Linux-Advocacy Digest #528, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
Re: Whistler review. (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:39:43 +0000
In article <8vv5bn$5nime$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>>
>> »
>> » "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> » news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> » > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> » >
>> » > [..]
>> » > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not
>crash
>> » hot,
>> » > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new
>paint
>> » job. And
>> » > » that *matters*.
>> » >
>> » > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
>> »
>> » Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4,
>and
>> » Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge fixes,
>and
>> » the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
>>
>> You really should use it before saying even that. :=)
>>
>> You may be surprised what you experience. I've seen many a skeptic who
>> have been surprised. Now, I'm not saying it's the holy grail and a
>> perfect OS because that doesn't exist. I'm just saying that it's miles
>> ahead of it's predecessor, and is pretty much testimony to the fact that
>> the server and high end user OS market is very much not monopolised and
>> is very competitive.
>
>Cellular phone OS never crashed.
You'll never know whether that's true or not. Any embedded system
worth its salt includes watchdogs which restart the OS when it gets
into an endless loop.
The trick is to ensure that the restart is invisible to the user
(are you watching this, Bill?).
>(Yeah, I know it's much more simple than
>the simplest usable OS. Nonetheless, it can do a lot of tasks that my
>computer can do.)
>It *is* possible to write bugless code (or nearly as such).
It is not possible to consider every possible environment any
piece of engineering may be subjected to.
It is not possible to construct software which will continue to
work irrespective of the environment. Stating otherwise is at
best naive, especially when referring to eg., embedded devices.
What happens when your cellphone battery runs out?
You really could do with some technical help.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:43:26 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>» "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>» news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>» > You may be surprised what you experience. I've seen many a skeptic who
>» > have been surprised. Now, I'm not saying it's the holy grail and a
>» > perfect OS because that doesn't exist. I'm just saying that it's miles
>» > ahead of it's predecessor, and is pretty much testimony to the fact that
>» > the server and high end user OS market is very much not monopolised and
>» > is very competitive.
>»
>» In any case, NT5^H^H^HWin2k has a fairly high retail price, especially with
>» the pissweak Aussie dollar, and with Linux, I get a more stable OS with all
>» the apps I need (I'm a big fan of StarOffice, I use under both 98 and Linux,
>» and I've never crashed it), a UI without the problems of Windows, plus a
>» real insight into the system. Linux ain't for everyone, but it's fine for
>» me.
>
>I'm glad you found sanctuary somewhere. :=)
>
>I personally dislike StarOffice. It's too monolithic. If you wish to
>write a small document, the whole thing is loaded into memory ... some
>18MB or so which is a tad ridiculous. I found it to be stable as well
>but I simply hate wasting resources more than is necessary (and yet I
>run Win2k ... yes well I did say 'necessary' :=>) and it displays fonts
>terribly. I'd rather use Word or Lotus Word Pro (the latter I prefer). I
>don't need another browser either, or another desktop. StarOffice is the
>epitome of what the linux world speaks against.
What on earth does that statement mean?
>
>I also don't have the apps that I wish to use in Linux or the choice of
>applications that I enjoy in Windows if the need for a new one arises as
>it quite often does.
You said you'd hardly used Linux at all. Now you're an expert on Linux
application space. Not credible.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:44:16 +0000
In article <8vupqd$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a22e1cf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well you fuck off you GUI dependent mumma's boy. So, not only you can use
>a
>> GUI but a mouse ooooooooooo you must very bright, you fucking nittwitt.
>
>As a note, Whistler should give you the option to turn off the GUI.
>Which is something that can be very useful for a server machine.
>I'm not sure if the workstation has it, or if it has, how to do this.
>
>
Er, what use is that with something with no cli?
I know that's the hook you're looking for - go for it, Ayende!
What colour is the 'new' cli?
mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:45:35 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ilja Booij wrote:
>"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8vupqd$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > As a note, Whistler should give you the option to turn off the GUI.
>> > Which is something that can be very useful for a server machine.
>> > I'm not sure if the workstation has it, or if it has, how to do this.
>>
>> It's Windon't. It'll never happen.
>
>Why not?
