they possibly can.
> >> > When you're trying to ensure that nobody who uses a computer can avoid
> >> > using your product, its worth putting quite a bit of (non-efficient,
> >> > from a competitive free market production standpoint) investment in
> >> > removing any excuses they may have for avoiding it.
> >>
> >> Nonesense.
> >> MS translate much of its products to many other languages, because there is
> >> *profit* in it.
> >> Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need an OS in
> >> their own language, and they'll pay for it.
> >>
> >> Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their own
> >> language, btw.
> >
> >I think you missed what T. Max was really saying but that's OK. It's not
> >worth it. :=)
>
> I think you missed what T. Max was really saying. That's not OK,
> because it was important.
I haven't missed a thing. :=)
You will not listen. You're too busy being preoccupied with yourself and
what you think. :=) It's pretty amazing.
While the world continues on it's course there'll always be quirks like
you in the corner somewhere, muttering tantrums.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
From: Jose Mirles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux trips over itself once again
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:45:09 GMT
mark wrote:
> No, it didn't work on my Toshiba laptop with Win98SE. Nor on my
> boss's, nor two of my guys' machines either.
>
> The machine is a Tecra something Pentium III.
-- snip ---
I have never had a problem with NICs in Windows or Linux. They just
seemed to know what was there and did the install. We use Token ring
and ethernet at work.
Red Hat is especially good at identifying the NICs and properly
setting them up. It also setups the printers, networked or local.
On the other hand, ManDrake Linux 7.2 doesn't see a local printer at
all with CUPS or lpd. I'm still working that issue.
--
Jose
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who in the hell is the President!!??
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:46:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000
> [...one line obnoxious rant on a huge friggen post, plus that
goddamn
> sig file, like usual...]
>
> Sorry, old bean, but its back into the killfile for you.
>
You see Max, we do agree on something :)
Stu
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:11:39 -0500
T. Max Devlin wrote...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:34:10
> [...]
> >> And so now suddenly you're suggesting that others should give a shit
> >> about languages they don't use, even though you just said previously
> >> that you see no reason to do that yourself.
> >
> >They shouldn't, they give shit about what *they* are using.
> >Got that?
>
> No, I don't "got that". You're prevaricating. They do care about what
> they're using. That's why Linux has so many languages it supports. It
> doesn't support the one or two you wanted, because you don't give a shit
> about what language you're using, as long as you can get it on monopoly
> crapware, because you're too brain-dead and deluded to recognize the
> inferiority of such a solution.
Inferior for what purposes? Can one ignore the application support that
Windows offers. Win2k offers a stable environment in which I may run my
preferred apps, all of which are not from MS.
I'd be beside you saying the same thing if Win9x was all there was to use
to run the apps I wish to run.
> IOW, your whole language rant was a
> ruse, and had it not been language, you would have found some other
> miscellaneous issue to try to discredit the more functional system in
> order to defend your bogus choice to use monopoly crapware.
More functional system to do what? It doesn't make sense using a more
functional system if you're not interested in the greater functionality
functionality it offers over the others. It doesn't make sense running
this more functional OS, if it will not run the apps you wish to run in
it.
Most will benefit from the stability that Linux offers. But that's all it
has to offer that's worth mentioning to the typical user. They can get
the same level of stability using Win2k. If they hear that another OS
which will run their apps more stably exists
What good is an OS without apps to run on it? What good is BeOS when
there are no apps for it. It's a fine OS, but useless without
applications. Why the hell do you think 'Wine' exists, or Odin for OS/2
or Soft Windows for the Mac?
I find your line of argument largely pointless, isolated and impractical.
You just wish to whine don't you?
> >> removing any excuses they may have for avoiding it.
> >
> >Nonesense.
> >MS translate much of its products to many other languages, because there is
> >*profit* in it.
>
> If there were profit in it, it would be done, regardless of what system
> you're talking about; that's called a free market enterprise system,
> also known as "capitalism". Microsoft does not engage in this type of
> strategy; they are not capitalists, they are monopolists.
>
> >Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need an OS in
> >their own language, and they'll pay for it.
>
> Most people who use computers do know English, and your fantasy that
> catering to every minor language in the world is a free market response,
> regardless of how hard you insist it is a valid explanation, is simply
> not correct.
