Linux-Advocacy Digest #757, Volume #30 Sat, 9 Dec 00 03:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Caught me a Lino-Troll Mr. T-Max (Black Dragon)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (John Travis)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Uptimes (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:44:37 -0600
tom wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's sharp with EVERY windows manager.
>
> Can't get much the clearer than that. Then the answer is probably
> somewhere in that Font Deuglification Mini HowTo. Thanks.
I think you guys are miscommunicating.
What Aaron was saying, I think, is that if you use the indicated video
cards with a high resolution, you get crisp text for Linux
out-of-the-box. I can second that, at least for the Millennium card. I
am currently using an old Matrox Millennium (circa '96, like his) at
1280x1024 resolution, and it looks great. I have definitely seen
Windows systems that were not nearly so clear. (Unlike what the
billfans do with Linux, I will not deceitfully generalize that to *all*
Windows systems.) I think that whatever system you are going to use, a
good video card and a good monitor are going to be prerequisites to a
fine view. Whenever I build a system, I spend a pretty high proportion
of my budget on the video card and monitor; after all, that's the part
you actually deal with the most. I would even buy a slower CPU if
that's what it took to get a decent visual on the screen. And I do some
very CPU-intensive work.
Try the deuglification if you are not fortunate enough to have a nice
card. I can't vouch for the howto, because I've never had an
opportunity to try it. I may try it at work over the winter break,
unless of course I can wangle a nicer video card.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 05:46:29 GMT
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90sdg9$qb9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ah, the very old line, I don't know how they did it, so it can't be
> done. Sorry, Chad, Just because you or anyone outside of Netcraft does
> not know how netcraft get's the numbers does NOT prove Nectraft does not
> know how to do it.
>
> Are you claiming that Netcraft is making up the numbers?
>
Prove they aren't.....
>
> In article <ZOhY5.5053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Stephen King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> > > > Not true, Netcraft might show that some NT/2000 systems are
> rebooted
> > > > regularly but IME that is never necessary to maintain stability.
> In fact
> > > > the only times I've seen instabilities in the OS is during the
> setup phase.
> > > > Once I've got the drivers all correct the systems only fail when
> hardware
> > > > fails.
> > >
> > > Moot point - there is still no Windows machine in the top 50.
> >
> > Top 50 of whay? Netcraft's admittedly unscientific method of
> > determining uptime?
> >
> > Please, explain to us how you can accurately determine the uptime
> > of a Windows machine (or any, for that matter) remotely without
> > any permissions on that box without constantly pinging it?
> >
> > Can't? Right, because there is no way. Netcraft must be magic, then.
> >
> > > > MSDN members receive software to stress test NT/2000 haven't seen
> the need
> > > > to run it yet so I'm not sure what it does but I'll let you know.
> > >
> > > Does it warp time so that we can see if the system will _really_
> stay up
> > > for 3 years nonstop? I doubt it.
> > >
> > > The proof is in the pudding. Once a Windows system has been _proven_
> to
> > > run under some appreciable load for 3 years nonstop, then I MIGHT
> > > believe it.
> >
> > I'm sure they are out there. Unfortunately, I've never had an
> environment
> > that didn't move once a year or so. The past couple companies I've had
> > have physically moved from one location to another once or twice.
> >
> > The longest stretch of uptime I've had on NT was 312 days or so. But
> > the previous stretch was 280 or so days. I had to shut the box down
> and
> > move it to the our new address then get it back up which it stayed up
> > for 312 days.
> >
> > This machine served the domain, printing, file sharing, internet,
> Exchange
> > messaging, and several other tasks for about 50-70 users and about 10
> > dial-in users and 2 VPN users. It had a heavy load for the hardware it
> > was running on.
> >
> > > > Security is no longer an issue when properly administered, just
> like UNIX,
> > > > reliability ditto, scalability is actually ahead.
> > >
> > > Security is ALWAYS an issue if you want to maintain it. Perhaps NT
> has
> > > finally caught up, perhaps Win2000 is there, but I still see a
> thousand
> > > viruses a month plaguing Windows users ...
> >
> > Win9x mainly, which is irrelevant. Perhaps there are the clueless
> > small businesses running NT or 2K as Administrator all the time
> without
> > virus software, but any competent person doesn't run as Administrator
> > (or root in Unix) and therefore is not subject to these "viruses".
> I've
> > had many of them sent to me and none had any affect.
> >
> > > Scalability - I don't think so. Will ANY variant of Windows run on a
> 256
> > > processor machine?
> >
> > It's irrelevant. Windows can accomplish in less processors what other
> > OSes accomplish with larger amounts of processors. Windows scales out
> > which lends to better managability, better availability (don't keep
> your
> > eggs in one basket), and better over-all scalability. Reference
> www.tpc.org.
> >
> > -Chad
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:48:18 -0600
Swango wrote:
> So prove me wrong Geek!!!
If the choice is between thousands of HOWTOs and the mushroom treatment
you get from MS, I'll take the HOWTOs any day. After all, a schoolboy
who knows how to use a search engine can narrow the search down to what
he needs.
At least the information is out there. You might compare this to what
MS is trying to pull on BugTraq right now.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:51:48 -0600
Swangoremovemee wrote:
> Get used to it because you seem to be discovering already that simple
> tasks under Windows become adventures under Linux.
