Linux-Advocacy Digest #585, Volume #30 Fri, 1 Dec 00 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful ("Adam Short")
Re: Whistler review. (mitch)
Re: Whistler review. (mitch)
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Don't believe the hype ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Netscape review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux on a 486 (Terry Porter)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is awful (Ilja Booij)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Adam Short" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:17:23 GMT
Maybe you could get it to work that way (never in my experience however, and
I've tried it many times), its still a lot more time consuming and
irritating than: power off, install new hardware, reboot, I think you'll
agree.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, people only assume Windows is
easier to use because Windows is the standard OS for PCs these days. If we'd
all been using Linux for the past few years and were suddenly shown Windows,
we'd all go "Aaaah, what the hell is this!! Its crashed twice and I only
installed it an hour ago!!".
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:906u1c$6hg6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "David M. Butler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Eric Meyer wrote:
> >
> > > >They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
> > >
> > > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or the
> > > like), but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
> >
> > I'd love to see how you came up with a factor of 100. Here's my
> experience:
> >
> > Windows install: Insert CD, boot computer, format drive, wait awhile
until
> > it finishes.
> >
> > Linux install: Insert CD, boot computer, format drive, wait awhile until
> it
> > finishes.
> >
> > They both took about the same amount of time and properly detected
> > hardware.
> >
> > Only difference installation and hardware setup-wise was when I upgraded
> my
> > Motherboard and CPU. Went from an AMD K6-III 400 and a MB with a VIA
> > chipset, to an AMD Thunderbird 900 and a MB with a VIA chipset. Windows
> > laughed at me and said, "Whoa, buddy... I am NOT going to touch that
> thing
> > unless you reinstall me!" ... Linux said, "I love you," and that was
that.
> >
> > Otherwise I've had no more trouble with Linux than Windows, or
> vice-versa...
>
> Could you load in safe mode?
> If you could, you should've removed all hardware from the hardware tab in
> System Properties in the Control Panel.
> And then reboot.
> Windows would then rebuild the hardware list, and ask you for drivers for
> the new hardware (and the old one which it doesn't have drivers to).
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:24:56 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:30:22 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>In my experience, Microsoft Office is the best office suite available.
>>(Regardless of cost).
>
>Then obviously your experience must be limited to primarily Microsoft
>Office. Or you simply don't have any technical aptitude, and so find
>them all incomprehensible, but Office is the prettiest, and its already
>installed...
>
All the other office suites available are instrinsically similar to ms
office, and have almost identical workflows. It is the subtle
differences, however, which cause head-scratching and problems. If
the apps attempted to provide a *real* altenative, not just a clone,
for me at least, they would be more accessable.
For some time here at work, we were forced to use only Lotus office
suites as well. My experience is not limited, and I am technically
adept - the only thing which is truly bad about the ms office suite is
the cost.
>>Directx (as it stands just now) is a fantastic piece of software.
>>(Built, I know, to overcome windows' shortcomings as a gaming os)
>
>No, it was built to prevent Window's shortcomings from providing an
>opportunity for competitors to threaten their monopoly. A subtle
>difference. It is a piece of crap, from what I have heard and seen.
>Its better than nothing is the best you could possibly say for it.
lol. You`ve been playing too much Deus Ex...
As it is now, DirectX is one of the best API's to program for, both in
terms of ease of use, and speed.
>
>>Messenger is the best chat tool bar none.
>
>'Messenger', whatever the hell that is, is the *only* "chat tool bar",
>AFAIK.
If you don`t know what it is, don`t attempt to say what it is.
I`m sorry if English isn`t your first language - what I should have
said was:
Messenger is the best "chat tool", bar-none. ie. It is better than
ICQ, AOL messenger et al...
>And I'd prefer if it wasn't forcibly bundled into the next
>version of the monopoly operating system. Being a monopoly, I know my
>desires have absolutely nothing to do with whether it will be, but I
>thought it worth pointing out for future reference.
>
Noted.
>>If microsoft were to truly try and create a brand new operating system
>>from scratch, having backwards compatability via nothing more than a
>>virtual machine, I bet they could create an extremely nice OS.