Have you used any applications with multilanguage support and then take
part in discussion groups for that said app? Please don't be silly.
There are a number of apps that I use, that many users flock to because
it supports their primary language (not English) when the close
competition next door doesn't.
If MS has the capital to invest in supporting these other languages, then
it's to their benefit. I think you confuse monopolizing with using
capital to better satisfy customers in this particular instance.
> It is not profit which drives MS development; this has
> been clearly admitted by those in charge: it is the protection of the
> monopoly which guides their development.
Give the customers what they want.
> You may be too dumb to
> understand the difference, but that doesn't prevent there from being
> one.
LOL! What a guy.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:29:14 -0500
T. Max Devlin wrote...
> Perhaps from your perspective, but I assure you it is merely do to your
> lack of experience. Anybody who would be satisfied with W2K simply
> doesn't know enough about using computer *efficiently and effectively*
> to be able to tell whether my statements are idiotic or not.
You have totally lost perspective and you're too wrapped up in your own
idiotic self-righteousness to see otherwise. You're really an idiot.
Or is this the typical usenet performance that everyone has to put up
with?
I won't dive into technical arguments since I'm a medical professional
who just loves using his computer and loves a challenge. However, I do
know enough to make a competent choice. I've use Win3.1, Win9x, Linux,
BeOS, MacOS, OS/2, NT and now Win2k. I used OS/2 in particular for years.
Win2k with Perl installed, a text editor that supports Perl seamlessly,
as well as a decent e-mail client suites my purposes just fine where
needing Linux type functionality is concerned. I can then enjoy the rest
of the Windows apps available, running them in a stable environment.
Don't come here with your crap and think I'm about to fall for it. I know
personally and have corresponded with many experienced users as yourself
and find your vitriolic rhetoric quite amusing to read.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Non Sense: people who are clueless about the WindowsNT registry...
(was Re: The Sixth Sense)
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:31:28 -0500
T. Max Devlin wrote...
> I don't know about you, but I think programs often work damn slow on
> Windows, and it notably seems to be because of the registry. I think
> the fact is that, since a hierarchical database is not properly
> "searched", a record not being "located" so much as "called", they
> *don't* hash or cache it, explicitly!
Gosh ... which applications are you using? You are so hypocritical.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 13:58:50 -0500
T. Max Devlin wrote...
> >> >That's a nice broad statement that makes you look good and MS fans look
> >> >bad. :=) Care to give some practical examples?
> >>
> >> Ever tried to adjust your file associations? Ever tried to organize
> >> your desktop, only to have Windows "forget" where things are supposed to
> >> be? Ever sent someone a script that would configure their computer for
> >> them as a launchable email attachment? These are off the top of my
> >> head. Feel free to check Deja News for T. Max Devlin; I'm sure you'll
> >> find plenty more examples. I'll try to keep the thread updated with
> >> immediate examples as I come across them.
> >
> >Yes, yes & yes.
>
> I was asking Curtis. I knew you'd just handwave, thereby strengthening
> my suspicions that you are an inexperienced kid, despite your eagerness
> to claim a great deal of intricate familiarity with Windows.
Yes, I've adjusted file associations without difficulty.
Yes, I've rearranged and organised my desktop. Windows always remembers,
unless it was shutdown unexpectedly as with a hang. However, I haven't
used Win9x since early 1996 so I haven't been having unexpected shutdowns
when using WinNT or 2k since I've been using them.
The last thing? No I haven't done that.
> >What is your point here?
>
> Did you read the previous posts? Did you read the quoted material? Did
> you read my statements? Then if you don't know what my point is, its
> because you missed it. Try again.
>
> >File associations are configurable from many places, the registery being my
> >pick, but I could choose File Types or Assoc.
>
> Yes, you could, couldn't you? Too bad you couldn't make any more sense
> of them than any other person.
Is there any practical reason for me to know more than I do presently. I
make associations without difficulty. I realised that I can only
associate one default application with a particular filetype. An annoying
limitation at times. However I can associate multiple applications for a
particular filetype. Being able to associate applications on a per file
basis is great but not a show stopper for me, meaning that I will not
drop Windows and it's advantages to embrace that functionality in another
OS.
Anything else?
