Linux-Advocacy Digest #498, Volume #30 Tue, 28 Nov 00 12:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux for nitwits ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Is design really that overrated? ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: Major shift (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Major shift (.)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:42:55 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 03:51:02
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 02:38:11
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >There are plenty of alternatives, and the barriers you are talking about
>> >are, what?
>>
>> There are plenty of *possible* alternatives, *technical* alternatives.
>> There are no commercially feasible alternatives, however, since MS
>> doesn't produce a competitive product, but merely locks in a monopoly
>> product. Which means they have the (illegal) power to prevent these
>> potential alternatives from finding a large enough market to break the
>> Win32 application barrier.
>
>No, there is no such barrier.
>Please provide me with any evidence that you can't duplicate what a certian
>appilication does on one platform on another platform
Once again, I'll try to type slowly: the application barrier is not a
technical barrier; it is a commercial barrier.
[...]
>> The only barrier anyone is talking about is the *application* barrier,
>> which you seem to have remained brain-dead ignorant about.
>
>Mainly because I've been hearing again and again that such barrier does not
>exist
Well, the people who you heard that from? They were wrong, OK? Nothing
I can do about it but try to set you straight. If there isn't such a
barrier, why does Microsoft spend so much money maintaining it by
"encouraging" (threatening) ISVs who don't follow One Microsoft Way?
>> >What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/ Os/2 ???
>>
>> You tell us. What prevents you from moving to a technically superior
>> alternative which costs less money? Huh? What?
>
>I would disagree with the technically superior part.
>But here is why, anyway.
>Because, right now, Win2K gives me the best balance between ease-of-use and
>stability (among other things).
Can't you come up with something that's maybe a wee bit more concrete?
Particularly if you're going to say you disagree with the "technically
superior part". Ease of use is just "familiarity", and W2K's stability
is demonstrably and statistically less than Linux's.
>Mac is easy to use, but it isn't very stable.
>Linux may be stable, but isn't easy to use.
>Dito for linux.
>
>I can get Linux's stability with an easiness of use that is surpass by none
>but the Mac.
Sure you do.
[...]
>What applicaiton barrier?
>What is so wonderful about Win32? I've been hearing for ages that it sucks.
It does. Yet 90% of all applications support it, most exclusively.
>According to !winadvocates, TCO of non-win machine is lower, so while the
>initial price tag on choosing another platform may be higher, according to
>your own side, in the end, it will be cheaper to use something else.
What sustains the monopoly is the fact that Microsoft can make it more
expensive for anyone who tries to avoid the monopoly, even if its
cheaper! It *isn't* the initial price tag of choosing an alternative
which is higher: just the opposite. Remember?
[...]
>> And again we find a Winvocate who is a bit behind the times in his
>> argument. A lot of people go with alternatives, do they? Then what's
>> with the 90% monopoly?
>
>No, they *have* the alternatives.
>They choose no to constitue it for variety of reasons.
Guffaw. Try to come up with something better than metaphysical
claptrap, kid. Your blind denial that there's an illegal monopoly is
wearing a bit thin, it seems.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:30:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have a DOS bootdisk with LapLink 3, fdisk, format
> > > etc on just for this purpose. I'ts very useful and a
> > > lot easier than installing from floppies.
> >
> > Same here. I don't bother with anything more than
> > INTERLNK/INTERSVR, largely because of cost, but also
> > because the included DOS Inter-whatever treats the
> > linked drives as local drives, permitting XCOPY to
> > be used with the /V switch. Sure, I bet your system
> > is faster, but this is what I know well.
>
> I doubt it's much faster. LapLink just copied files, it
> doesn't do any of the remote drives things.
>
> > > > Sad to say, it is actually *easier* to use a
> > > > parallel cable to install Windows than it is to
> > > > use a parallel cable to install Linux.
> > >
> > > Depends. If you're used to doing Parallel
> > > conects under Linux it's very easy, likewise
> > > for dos. I think it's a familiarity thing.
> > > Also, under Linux, you can install everything
> > > in one go over the parallel cable without
> > > having to copy any files on to the local disk,
> > > which is an advantage, IMHO.
> >
> > I don't agree completely with that one. I
> > would prefer copying all the files over into a
> > local hard drive first, since then I could let
> > the copying operation go on while I *slept*,
> > then have a much faster install than the, what,
> > 200kbps speed on the PLIP connection?