>
>They tried, it was called NT. Unfortunately, they ended up not creating
>a brand new OS (its still Windows) from scratch (its mostly VMS
>underneath) having backwards compatibility (you can only be "bug
>compatible" to a limited extent without simply being buggy by design)
>via nothing more than a virtual machine (the whole OS could be
>considered little more than 'virtual', to be honest). Rather than being
>an extremely nice OS, its just more monopoly crapware, fatally flawed by
>that fact, even though it is indeed somewhat more robust and much more
>stable than WinDOS.
>
NT was very far from being written from the ground up, as you know.
Win32+OS2+VMS != Written from scratch. They tried to cover too many
bases, and ended up with a pretty stable business OS, which is
surprising given the amount of code they had to butcher together.
>
>Tell me another story, grammpy! ;-)
>
Why, you young whippershnapp....
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mitch)
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:30:31 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:07:38 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> In my experience, Microsoft Office is the best office suite available.
>> (Regardless of cost).
>
>At one time it was.
>
>Later versions, which by default produce garbage files rather
>than platform transportable copy, are a rip-off.
>
I agree with the file-format issues. It`s a complete nonsense.
>>
>> Directx (as it stands just now) is a fantastic piece of software.
>
>You are insane.
>
>DirectX is a security nightmare.
>
Which is why it has never been ported to Linux. ;)
I never said it was a fantastically secure piece of software now, did
I? It does what it has to do, and it does it bloody well.
--
Smileys are nothing but conceptual wheelchair ramps for the humor impaired.
- Geoff Miller
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:30:18 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:40EV5.27466$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Eric Meyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Y8BV5.100202$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
> >
> > I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or the
> like),
> > but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
> >
>
> No it isn't, even when it works. Try installing an NT as a dual boot
along
> with an existing Win95 on a FAT32 disk.
Did it, too many times, I usually simply convert to NTFS and don't give a
damn about the 95, but sometimes you've to have the 95.
This is why I think that most linux installers are comparable to NT setup,
and harder than 9x setup.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 08:33:31 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ciHV5.27501$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Josh McKee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >When someone shows me an MS OS that doesn't inexplicably die after a
week
> of
> > >heavy server activity - Or an MS workstation that doesn't BSOD several
> times
> > >a week - Or an MS OS that doesn't need restarted everytime an
application
> or
> > >component (other than a service release) is added or removed, I'll
> consider
> > >it a serious OS. Until then I and the other "idiots" won't be overly
> > >impressed.
> >
> >
> > You may wish to look at Microsofts Data Center version of Windows
> > 2000. It may be the Microsoft OS that really works in the situation
> > you've described.
>
> If they know how to build a system that works, why do they keep selling
> the old stuff?
Check out the price tag on data center.
It's rules of supply & demand.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Don't believe the hype
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 09:32:25 GMT
Actually I think Solaris is quality - its everything Linux isn't -
stable with quality development tools that give you a chance to write
and debug code productivly.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Raeder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> <much_needed_snippage>
>
> > I would have loved to have found linux was stable and usable however
> > the truth is it lacks quality.
>
> What documentation did you use? While you're at it, install BeOS,
*BSD, OS/2,
> Solaris, and MacOS. I'm sure that you'll complain about them too.
It's sounds
> more like you're stuck in a Windows mind-set and can't get out.
>
> Ignorance != lack of quality.
>
> Why would you waste time whining in a NG, when you could be searching
for $CLUE?
>
> --
> Since-beer-leekz,
> Mikey
> Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam
possit
> materiari?
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:34:52 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:44IV5.27517$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:mSDV5.24836$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > You know, I can't even view the MS website
> > > > properly with Netscape as the ONLY browser
> > > > you can see it with properly is MSIE.
> > >
> > > The funny part is that I bet they don't even know
> > > that. They probably just used the Microsoft tools
> > > they sell everyone else that claim to follow standards
> > > but in fact don't interoperate correctly with anything
> > > else. Perhaps they have even deceived themselves.
> > >
> >
> > You'd like that eh? Too bad it just ain't true.
> >
>
> You mean they made it broken on purpose? Why?
It isn't broken. You can surf to it with any browser that you would like.
It's optimized to IE, of course, but netscape would do just as well.
