Linux-Advocacy Digest #721, Volume #30 Thu, 7 Dec 00 21:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows review (JM)
Re: Linux is awful (Curtis)
Re: Microsoft , makers of what ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (mlw)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (Jim Broughton)
Re: Windows review ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windows review ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windows review (Curtis)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: i/o in linux ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: i/o in linux (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Mike V.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 22:36:26 GMT
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 00:00:08 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Now, what benefit does the command line offer Grandpappy, as a new user?
>> Which is easier:
>> a) opening 50 documents, one at a time, trying to find which one
>> references a specific peculiar topic...
>>
>> or
>>
>> B) grep _keyword_ [*.document_files]
>C> <win key>+F > *.document_files > TAB > Keyword > ENTER
Answer B) is still the easiest.
"grep _keyword_ [*.document_files]" is marginally quicker than
"=# + F, <wait>, *.document_files, <tab>, _keyword_, <enter>
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 19:39:44 -0500
"scatterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| All I can relate is my personal experiences, But if you can keep windows up
| for that long then your a wizard.
I thought the Windows users were supposed to be the idiots.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft , makers of what ?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:30:05 GMT
In article <90orjv$c42$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the_blur wrote:
>
> > Your news reader is...
> >
> > X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
> >
> > You're so full of bullshit, I'm afraid if I listen to you any
longer, I'll
> > get smeared. STFU until you use the platform you advocate.
>
> Mine is the same... and i dont use Windows... How do you explain that
> graphic artist?
I don't think he's gotten that far yet.
FWIW, I'm typing this on a win machine. That's what we are standardized
on at work for client desktops. Can our resident"graphic artist" please
explain how that prevents me from writing applications on 3 different
linux servers today? Here's a hint: It doesn't.
Memo: to the blurry thinker, STFU until you understand how to use the OS
well enough to understand how to define your own headers either in
certain applications or in your own scripts, or until know that you can
be using linux from any 'net connected platform anywhere in the world.
Or that you can even be using linux 24/7 without your hand ever coming
near a keyboard.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 19:43:25 -0500
Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> Would anyone but nerds be interested?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> The only reason the big companies are jumping on the Linux bandwagon
> is because they figure if it catches on (doubtful at best) they can
> make a buck selling hardware and services.
There is no reason why this is inconsistent with ANY business alliance,
except for the doubtful part.
>
> It has such a dismal market share amongst desktop users now, that if
> it were commercial it would be dead by now.
This is a VERY interesting point. If it weren't for Microsoft's monopoly
and illegal activities there would probably several different OS
vendors, all likely better than MS. It is because of the previously
mentioned illegal activities that a free OSS operating system is the
only way to have competition.
>
> Point is Linux can't even be given away because no desktop user in his
> right mind (programmers are not in their right minds) would want it.
Many people love Linux because it does what they need.
>
> As Redhat and SuSE and Corel move toward commercializing Linux, and
> don't kid yourself that is their ultimate goal, to make money, Linux
> will be even deader than it is now.
It is hardly dead at all.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 00:43:01 GMT
Swango wrote:
>
> Which one?
>
> There seem to be thousands on the net. But of course there is no
> problem, now is there?
>
> Swango
>
> On 7 Dec 2000 01:36:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 23:28:12 GMT, tom wrote:
> >
> >See the font HOWTO, esp the part about Netscape
>
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
Try this link.
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU/intro.html
--
Jim Broughton
(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:00:43 -0500
Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > How to obey the One Great Software Company (Microsoft).
> >
> > Really, how about programming? Or tuning the kernel?
>
> Oh yeah, new users do this quite frequently.
> Weren't we talking about new users, aren't we?
>
Most new users have to tune their kernel, i. e. configure it for their particular
sound card and so on. It's not too tough.
>
> > > In Windows, this is all plainly obvious, or 5 minutes of research would
> > > reveal all this to you. It takes weeks in Linux for a newbie to fully
> >
> > What? You're wrong.
>
> Not really. Anti-intuitive commands on the command line,
Anti-intuitive my ass, Chad.
> absent documentation
> or poor documentation, a buggy and sketchy GUI,
A? There are quite a few GUI's. And KDE is neither buggy nor sketchy.
> even buggier and sketchier
> GUI applications (also with no or little documentation) creates a hostile
> environment for someone not already coming in with intimate Unix knowledge.