>One of the nice things of Linux (or other UNIX-es) is that you can
>run without GUI. Many people like this and use it. Now, if MS
>implements this in it's systems, is that bad? i wouldn't think so.
MS is still trying to copy Apple. The amusing thing is that
they're met Apple going the other way. Tcsh is now standard
on OS/X, I believe.
>
>Note that i myself prefer using Linux above using Windows.
>i don't like using Windows, but if it gets better i could be
>tempted to use it again.
>
>Ilja
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:47:23 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
>» I have used Windows 3.1/3.11/95/98/98se/NT/2000, NT was the biggest joke of
>» them all, installed a driver and NT failed to load, resulting in a blue
>» screen memory dump, not very fault tollerant or reliable!
>
><cough> More than the OS's you named before it??!! That's simply not
>true.
Well, he's probably actually used them. Rather than just claiming it.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:48:37 +0000
In article <8vulpo$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
>> >Aaron, get a life. The guy likes Whislter, so be it. Leave him alone.
>In fact, i like
>> >it too. My eng. buddies and I love it. Beats the hell outta Linux for
>usability.
>>
>> Then Ayende can post about the lovely colour scheme somewhere else.
>>
>> Maybe you and Ayende can swap skins?
>
>I wish, but my graphical ability is still on the verge when it take me half
>an hour to draw a straight line.
>
>> Perhaps develop several.
>
>When I can, which I doubt that I'll ever be able to, I would.
>
>> You could call them 'the professional range' or something.
>
>No, I'm sure that I can come up with a better name, but thank you very much
>for the suggestion.
>
>> I bet changing skins is really easy and user friendly and
>> intuitive, right?
>
>Display properties>Themes
>
>It is.
>
>
Excellent - off you go then. Come back and give us a review
of your skin collection next decade?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:50:36 +0000
In article <8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <3a228f5a$0$14371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad Rutherford
>wrote:
>> >how would you know?
>>
>> I think he knows what's run better for him, which is what he said.
>>
>> It's nothing like :
>>
>> >
>> >That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
>>
>> at all.
>>
>> wa waaaaa.
>>
>>
>> Besides, we really don't care whether Ayende likes the colour
>> scheme of DOS7.3 or DOS8 or whatever this will be.
>
>There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
>You are thinking 9x line.
>A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
>
>
>
Shame really, 'cos the only thing I would actually use
Microsoft OS for in my own time would be game playing. And
that's only possible with DOS.
How is it that Microsoft managed to break the only good attribute?
(Okay, I know, ring 0 and all that).
mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:51:06 +0000
In article <9006ha$5rl9v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:5tIU5.157$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > In article <3a228f5a$0$14371$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Conrad Rutherford
>> > wrote:
>> > > >how would you know?
>> > >
>> > > I think he knows what's run better for him, which is what he said.
>> > >
>> > > It's nothing like :
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > >That's like saying you run Linux cause it kicks DOS 6.22's ass.
>> > >
>> > > at all.
>> > >
>> > > wa waaaaa.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Besides, we really don't care whether Ayende likes the colour
>> > > scheme of DOS7.3 or DOS8 or whatever this will be.
>> >
>> > There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
>> > You are thinking 9x line.
>> > A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
>>
>> That's true.
>> The misconception comes from the fact that NT's CLI (cmd) is syntactically
>> identical to DOS. (A major weakness, IMHO)
>
>Why?
>And if you don't like NT default CLI, get another?
>There are plenty.
>
>
Ah, but not from the monopoly provider, I expect?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:53:01 +0000
In article <jkFU5.434$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:saCU5.31$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8vulpn$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > There isn't, nor ever was, DOS in NT line.
>> > You are thinking 9x line.
>> > A very common mistake with linadvocates, it seems.
>>
>> That's right, NT came off OS/2 LAN Manager, IIRC.
>>
>
>Actually the history was IBM contracted MS to write Lan Manager. Later MS
>Sold LM as an OEM network product. When IBM contracted MS to write OS/2 Lan
>Manager was incorporated. Then MS and IBM split. LM became NTLM (a
>substantially improved LM) incorporated into NT, OS/2 died from lack of
>support.
That last phrase reads to me as monopoly practise, no matter how
many times I try.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:54:06 +0000
In article <8vulpl$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> > When did you last used MS OS?