If you had done some advance HTML-authoring (java-script, dhtml, css) you
would realize that it is a nightmare to try to do it for netscape.
So the dhtml on MS site doesn't work for other browsers.
Big deal, so you don't have menus, you still have access to everything you
want.
The only thing that doesn't work on other browser is the windows update auto
checking your computer, which is done via ActiveX.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 11:53:06 +0200
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_IEV5.5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >No, it means that Linux users like this don't give a rip about what
> > >consumers want.
> >
> > Unlike monopolies like Microsoft who are beating down the door
> > of the consumer, competing against, err, err, err, well, someone,
> > anyway, to sell their product, against, err, who?
>
> Themselves, actually.
>
> In order to keep their profit margins up, they must often sell new
versions
> to their existing customers. In order to do that, they have to give the
> customer something they want. No customer throws away a perfectly good
> product for something that they don't want.
Withness ME success, or lack thereof.
What do you get with ME that you don't have on 98SE? Um, let us see:
Mp7, you can download for free.
Movie Maker, let me see, do I need this? If I do, why would I use a hobby
application? I will get something powerful and got like premier or
afteraffects.
Anything else?
Oh, yes, I forgot:
The system totally ignore the user, assume that it's stupid, run things in
the background that he has no way to turn off, and *still* more crushy than
98SE.
If I want to see a BSOD I'll turn the screen saver on, if I want the real
thing, MS was nice enough to supply me with a quick way to do so :)
------------------------------
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, 1 Dec 2000 12:00:53 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%UGV5.27497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:905d41$m8f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >
> > > > > What do you do when you need a hundred at once, delivered to some
> > other
> > > > > office? Or even a few dozen rack-mount systems?
> > > >
> > > > "Hello, it's me again. I need computer with the following specs. Can
> > I've
> > > > them by next week? Yes, I knew I could, thank you very much. And
> please
> > > > arange that they would be delivered to this adress. Nice talking to
> you"
> > >
> > > You are dreaming. Try it for real.
> >
> > I did, do and will continue doing so.
>
> Do you keep statistics of failures, downtime, and replacement parts? I'd
> be
> interested in seeing how these worked out, especially several years ago
> when it was harder to get things right.
I don't keep a record of hardware failures, I'm afraid.
It was indeed much harder in the past, but the point is that if you order
computers by the hundred, you get top notch service.
Of course, I consider it impolite to order 100 computers of arbitry
configuration in a week notice, especially since it takes more than a week
to decide on this configuration.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 12:06:18 +0200
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2000 06:57:51 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >> Uh huh. You're a NT/2k admin, I presume? How many hits/day do _you_
get?
> >>
> >
> >Not that many
>
> Well, that's my fucking point. For a living, I admin high-traffic boxes.
NT/2k
> just can't keep up with the load -- unix/clones can.
>
>
> > because business runs on more than a web server.
>
> So? First, my job description ventures far further than administrating
just webservers, I'm
> just using webserving as one (1) example of where NT/2k can't keep up. In
any case, though, my
> point is, if NT/2k can't handle the stress of being a webserver, how is it
going to handle an
> equal amount of _any_ activity, webserving-related or not?
Win2k handle the biggest site in the world, and the second most popular.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Dec 2000 10:11:22 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 16:53:04 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> No-Spam wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 21:47:02 -0800, Micah Higgs
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with only
>> > a floppy drive?
>>
>> Sure, I have it on my 386/sx25 mhz router right now.
>>
>> It boots from the floppy drive, and thats all it needs.
>>
>> On the other hand you may mean, 'can I install, Linux
>> with only a floppy drive' ?
>> The answer is yes to that as well.You can d/l a minimal
>> floppy dist of Debian (www.debian.org) on 8 floppies
>> (2.0.36 kernel), that will run on a 120 meg hdd,
>> thats what Ive got on my spare which is an old 486/50.
>
>Yes, but what can be done with that minimal install?
>Can you do more than edit files using vi?
Yes I can telnet into a server :)
That router has only 8 megs of ram btw.
>
>Frankly, Linux is a disk and memory hog when it comes to
>the basic system requirements to be able to do anything
>*with* Linux once you get it installed. Sure, you can
>install it on just about anything, but doing something
>with an install on "just about anything" can be difficult.
