Linux-Advocacy Digest #425, Volume #30 Sat, 25 Nov 00 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("PLZI")
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Joe Linux Advocate of the week! (kiwiunixman)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "PLZI" <[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, 26 Nov 2000 02:07:03 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >> I still want to know what an 'Informational' rfc is. Does
> >> anyone know?
> >
> >Something in place of a REAL, fully-documented RFC.
>
> At last - thanks!
As I earlier stated, it is a relief to know that NFS and RPC went the same
way. I've always not liked them much anyway. We would not like to have
half-assed standards, now would we.
- PLZI
------------------------------
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, 26 Nov 2000 02:35:12 GMT
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> Not exactly, They do try to meet marketing requests. Little things like the
> Terminal Server addition to Win2K Server for remote adminstration originated
> from an e-mail sent to tech support at MS by myself.
>
Question: Is Terminal Server the rich man's X-Windows server?
Chris
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Joe Linux Advocate of the week!
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:36:25 GMT
Yeah baby, yeah, do ya feel the power of linux, yeah!
kiwiunixman
MH wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" has the honors this week as being fit for linux
> ambassadorship by virture of this fetid little gem of warm & fuzzy linux
> advocacy.
>
>
>> Glitch, what you need to understand is that he (Skully1900) is a Windows
>> simpleton, however, there are the few (like dudeman) who keep themselves
>> open to new ideas. The typical tall story is the complaining that the
>> GUI isn't nice and dandy like Windows, I actually use my computer for
>> programming and other work, whether the icons are pretty, or I can have
>> hundreds of animating icons don't effect my work in the slightest.
>> Skully1900, If you dislike it so much why don't you provide a better
>> solution....oh I'm sorry....your one of those stupid...."I couldn't
>> program if my like depended on it" type. Fuck off Skully1900 and never
>> come back...oh....a quick reminder....at the rate of linux growth, you
>> Skully1900 will be eventually assimilated. If you are (Skully1900)
>> going to make a "contribution" actually elaborate on you experience
>> rather than simply saying it sucks.
>>
>> kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:39:05 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> I'm forced to use for a portion of my time Windows, but this doesn't
> necessarily make of me an incompetent amateur.
I've been peeved by Microsoft's Gilligan-like iconclasm for a long time.
I got my first real computing experience on a PDP-8, then worked with
a time-sharing terminal (Digital OS again) from Atchison, KS, to
Kansas City, I think. Then a small IBM mainframe. Then a DEC-10.
Found a resonance in a PDP-11 running UNIX. Nothing else has
felt so good since, until Linux.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:40:19 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Chad Mulligan wrote:
> Also an assumption. Ever looked at Slackware????
>
The tar.gz file is also very easy to install.
>
>
> Correct, why emulate something that works well enough on it's own.
1 . Wine is not an emulator.
2. Why have another OS just to run the one or two Windows programs that you
might need to use. I have been down this road. It's a real PITA to have to
log into Windows just to get my mail. All of my real work is done on AIX and
Linux.
3. Lotus Notes is more reliable and runs faster on Linux with Wine than
natively on Windows.
4. If you've never tried Wine, then you have no business commenting on it.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:43:09 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> There are plenty of alternatives, and the barriers you are talking about
> are, what?
>
> Mac: High cost, now this is eliminated.
> BeOS: Lack of drivers, any new info about this? I've not looked into it in a
> long time.
> Linux/Unix: Lack of application, taken care of, unfriendly, taken care of,
> not yet complete.
> OS/2: ???
> Amiga: ???
>
> What are those barriers that you are talking about?
> What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/ Os/2 ???
> I can get applications to do much the same things that I do in windows, I
> can read windows files, I can do everything I can do in windows on other OS.
> (And in 9x & especially ME case, a lot more)
>
> What prevents me from moving OS?
>
Ayende, I believe a lot has changed in a couple of years, and it takes
awhile for attitudes to catch up. Group velocity versus wave velocity!?
Chris
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 21:44:10 -0500
mark wrote...
> >> According to your own history, you've not used NT, you used win9x, OS/2
> >> and then Linux.
> >
> >I've used NT before and I said so before.
> >
> >This is how it went:
> >
> >Win3.1 1994-1995
> >Win95 1995-mid1996
> >OS/2 mid1996-mid 1998
> >WinNT mid1998 to Jan2000
>
> So no linux (or beos) experience to speak of.
I have no BeOS experience to speak of. I have not installed Linux since
installing Win2k.
> >During the OS/2 to NT transition, the latter three of the above OS's were
> >installed on the same system, as well as RedHat Linux. I did this with
> >the aid of PowerBoot <www.blueskyinnovations.com>.
>
> I don't see the dates further up. This lacks credibility.
Look, I don't have to prove anything to you. I cannot prove anything to
you in this forum. I certainly have no reason to be lying.
> >Win2k Jan2000 to present.
> >
> >I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
> >familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it offers.
>
> So you haven't used it, I guess you haven't had these magic
> applications you previously referred to?