>>
>> Today at Work......Win2K. Performs like garbage compared to the Sun
>system
>> in the next cubicle. Performs like garbage compared to my Linux laptop.
>
>How is it set up?
>On what hardware?
>What is it doing?
>
>I'm not seeking answers to this question, btw.
>I'm showing that there is a lot more to how well the OS perform than the OS
>itself.
>
Ah, a question that's not a question. So glad you could clarify,
otherwise we might have thought that you *really* wanted to know
what's wrong with NT5/Win2k
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:58:51 +0000
In article <8vulp6$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <RptU5.25410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Tom Elam wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 02:30:51 +0200, Tom Elam wrote this reply to
>"Ayende
>> >> > Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> >
>> >> > >For now, I think that there is a good chance that Whistler will be
>as good
>> >> > >from win2k as win2k was from NT.
>> >> >
>> >> > That would make it a pretty impressive piece of software.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> yep, only 2 crashes per day instead of 5, and only 5 employees angry
>for
>> >> their work being lost instead of 10 employees.
>> >
>> >You idiots are all the same. You used Windows back in the Win3.0 days,
>> >realized it was shit, and then never used another Windows again, but
>> >held every version to that standard.
>> >
>> >NT is far superior, Win2K even more, and Whistler just that much more.
>> >
>> >-Chad
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Unfortunately, we've had to use Windows from 3.0, 3.1, wfw3.11,
>> Win95osr2, Win98se. Or at least I have. And they've all
>> been *very* unstable.
>
>In other words, you reach judgement on the NT lines without even trying it.
>9x is a whole other (ugly and horrifying) beast.
My mail, print services and file services either are or have
been f*cked up by NT for several years, on and off. If you were
keeping up on posts you'd remember the note I referred to about
the exchange servers now being rebooted every month or more. This
is because they were grinding to a halt a peak time, rather than
being stopped at quiet times every few days, like NT should be.
My file serving is now handled by linux with mars (netware) and
samba.
Corporately, we now have a web front-end to exchange, so I no
longer have to even start the bl**dy awful Outlook client. It
also means that I'm a bit more secure as well.
The exchange servers still barf from time to time, of course,
but at least I get a message every few days which tells me when
my email service will be disable due to an NT restart for
no particular, but good all the same, reasons.
>
>> The constant marketing effort by Microsoft
>> to persuade the populous at large that using windows is a
>> pleasant experience just doesn't cut it. I'd rather have had
>> that money spent on making it stable, 'cos it's not.
>
>You *believe* PR?
>
>
No, *I* don't. I'm not naive enough to imagine for a moment
that it doesn't work, however. All I have to do is read your
postings for proof.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:03:36 +0000
In article <8vupqb$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vsa9p$5e8t6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > From the overall easiness of working with the system, I've to say
>> > that MS took a long hard look at the iMac success, which was largely
>> > based on its look and "just plug it in" slogan. And decided that they
>> > can do it better.
>> >
>> > I would refrain from commenting whatever they actually succeeded in
>> > that, because it's still a beta, and because I don't have that much
>> > experiance on Macs. And practically none at all on an iMac or an
>> > iBook.
>> >
>> > However, in its current state, I have to say that Whistler is pretty
>> > awesome UI-wise.
>>
>> Do you mean it actually has a well thought out and constant UI, or just
>> that the skins are pretty? I suspect the latter will turn out to be the
>> case.
>
>I'm having hard time defining the term bad GUI.
Use an OS in anger for a minimum of several months on a day to day
basis and you'll soon understand it.
This is why many people here state linux is 'bad', but can't say
why - they haven't actually used it, or have only used it for a
day or two. Sometimes they even admit that (after a while).
In the end, the only thing which matters in a gui is that whatever
you do regularly is either trivial to get to or can be manually
shortened in some way, and that it is stable.
Microsoft's gui largely succeeds on the former and utterly fails
on the latter for the OS. Microsoft fail utterly on the former
and the latter for office packages. The only MSOffice package
which now gets used in my workplace is powerpoint (when was that
bought in - I can't remember?).
The net consequence is that for the only two things which are
truly important for a desktop, MS fail. So why is their market
penetration so good?
Monopoly.
Mark
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