>
> I don't quite follow. Installing over a PLIP
> connection and copying the files over a PLIP
> connection(for a local install) would take the
> same time and both be equaly error prone, since
> all the files have to go over the parallel cable.
You're not understanding what I'm doing:
NIGHT
=====
Desktop: Sending files over cable at 200kbps
Laptop: Receiving files over cable at 200kbps
Webgiant: SLEEPING
DARKNESS BEFORE THE DAWN
========================
Desktop: Dormant
Laptop: Dormant
Webgiant: Being hygenic.
MORNING
=======
Desktop: Dormant
Laptop: Installing files from local hard drive
at speeds considerably higher than 200kbps.
Webgiant: Monitoring install on laptop.
The point is that while the *actual time* needed for the install is
much longer than straight installing over the parallel cable, the time
needed for the install during which I am actually *conscious* is much
shorter than the time you would need to spend being conscious for the
install directly over a PLIP cable.
> > If I had to do the whole thing at once, sure,
> > do the install over the PLIP. But if I have a
> > day or two, I'd much rather have all the files
> > copied over first and do the install from the
> > much faster--and less error-prone--hard drive.
> >
> > How would one go about copying all the Linux
> > files over first, given a created partition
> > on the laptop drive ready to receive the files?
> > Can a boot disk be created with network and
> > PLIP support to make the process function?
>
> I assume so. A boot dosk with a kernel and some
> utilities should be easy enough to make.
>
> > From a local computer store for $10US, I purchased
> > a kit which was labeled "Mount 2.5" laptop hard
> > drive in a 3.5" drive bay". This included an
> > ADAPTER which allows you to adapt the standard
> > 2.5" pinout to the standard 40-pin IDE cable. The
> > power connector for the 2.5" drive is included in
> > its pinout, and the ADAPTER contains a plug and
> > wires to send power to the right pins on the 2.5"
> > pinout.
>
> Sorted! I'll have to try that.
Yeah, I'd go with the "mom and pop" type establishment,
or even mail-order. The local chain stores either
looked at me funny when I asked for such a kit, or
tried to get me to shell out $20-$30US for such a kit.
A workstation install of RedHat 5.2 fits inside 540MB,
and still runs StarOffice 5.1a (minimum install at
100MB).
> > > > Use something similar to computers the
> > > > child may have used in school (such as
> > > > Enlightenment or FVWM95,
> >
> > > eeeuuuuch! as an ardent FVWM2 fan, I think the
> > > FVWM95 theme is one of the nastiest things ever
> > > to have happened to it. But hey, it's just an
> > > opinion.
> >
> > I just mentioned it because it does resemble a
> > certain GUI found in Win9x/2k/NT. I personally
> > use it on my laptop only because I wanted the
> > clock and other buttons at the bottom which aren't
> > available in the conventional FVWM2 (though you are
> > free to tell me how to *add* them to FVWM2. :).
>
> Look at the FvwmButtons module. The following line
> (in the .fvwm2rc file) should load the clock in to
> the button bar:
>
> *FvwmButtons(Title xclock, Icon clock.xpm, \
> Swallow(UseOld) "xclock" 'Exec xclock -bg \#c0c0c0 \
> -padding 0 -geometry -1500-1500 &')
>
> You can swallow pretty much anything. I have swallowed xeyes, too.
Theres a button bar in FVWM2? Every time I install Slackware without
FVWM95, FVWM2 comes up without a button bar!
How come no one has even tried to write a HOWTO describing how to
install and tweak all the window managers? There's only roughly 17
window managers, and the hardware HOWTO covers how many hundreds of
devices?
> > The buttons represent a slight speed
> > advantage on the older laptop: by not having to open
> > the menu every time just to get to the xterm, Netscape,
> > or calculator apps, I open the apps just a little bit
> > quicker.
>
> Thge button module runs fine without the '95 theme. I
> find it a lot nicer. Actually, the buttons module is
> really quite cool.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:44:57 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:00:20
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 01:59:57
>> +0200;
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> This is why monopolies can chase profit quite happily, whilst
>> >> completely avoiding providing what the customer *actually* wants.