Get a clue.
>
> Hell, even the "newbie" sites are hostile and not well collected.
>
> > > learn all the commands and become knowledgeable about the command line.
> > >
> > > There's a reason why we got away from the command line...
> >
> > No. The reason is is that you couldn't handle it.
>
> Ok, Mr. Dreamland, you walk into any major corporation and go to, say the
> HR department where there aren't too many exceptionally bright people.
>
Maybe they don't. Have you been following the voting in Florida, Chad?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:02:42 -0500
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > How to obey the One Great Software Company (Microsoft).
> >
> > Really, how about programming? Or tuning the kernel?
>
> Out of any given 1,000 users, how many do you think actually write programs?
> Of those who even know about such things, how many care about tuning
> kernels?
>
Most have to tune the kernel to get sound to work.
>
> > > learn all the commands and become knowledgeable about the command line.
> > >
> > > There's a reason why we got away from the command line...
> >
> > No. The reason is is that you couldn't handle it.
>
> Being unable to handle something and not wanting to are different things. I
> use a command line because for _my_ purposes, it is often more useful than
> other methods. For others, this is not true. It is the _individual's_
> needs that will determine whether it's even potentially worth learning a new
> tool or technology, and that is balanced against the expense or effort of
> learning it. You, personally, seem to think kernel hacking and command line
> utilities and programming are useful tools, and they are - to you.
> Grandpappy doesn't _want_ to hack kernels,
Why doesn't he?
> he wants to write documents and
> browse the web; what possible use are command lines and hacked kernels to
> him?
What if wants to write them in a nice, nonproprietary format?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:03:53 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) posted:
| That is not a reason not to learn it though. Becoming more familiar with the
| workings of your computer is always worthwhile. File operations are often
| easier on the command line, especially in your example of an elderly person.
| Holding down Ctrl and selecting multiple files and moving them to another
| directory can often be quite fiddly, I'm 26 yet still find myself having to
| select the files all over again as I made a slip up with the mouse. I dread
| to think what trouble Granpappy would have. Far easier to type what you want
| to do at the command line.
|
| mv *.txt ../newdir
No I need to move four out of 25 text files within the same directory.
Some of them have 30-40 character names, so I can't remember their exact
names. Using a GUI file manager is at least as effective.
It definitely depends on what you wish to do.
| As opposed to a series of point and click operations that are very liable to
| mistakes.
The CLI is very good for heavy file management and for those who
*consistently* have to do heavy file management. Otherwise a GUI is the
better choice. In my NT days I installed "4NT", which I knew about from
my OS/2 days. I was learnt how to use it since it offered some nice CLI
features not supported by the plain NT CLI. I still ended up not
sticking with it since I so rarely did things that would make it better
for me to use a CLI. I can't tell the last time I wanted to change the
attributes of all the files in a directory, though if I need to, I just
use a CLI command in my file manager .. Enriva Voyager. Otherwise I use
a CLI.
| Also, by learning the command line you can learn to create scripts
| to automate the tasks you do often.
This is definitely true. But this doesn't mean that most need to
dedicate most of their computing time to a CLI. It's really unnecessary
and less enjoyable. Not to mention the case sensitive nature of the UNIX
CLI.
| There's no reason why the command line should solely be the preserve of
| programmers.
At the level it's being pushed? I'd say yes, its heavy use should be
reserved for programmers or those who need to do heavy file management
often.
| Seeing as five year old kids can handle it if you give them the
| chance, this attitude that the command line is some aloof ivory tower is
| inappropriate. People should be encouraged to get as much out of there
| computers as they can.
Average people cannot and will not learn everything. If they have a
choice between two interfaces that will get most or all of what they
wish to do done, in the most intuitive and enjoyable way, then they'll
choose one and that will usually be the GUI. Simple.
The more advanced, interested user will learn some of the CLI and rarely
go on to master it, unless he/she has some professional pursuit that
demands it. This then brings on what I find to be an unfair trait among
the CLI pushers. They were either brought up on it, hence forced to use
it, or have to use it professionally. They take this advantage or
convenience for granted.
| That Granpappy stuff is just stereotyping anyway, I know Granpappy's and
| Granmama's who are old school hardcore programmers.