What magic applications?
You seem to be reading what you want to.
> >BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
>
> Which is enough time to, err, well, err, not enough to find
> these 'equivalent applications' you spoke of.
I never spoke of any for BeOS. Where did I?
> >MacOS, I've used on my friends machines. I've tried every viable
> >alternative OS.
>
> Your friend uses exactly the same apps as you need? I suspect
> not.
Our basic application needs are pretty much the same. Birds of a feather,
flock together. :=)
> >> I recall someone predicting a few months back that we'd start to get
> >> the 'I used to use Linux but now Win2k is out it really rocks'.
> >
> >No, I'm not one of those. :=) I've never seriously used Linux before
>
> Indeed - that's what I was referring to.
When I say seriously use, I mean, actually did meaningful work with it.
I've however done more with Linux that many people have done with
Windows. I installed it, I configured it. I had WordPerfect, The Gimp,
SLRN, Mutt, StarOffice all running. I couldn't get my scanner to work the
last time I tried so that's about when I backed off. I also generally
didn't feel comfortable with the apps I tried. This is in contrast to
OS/2 where the apps were generally better than the Win95 offerings at the
time. I can't say the same now, since Win32 applications are now vast in
numbers and some really great picks are out there if you look for them.
Another important thing. Can I now sample sound from various input
devices in Linux. I sample music from my tuner, old vinyl's and tapes. I
then burn them to CD. I didn't see any means of doing this in Linux. This
is a recent requirement over the last year and a half or so. :=) I do
this quite easily with DartPro (ever heard of it)?
> >because I've never had it doing everything that I'd want to do with my
> >computer. If you've found decent sanctuary in Linux, I doubt you'd
> >migrate to a MS solution since Linux is improving.
>
> You mentioned finding equivalent applications, you seem to be
> backing away from that.
As I said, I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe
me, that's your prerogative.
> >> I really couldn't imagine making a rational OS decision on whether
> >> I've _yet_ had a BSOD.
> >
> >Oh, come on Mark, don't play the ass and say something like that.
>
> You made the suggestion, I find it rather silly.
I suspect you're a kid or something.
English isn't perfect.
Look, if what I suggest implies something silly but could have a more
meaningful meaning within the context of what I'm saying, I expect you to
take the cue. But of course, since you're all riled up to play the
difficult, asinine kiddy, you choose the silly interpretation to
capitalize on. Furthermore, I clarify the situation, and you insist on
carrying it further. That's a very weak way to argue and it only earns
disrespect as you now have with me.
This is my last post directly to you on this matter. Of course, like a
typical kiddy and in true form, you'll very likely say that I'm backing
out because I can't stand up to your questioning, but as I've said to Max
... knock yourself out. :=)
> >
> >I only brought that up because the Linux advocacy mantra is 'oh it's so
> >stable .... I've never had an unscheduled reboot in XXXX days" :=)
> >Stability and reliability are two very important ingredients, both of
> >which I have no problems with, when running Win2k. Does that mean that's
> >all that concerns me and the only deciding factors? If you wish to play
> >the ass then that's what you'll think.
>
> Linux is extremely stable. This is one of its major capabilities.
> Of course, if these apps which you need but never mention are not
> available, then that might be a problem. According to your timetable
> above you've not actually run Linux at all, but then in a separate
> para you imply that maybe you actually might have had some Red
> Hat. Which rpm was doing your package thing, then?
Wow! But I can't remember. Do you expect me to remember that?
> >> I'm fascinated by exactly what applications were available for
> >> Win9x in 1996,
> >
> >A lot.
>
> you cut the 'and which were also available for'...
A more decent question would be what applications were available for
OS/2. If I'm labelled as being a Winvocate as you did later, I'll not
waste time writing those down. My knowledge of those are a given being a
Winvocate and all. :=)
For OS/2 the apps that I used included (don't expect me to list every
striking one of them here now):
WinOS/2 - Corel WordPerfect Suite
OS/2 Native
Word Processors - Papyrus
- Clearlook
Photo-editing -- Embellish
PMView
E-Mail -- PMMail
MR2/ICE
Post Road Mailer
News -- PMI News
Fax --- PM Fax
Internet Dialer -- Injoy
Shell Enhancers -- Object Desktop Professional
Stardock Themes
CandyBarz
FTP -- (EmTecFTP)
File Manager -- Initially DiskJockey and then FileStar\2
Other Uitilities
GammaTech Utilities
Unimaint
C-A-D Commander
I didn't have a CD Burner or Scanner at the time.
> >> OS/2 at the same time (or at least functional
> >> equivalents),
> >
> >Do you seriously want a comparison?
>
> I want to know which applications you were using on Win9x in 1996
> for which you switched to OS/2 functional equivalents at the
> same time. This was your claim - what were these packages?