>> >
>> >Do this, and you are no longer a monopoly, because other people will give
>> >the customer what they actually want, and the customer will go with them.
>>
>> Well, if you presume that the monopoly does not do what monopolies do,
>> which is control prices and exclude competition, perhaps. But actually,
>> what you are presuming is simply that the monopoly is not a monopoly,
>> but a competitive business. This is not the case.
>
>IBM is a company comparable to Microsoft, if not larger.
>IBM apperantly had a technically superior OS.
>Why did IBM failed? IBM is more than powerful enough to break MS monopoly
>(which it created, apperantly)
IBM didn't fail. People are still buying OS/2, to this day. It isn't a
question of whether IBM is powerful enough; the question is whether they
are dishonest enough. You see, when a producer acts anti-competitively
(the only way to try to break a monopoly, since monopolies aren't
competitive, you can't out-compete them, you'd have to out-anti-compete
with them) they either hurt their own profitability, or they monopolize.
IBM's job is to produce the best product for the least cost, same as
everybody else's. Free markets don't produce monopoly; illegal activity
does. Therefore, it is up to the law, the government, to stop
monopolization, not the free market.
>How did MS controled the price of OS/2?
By controlling prices in the PC OS market. Yes, this includes OS/2, but
you apparently want some simplistic direct mechanism for setting the
price of a competitors product, and obviously it doesn't work that way.
Let me put it this way. All those reasons it is a "wise business
decision" to monopolize, because having 90% of the market gives you a
lot of power and removes many of the reasons for lowering prices?
That's called 'controlling prices'.
[...]
>There wasn't enough money in it to return the invesment.
Prove it.
>The reason they wanted an localise version wasn't market demand, it was
>national pride.
That would fit well with your theories, wouldn't it? Sounds like
"popular wisdom" to me. Maybe you should double-check, and find an
*original* source that considers this to be true (and that it isn't a
market demand, regardless). Otherwise, you're just second-guessing why
people want to buy something, and that's outside anybody's capability to
do more than guess.
[...]
>No, because the localise version would've to compete with other OS & with
>the english version.
How could it compete with the English version? Does it include English
support? Wouldn't it then simply *be* the English version? Microsoft
doesn't improve its product by adding Icelandic, because most Icelanders
can use English, but supporting other languages is somehow beneficial to
enough people, we presume, that can't use English? I think you're
adding too many presumptions together in your blind acceptance of the
corporate line.
>If you've already have an OS which you've gotten to know, would you install
>buy a new one just because it was localised?
I certainly wouldn't but that's because I don't have any need for any
localized versions of anything; I don't even know any second languages
to begin with. But you were saying that you got Windows for localized
support, among other things. You tell me.
>The answer is mixed. I can testify that using english version and switching
>to a localise version can be a PITA.
>Do you know whatever Icelandians write in roman letters?
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:38:21 GMT
When I used Windows 2000 Pro, when an app would crash, it would take a
long time for Dr-Watson to clean up the mess, has it improved in Whistler?
kiwiunixman
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:v3HU5.142$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8vthhu$5kru8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>>> [trimmed comp.sys.mac.advocacy]
>>>>
>>>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I've finally gotten whistler (pro, 2296, beta 1), and I'm *liking*
>>>>
> it.
>
>>>>> For those of you who doesn't know what this is, whistler is an the
>>>>
> new
>
>>> OS
>>>
>>>>> (the one that will inherit both win2k & win ME) from Microsoft,
>>>>
>> destined
>>
>>> to
>>>
>>>>> finally eliminated the 9x line.
>>>>
>>>> OK, fair enough. It sounds pretty nice, esp. the behavior you've
>>>> described when ctrl+alt+delete is pressed. IMO, UI only matters to
>>>
> end
>
>>>> users, but I guess that's what Microsoft's aim is: ease of use, etc.
>>>> You forgot to mention how well it runs your existing Win 95/NT 4.0/Win
>>>> 2000 apps. Also, how well does it run Win 3.1 apps? Can you format a
>>>> floppy and do anything else while the floppy is formatting? Just
>>>> kidding.
>>>
>>> My Whistler is a workstation version, so it would be optimised to the
>>
>> user.
>>
>>> I didn't mentioned it because I didn't have the time to test it.
>>> My dialer, which is a known trouble maker, is working, I'm now going
>>
>> through
>>
>>> the phase of testing the applicaiton support.