> They're a nightmarish monstrosity. If
> you weren't aware of that, it is certainly because you never actually
> tried to do very much with them. BTW, any manipulation (save the
> forgotten capabilities still in WIN.INI for setting up associations)
> involving extensions, associations, or file types, are registry
> configurations. Too bad they're in three different places, with no
> clear relationships and different organizing methods.
I only really care about the end result. Any particular OS you use will
never be perfect. You choose the one that offers the best balance for
your needs, monopolies and all being considered. :=)
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:02:45 -0500
Curtis wrote...
> > >I think you missed what T. Max was really saying but that's OK. It's not
> > >worth it. :=)
> >
> > I think you missed what T. Max was really saying. That's not OK,
> > because it was important.
>
> I haven't missed a thing. :=)
>
> You will not listen. You're too busy being preoccupied with yourself and
> what you think. :=) It's pretty amazing.
>
> While the world continues on it's course there'll always be quirks like
> you in the corner somewhere, muttering tantrums.
I forgot, that a couple will turn out to be real visionaries, but sadly
you're not one of them. You're just a hippy type.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: 24 Nov 2000 19:20:23 GMT
On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:10:37 GMT, Mike wrote:
>
>Without going into the historical context, what customers demand is an
>editable document.
They may or they may not. It depends on the type of document.
HTML is editable (and modern word processors can import it).
RTF is also editable and can be created on any platform.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Sigvaldi Eggertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:27:49 GMT
In article <8vlgh0$4tt57$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need an
OS in
> their own language, and they'll pay for it.
>
> Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their own
> language, btw.
>
We,here in Iceland, know English (at least some) but what happened was
that we got Windows 98 in Icelandic a couple of years back.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:46:51 +0000
In article <8vk07g$4qtqs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vhjjf$gh7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
>> >You mean it has nothing in common for those who haven't been using OSes
>like
>> >MacOS and Windows their whole life.
>> >
>> >That would be, erm, about 2% of the population, if that.
>>
>> Considering the Windows and DOS have only been around over the
>> last couple of decades, that would require everyone to be under
>> 20. They're not.
>
>Your logic is flawed, computers only became wide spread in the 80s.
>
>
>
No - the problem is with the term 'their whole life'. If we argue
that people have been using computers their whole life since the
1980s then they _must_ be in their 20s. They're not.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: And yet another satisfied Linux user.
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:47:59 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten wrote:
>mark wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >Path:
>>
>>bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnslaves3!wnmasters2!wn3feed!worldnet.att.net!144.212.100.101!newsfeed.mathworks.com!portc01.blue.aol.com!audrey04.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
>> >Lines: 34
>> >X-Admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JScrutton)
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> >Jason Scrutton, London, England.
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Now, why does this seem strange?
>>
>> Another interesting thing is that nobody in the UK in my experience
>> would even consider writing 'England' after London, this is a US
>> habit (not saying it's good or bad).
>
>
>We only put Englang after London if we're writing a letter from abroad.
>:-)
>
>-Ed
>
>
Lol
Mark
>
>> It seems unlikely that a consultant is unable to install an OS
>> on anything. I wouldn't want input from any consultant who would
>> willingly admit to being unable to work a computer.
>>
>> And this consultant is unable to co-ordinate email addresses.
>>
>> I think you need to try harder next time,
>
>Very astute. I didn't notice these points.
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>--
>Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold | Edward
>Rosten
>weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? | u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies | @
> | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 14:56:17 -0500
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows SUX
> > NO DECENT OFFICE PACKAGE (unless stupid enough to pay $300 for office2k).
>
> Office is the defacto standard. Get over it.
>
> Linux doesn't run it at all. Get over it.
Linux doesn't run it only b/c MS won't port it. Ever think of that? You
can't hold that against Linux just b/c MS won't port it. It is out of
the hands of Linux developers. Blame MS.
>
> > IS BUILT BY MONOPOLISTS FOR PLONKERS
>
> It is perfectly legal to be a monopoly under US law.
>
> I *choose* to use Windows 2000. Nobody stuffed it down my throat.
>
> I would pay money to use Windows 2000.
>
> I would not use Linux even if somebody paid me to use it.
>
> Just ain't worth my time.