Ahh difficult is my middle name!
>
>> You can do just about anything with Linux
>
>No, the correct phrase is "you can install Linux on
>just about anything. Whether you can do anything
>with Linux on that system is another matter."
Actually theyre BOTH correct.
Forgive my enthuiasm, I have done many things with Linux boxes
over the last three years, the last completed project was a generic
eerom, microprocessor burner.
>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 6 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
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, 1 Dec 2000 12:32:39 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XWGV5.27498$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:905d3t$m8f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > As usual you are avoiding reality. Do you dictate to everyone
else
> in
> > > > your
> > > > > office and your clients and customers how they are allowed to
> > > communicate
> > > > > with you, or do you do what you are forced to do and accommodate
> them?
> > > >
> > > > I dictate them to use a file format which I can use.
> > >
> > > And just how many clients and customers have gone along with your
> demands?
> >
> > All of them.
> > If they want me to read their files, they send them in a format that I
can
> > read.
> >
>
> And that format would be? You aren't going out on much of a limb here
> if it happens to be the one holding a monopoly position.
Practically any, duh.
There is such a thing called *Viewers*.
They are *free*.
No need to upgrade, no need to pay anything to anyone.
WordView is one of them.
http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/2000/downloadDetails/wd97vwr32.htm
Win9x/NT
http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/2000/downloadDetails/wdvw9716.htm
Win3.X
I can read Word 2000 documents in win 3.11 machine, wow, didn't even know
that.
Qoute from the site:
"This product is "freeware." We encourage you to copy and distribute Word
Viewer to your friends and co-workers or post it on public electronic
bulletin boards"
You can copy & paste from the document to any other application you choose.
He didn't have to, that is why you've viewers.
http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/2000/downloadDetails/xlviewer.htm
Win9x/NT
Qoute from the site:
"Users should copy and distribute Microsoft Excel 97 Viewer to friends and
coworkers, or post it onto public electronic bulletin boards, LANs, and
Internet sites. This way individuals without Microsoft Excel will have a
utility that allows them to view Excel spreadsheets. "
So, there isn't really a problem, is it?
And your father has no need to upgrade, but it sound like he didn't waste
his money.
There is also Power Point viewer.
http://officeupdate.microsoft.com/2000/downloadDetails/Ppview97.htm
And something for access too, but it's not quite a viewer, didn't look into
it very much.
BTW, all the links that I supplied work on 97/2000 office files.
For some idiotic reason they are all named <something> viewer 97.
In Excel case, the file support goes back to Excel 2 on wintel & 2.2a on
mac.
In PowerPoint case, the file support goes back to PowerPoint 2 on wintel &
PowerPoint 3 on Mac
In Word case, no data is given to how far back the support goes, although I
assume that this goes back at least to word 6.0
------------------------------
From: Ilja Booij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 01 Dec 2000 11:45:33 +0100
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
And another parallel:
M$ software is made in Redmond, Boeing planes in Seattle
Airbus planes are are made all over Europe, and assembled in eh,
Toulouse i think. you can see the metaphore i guess
Ilja
> Airbus Aircraft have much nicer sets as well, on the boeing 737's it
> feeling like ya wedged between two brick walls. :)
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> Bennetts family wrote:
>
> > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> 1. Comparison: Windows is like a Concord, is has been riding high for a
> >> long time then it will crash and burn in a big heap as it's viability is
> >> reduced by better, more well designed aircrafts.
> >
> >
> > Windows being a Concorde implies that it goes incredibly fast and high for
> > ~25 years, despite being horrendously expensive, before secumming to a piece
> > of metal that fell off another plane. That last bit seems accurate ;-)
> >
> >> 2. Comparison: I see Microsoft like Boeing, it has been the major
> >> producer of large, commercial airliners, Linux is like the Airbus,
> >> although in the past, only a small number of airlines bought their
> >> aircrafts, however, they have gained some very lucrative contracts with
> >> airlines such as Qantus recently.
> >
> >
> > No doubt you've noticed that both M$ and Boeing are based in the general
> > vicinity of Seattle. Coincidence? I think not...
> >
> > --Chris
> >
> >
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