I'll leave the Windows applications from way back then alone, OK? Not
worth mentioning. :=)
> and you missed (ie., cut) 'and also available for'
>
> >
> >> Linux at some undetermined point after 1996 and
> >> up to and including today, (wonder which version & which
> >> distro?), and now Win2k with its somewhat restricted set of
> >> available apps?
> >
> >Restricted apps for Win2k. Hehehehe. What apps are you looking for that
> >gives you this impression? Or is this second hand information that you're
> >stating?
>
> So, to put the words back - what were these applications which
> you claim were available on Win9x, had functional equivalents
> on OS/2 (all this in 1996), and at some undetermined point after
> 1996 had equivalents on Linux, and apparently have equivalents
> on Win2k today?
Are you still referring to apps that were ported from one OS to the
other. I never meant this if that's what you meant. Anyway, I already
listed the main applications that I went out of my way to try in Linux.
These were some of the apparently viable replacements to what I'm using
in Windows at present.
When I'm not liking what I'm seeing I don't go any further. I'll choose
to learn Linux itself more, when the applications I can run appeal to me
more, making the whole change worth my while.
Linux carries with it a steep learning curve if you wish to have to
administer your machine and run your apps, i.e., use the platform. If I
don't like the apps, I will not waste my time getting down and really
dirty with the OS.
> >> I'm kind of suprised you haven't worked Solaris in somewhere.
> >
> >I have never even *seen* Solaris running.
>
> I'm still surprised you didn't try to work another OS in
> there somewhere. Maybe cpm?
I have never even *seen* Solaris running.
<reads any better now?>
> Lacking in facts it certainly is - what were those apps
> which were available in 1996 - ah, you can read back.
> Please don't remove parts of the paragraphs & sentences
Part of basic usenet netiquette if you bother to read the relevant RFC,
is that you should appropriately trim your posts. This is not a freaking
court room or some official support discussion where the support team
asks specifically not to trim posts.
I comment on the parts I wish to comment on, and I'll quote those parts.
> to try to change my apparent intended meaning, it really
> doesn't look very good.
What do you know of respecting intended meaning, even when it's clarified
to you?
> It kind of looks like you
> winvocates are making all this up, and perhaps lying a
> lot here.
You Winvocates? It always amuses me that you Linvocates can never accept
when someone makes an informed choice and it's not Linux. :=) You all set
out on this ridiculous crusade to attempt to prove that it's not an
informed choice.
BTW, I'm not a Winvocate. I'll defend Linux when appropriate. It's just
that there's so much crappy generalisations being made about Windows,
that I'm busy enough talking about them. Afterall, I chose to use Win2k
and disagree that it's merely unstable monopoly crapware. :=)
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:martian*at*cwjamaica*dot*com
------------------------------
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, 26 Nov 2000 02:50:50 GMT
Giuliano Colla wrote:
>
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > The NT4.x and 9x EULAs specifically prohibit ANY customer statement
> > > which is damaging to Microsoft in any way.
> >
> > Can you point me out to where those statement are?
> > I can't see how this is true, because when ME came out (and 95/98 too, for
> > that matter) a lot of magazines said something like: "You buy a new
> > computer, get it, otherwise, keep your own OS" Which is clearly damaging MS
> > http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm is taking apart several of MS
> > application.
> >
> > Two examples out of the millions I could've given.
>
> EULA binds customers, not journalists or net sites, hopefully!
http://www.iarchitect.com/file95.htm
This URL shows many examples of Win95 screwups, which were grafted into
NT and still persist in 2000. They are one reason why I prefer GNOME.
They didn't mention my favorite to hate, which is the ability to delete
a whole directory from within an Open dialog. Assssssholesssssssssss.
Chris
--
[ ] En-crypt Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:56:20 GMT
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> stick redhat cd to the cd-rom, boot from it.
> Choose install, choose server.
> The program will, without a shred of warning, erase all your HDs, and use
> them as it sees best.
> It's a well documented highly-annoying things about it.
>
> http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-6.0-Manual/install-guide/manual/do
> c020.html#s2.7.2
Also read the Getting Started Guide that comes with RH. It is truly
bad that a warning with explanation doesn't come first.
>
> "A server-class installation removes *all* existing partitions on all
> installed hard drives, so choose this installation class only if you're sure
> you have nothing you want saved! When the installation is complete, you'll
> find the following partitions:"
>
> "*Please Note*: A server-class installation will remove any existing
> partitions of any type on all existing hard drives of your system. All
> drives will be erased of all information and existing operating systems,
> regardless if they are Linux partitions or not."
>
> FAT has yet to take all my files away from a system crush or power down.
I've seen it take out the majority of the WINDOWS directory on 95.
I installed 98 on my sister-in-laws machine, and still had many
problems. A UPS fixed them; she hasn't called me lately.
------------------------------
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, 26 Nov 2000 02:58:14 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > Duh, I sure am dumb.
>
> Yes, we know.
You vicious bastard <grin>. At least I don't
have the preamble to the American Constitution
for a signature! <grin grin grin>
Chris "Duhhhhhhhhh" Ahlstrom
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