>
> -Todd
>
> >
> >
> >
> > WINDOWS SUX
> >
> > NIGEL
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:56:08 +0000
In article <3a1e33f5.348990406@news>, mitch wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Nov 2000 03:49:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Mate, it has nothing to do with being open-minded or not. It`s all
>>> about the applications - nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>>Right - and KDE has KOffice as an alternative to MS Word. If you don't
>>bitch, you'll never get what you want. Besides, I'm talking about Microsoft,
>>not IBM. Where did I mention IBM in my above discussion?
>>
>
>I just used IBM as an example to make my point, as I am forced to use
>their operating system in my job, much like you may be forced to use
>MS OSen if you ever gain employment.
>
>>> I have to use OS2 some of the time here, because our main business
>>> tool is an IBM app. Do I bitch about it? Yes. Do I blame IBM? No.
>>
>>Why not? That's what this forum is for. Again, I'm not talking about IBM;
>>I'm talking about MS vs. unix.
>>
>
>See above. I was making a point, not trying to change the subject.
>
>>> Get a life, because there is no chance of you ever getting a job.
>>
>>Really? That's nice. I'm not Mr. Open Minded like you, I don't love every
>>single operating system. I intend to make my life as Microsoft free as I
>>possibly can. My wish is that there would be a lot less Microsoft in the
>>world, because Linux can do everything Windows can do, and can do it better
>>and more cheaply! For example, KDE and GNOME are prime examples that you can
>>make unix as user-friendly as Windows, and can provide the same kind of
>>applications on a more stable platform.
>>
>>This forum is for advocating Linux, and that's exactly what I'm doing: I'm
>>wishing for a lot less MS! Sure, I'm willing to do a little Windows
>>programming on the job. But, don't expect me to run the crap (that's right,
>>it's crap) on my machine at home.
>>
>
>1. An operating system is just that - a piece of software to "operate
>the system". It`s not a religion.
>
>2. Applications are written to be used on one or more operating
>systems. If you need the app, you have to use the OS/OSen it was
>written for. I use Cubase, therefor I need to run MACOS or Windows.
>As I already have a PC, Windows is what I use.
Personally, I find MACOS far more stable and user friendly than
Windows - it would be my choice in that situation.
>
>3. Advocating Linux on its own merits is admirable, and, given
>linux's positive attributes, isn`t exactly difficult. Advocating it
>by religiously spouting negative nonsense about MS products is not
>going to make you look very intelligent, unless you back up your
>statements with facts and intelligently constructed critiscisms.
>
>I don`t love every operating system - I just use them. I have no
>crazy emotional attachments to any of them. I need to use certain
>pieces of software to achieve my goals, and if I have to run them on
>Windows, so be it. Yes it *occasionally* crashes, but most apps these
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It crashes very regularly, in my experience. Not worth the hassle
of running. If I weren't forced to by work, I wouldn't run it at
all.
>days have auto backups, so it really isn`t that much of a deal. Linux
What about those apps which _don't_ have auto backups?
>may be stable, but many of the applications which run on it most
>certainly are not.
Where are the facts here? This is a broad statement with no
underpinning facts, exactly the behaviour you're complaining
about, it seems to me.
> I will not be forced to use a banana to knock a
>nail into a piece of wood, just because I have a strange hatred for
>hammers. That would be absurd. And so it goes...
>
>If linux supported every application I am required to run - yes, I
>would probably use it. This is not likely to happen for a long time,
Why not - another unsupported statement -= where are the facts?
>so I run all my software on Windows. Is this really so bad?
No, you can run what you like, of course. I prefer stability
and open source and freedom to Windows, personally, and thus
I use Linux.
> No, it
>is not. It is linux users like yourself who give the other, sensible
>users, a bad name.
>
>--
>Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
> - Geoff Miller
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 22:04:36 +0200
"Sigvaldi Eggertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8vmffj$crq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vlgh0$4tt57$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need an
> OS in
> > their own language, and they'll pay for it.
> >
> > Take a look at what happened when Iceland wanted windows in their own
> > language, btw.
> >
> We,here in Iceland, know English (at least some) but what happened was
> that we got Windows 98 in Icelandic a couple of years back.
IIRC, there was a problem with that (it may be with win95, I'm not sure)
that MS didn't want to localize windows because large part of the population
had a good control in english.
I read about it a long time ago, though, so I'm not sure of the details.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