There'll always be the exceptions which certainly do not take away from
the accurate generalisation.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ROT13 scrambled)
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:11:19 GMT
"Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZMJX5.20393$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If Windows is so great, why do WinTrolls feel the need to lie and
> deceive?
>
> Bracy
Because Linux lovers feel no shame in outright exclaiming from the rooftops
that the end to Microsoft domination is here, in penguin form. Wake me when
I can reliably update my Kernel, and OS level components without buying a
new distro, recompiling something, or editing text files till the cows come
home.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: i/o in linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:08:34 GMT
Actually, this Mr. Swango is correct, the Linux Kernel is still "alpha"
testing (because Linux is ALWAYS in beta stages) support for this style of
x86 hardware.
Innovation and Linux are two terms that DON'T go togather. Your problem is
that the SMP support your application would thrive under doesn't exist under
the Linux platform. I suggest you look into the manufacturer of your
mainboard to see what OS they recomend (a commercial UNIX or Windows 2000).
Linux does NOT hold a candle to native SMP support on any platform.
"Swangoremovemee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 21:19:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Hi.
> >
> >I have two linux machine. One is a 450mhz machine with 256MB RAM using
> >ide hard drives. The other one is a two cpu 933mhz machine with 1 GB RAM
> >using scsi hard drives. The problem is that I am running a program
> >(sybase) on both machines and the io on the 450 machine seems much
> >faster then the 2 cpu machine. I check with sybase and it's not the
> >configuation there. Is there something on linux that I am missing and
> >need to configure???
>
>
> What you need my friend is a 486 P133 with 16 meg of memory.
>
> Linux screams on a system like that.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:14:16 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > And only a true idiot would continue to actually use it after seeing
> > what a lame piece of junk Linux is.'
>
> That must be why Toyota is using RedHat 6.2 as the IT base
> for their dealership network.
No, they're using Linux 6.2 as their base because they let their IS/IT staff
lead the company around by the balls and listen to the rhetoric spouted
almost robotically by you Linux zealots; "It's more stable, it's free, its
this, it's that, it'll never crash, bla bla bla bla bla".
Gotta love these brand spanking new college grads who don't know dick about
how computing really is outside a computer lab.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 01:15:28 GMT
It's really about fucking time.
"Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Swango wrote:
> > I'll save you the time, it doesn't work.
> >
> > You still don't get the smooth anti-aliased looking fonts that you do
> > under Windows.
> >
> > Linux is painful to look at, nevermind even worse to use.
>
> This (the lack of font anti-aliasing) is going to be fixed *soon*.
> http://xfree86.org/~keithp/render/session.html
>
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -- I have to warn you up front that I'm pretty sure you're full of crap,
but
> it might still be interesting to see your argument.
> -- Bill Newman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: i/o in linux
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 20:55:33 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> Actually, this Mr. Swango is correct, the Linux Kernel is still "alpha"
> testing (because Linux is ALWAYS in beta stages) support for this style of
> x86 hardware.
Linux 'beta' as you call it, is almost always more stable than the most
stable version of Windows or NT. (or 2K)
> Innovation and Linux are two terms that DON'T go togather. Your problem is
> that the SMP support your application would thrive under doesn't exist under
> the Linux platform. I suggest you look into the manufacturer of your
> mainboard to see what OS they recomend (a commercial UNIX or Windows 2000).
>
> Linux does NOT hold a candle to native SMP support on any platform.
I have no idea what you are talking about using the term 'native.' Linux
has support in the kernel for SMP.
As for I/O and SMP, there are some known issues with regards to SMP and
kernel reentrancy, and while sub-optimal in some cases, in this
particular case, it is unlikely the problem.
CPU and memory bound applications run perfectly well under Linux SMP, it
is only device contention which currently has problems. However, if you
have one disk controller, requests would be serialized in the first
place.
In the example given, it is more likely something similar to the disks
used have slower response times.
>
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Mike V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 02:02:46 GMT
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000 13:17:25 -0700, "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
posted :
>You should have read the whole thread, I'll repeat:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Post
>I've been involved with the set up of more than 200 NT Servers, about 5 2000
>Servers, and 5 Linux Servers. Most of the NT Servers were at a bank (I was
>on their Y2K project).
>
>Not 1 of the NT Servers was up more than 6 weeks.
They weren't built right.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