>>> I can format a floppy and work while it's formatting, (although I don't
>>
>> deal
>>
>>> with floppies this often)
>>
>> Does print spooling bog the system down as noticably as in NT?
>
>
> Not that I've noticed.
> I don't print that much, though. So I can't really tell you.
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is design really that overrated?
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 17:43:30 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let's see... the splash screen goes up for about 0.5 seconds during the
3 secs at least
> reboot process...and is NEVER SEEN AGAIN FOR MONTHS AND MONTHS AND
> MONTHS.
Most regular users use their computer for just a few hours. some 15
minutes, just for checking their mail. Having a linux box doesn't mean
you gotta keep it up for weeks.
> Good god, what a pathetic thing to concentrate on.
I get depressed by sucky splash screens
If I show Linux to someone, I want to IMPRESS people. Grey isn't
impressive, it's depressive.
Best wishes
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an AMD K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: 28 Nov 2000 16:44:53 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8vv7oi$rri$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "...a major shift continued toward non-Microsoft servers. "
>>
>> While the winvocates try to tell us what's so great about a 49 day
>> uptime clock, the European server market is moving to Unix/Linux...
>>
>> http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU20001123S0008
> If you read the article, it's not that they're moving away from Windows,
> it's that they're moving to higher end RISC systems, which currently only
> run Unix or Linux. With (until very recnetly) Intel based servers maxing
> out at 8 CPU's, the 64 CPU systems that Sun and others offer are much more
> attractive. That's changing though. Win2k Datacenter can support CPU
> configurations up to 32 processors.
Neat. Half as much as the worst of its competition. And on compaqs yet.
Yes, im sure all the high-end engineers out there who are currently building
gigantic unix systems are going to be very happy to switch to compaq/w2k.
No, really.
And this datacenter beast has been on the burner for how long now?
Its never going to happen.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:47:24 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:01:34
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 26 Nov 2000 00:34:51
>
>
>> >IIRC, it was that they were offered by Iceland goverment to get paid for
>> >doing the localization.
>>
>> It becomes pretty obvious that they're monopolizing rather than
>> competing if they turn down an offer as guaranteed as this.
>
>They *didn't* turn it down.
>They were ready to localise windows when they were offer to get paid for the
>cost of ti.
You are kidding me, right? You couldn't possibly be that credulous.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Major shift
Date: 28 Nov 2000 16:45:41 GMT
tony roth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> and I remember when atari st's and amiga's were the rage in europe ha ha ha!
I remember when they were the rage in the united states. Whats youre point?
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 11:50:16 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000 04:43:53
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000 10:48:06
>
>> >MS being monopoly or not is not something that I care about.
>>
>> That seems apparent. My question isn't "why", so much as "how can you
>> be so stupid?"
>
>Because I know that I've alternatives.
Unless you utilize those alternatives, you are merely assuming you have
them.
>I've within reach at least 5 or 6 dist of linux, three of BSD.
>If MS gets too annoying, I will switch.
>I always had this option, and I'll always will.
You have more fortitude than I, it seems, though obviously, I have not
switched either. I just haven't deluded myself into thinking its a
matter of how annoying the OS I'm using is. It was annoying enough to
look for alternatives long before it was apparent those alternatives
were being excluded from the market by criminal activity.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 16:48:51 GMT
Sorry, very bad grammer on my part, I mean that NT has many of the good
aspects of OS/2. The reason why I said "I use OS/2 Warp 4 for a
server/firewall/netgateway (got it free off APC CDROM (July edition))"
just in case some win-toad said, "I bet ya never used it!" phrase.
kiwiunixman
MH wrote:
>> NTFS is a mutated version of HPFS,32 bit pre-emptive multi-tasking,
>> multi-processor capable, protected mem, all the qualities of OS/2 except
>> will alot more bugs, and yes, I use OS/2 Warp 4 for a
>> server/firewall/netgateway (got it free off APC CDROM (July edition)).
>
>
> I didn't realize the high performance file system was the source of
> multi-tasking,
> smp,and protected memory,? I thought the os handled those chores. Oh well,
> back to the books.
>
> As for os2 --that's about ALL you're going to use it for. Unless you like
> old versions of smartsuite & Nutscrape.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