Back when I was unfortunate enough to run Windows, every boot was an
adventure, since I never knew what winsanity I would have to fix before I
could actually do anything.
"simple tasks under Windows" is a myth. See my post about Windows in the
Chemistry department, in another thread.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux jobs and skills. Why the sudden surge and increase?
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 00:15:38 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> I would take that with a grain of salt. Many of those jobs are from
> recruiters, and recruiters all have the same cross section of jobs. I've
> had dozens of recruiters try to send me to the same company for the same job
> before, ever months apart.
Yeah, you're right. According to Netcraft's survey 3-4 months ago, there are
only 5,000,000 publicly accessible Web sites running on Linux these days, so
there couldn't possibly be 5,000 job openings in the entire Linux universe.
Nope. Don't believe it, my fellow ostriches!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon)
Subject: Re: Caught me a Lino-Troll Mr. T-Max
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 06:19:30 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:45:37 GMT in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Swangoremovemee' said:
[...]
: "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
Pot - Kettle - Black!
This crap from someone who has used some 30 plus aliases in less than
a year to Troll in COLA? Dude! (Dudette?) How much is Microsoft
paying you to whore yourself like this?
Steve/Mike/Heather/Simon/teknite/keymaster/keys88/Sewer Rat/
S/Sponge/Sarek/piddy/McSwain/pickle_pete/Ishmeal_hafizi/
Syphon/Proculous/Tiberious/Amy/Jerry_Butler/Wobbles/wazzoo/
Tim Palmer/BklynBoy/susie_wong/leg log/bison/deadpenguin/
clair_lynn/Swango/ ....to be continued....
--
Black Dragon
Sign The Linux Driver Petition:
http://www.libralinux.com/petition.english.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 06:32:18 GMT
And Kyle Jacobs spoke unto the masses...
>Linux ABSOULUTELY supports USB, it just doesn't support anything plugged
>into it except the latest Microsoft Mice (Gee, and I thought we were
>banishing Billy here?) and a few Logitech USB devices (might as well be
>Microsoft)
>
>It's the little things, like the DEVICES we use, not the PLUG we use.
<snipped all of the shit you should have>
You mean like my USB zip 250, my 'unsupported' USB scanner, my USB printer, etc.
which all work perfectly?
jt
--
Debian Gnu/Linux [Woody]
2.4.0-test9-ReiserFs|XFree4.0.1|nVidia.95 Drivers
You mean there's a stable tree?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 06:47:59 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:06:17 -0600,
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
>> When companies look to cut cost's I/T is the first one on the list and
>> Linux, at least on a purchase order bottom line, can save them a lot
>> of money. They need to save money when their stock has been in a
>> steady decline from 105 in May to 60 something in December.
>
>Yeah, but that hardly speaks ill of Linux. When companies start
>tightening their belts, that's when you see where they think true value
>lies. Cut the fluff; only buy things that tangibly contribute to
>productivity.
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
You have TWO forces for change now Bobby.
Force #1 is Microsoft's ever increasing prices on ALL their software.
Whistler will top $550 for the full install. W2k is $350 for the full
install. Microsoft Office is becomming so expensive they will be
offering it on a subscription basis now. Every time Microsoft
releases a new version of Windows they have doubled the price
of the full install.
The impact of Force #1 will be to drive some PC manufacturers out
of business. This cost will CUT into their profit margines and
force cut backs across the industry. Still others like DELL
will begin to sell machines equipped ONLY with Linux and have
Windows as an expensive add on option to the PC purchase.
Force #2 is the new NET APPLIANCE craze! You can now buy
a net appliance {CHEAP PC} with IR keyboard, integrated
10/100 E, modem, kb mouse, cable ready, with dvd player
for under $350. There is a new PDA which is RISC powered
in the current issue of Maximum Linux for $147 which
is powered by Linux. The performance reviews show
this 66 mhz Risc machine outperforming every other
PDA in the industy. The Windows CE machines simply
can't perform as well.
Force #2 will take it's toll on the Windows based
PC industry over the next 2 years and further weaken
the Microsoft grip. Microsoft has NO net appliance
capability, no embedded capability to counter this
business threat.
Microsoft is finished.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 06:55:40 GMT
On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 04:56:04 GMT,
Chad C. Mulligan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux was used on the Titanic but the render farm had to be augmented by
>utilizing NT boxes after they had finished doing the design work. The Linux
>render farm, as designed wasn't up to the task. If you are looking for
>referrences to what I say, check out the TITANIC thread in this group and
>COLA from about 20 months ago.
>
Just so the crowd doesn't think your full of shit,
give us just one link to a web site which proves this.
Just one.
>
>Really funny, the company I work for at this time does support for Disney,
>Universal and are negotiating with Paramount and guess what not a Linux box
>to be found the VP at Universal says they can't use Linux because their
>internal TCO study found Linux too high compared to Windows NT.
>
And what company would that be?
Thanks for bringing up Disney. They made TRON
with a non-windows based computer also.
I almost forgot that.
As far as your comment about Disney not using Linux
or FreeBSD to do animation work, your fucked.
Nobody does any sort of animation work on Windows
anywhere.
You couldn't point us to one web site which does.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:00:42 GMT
On Fri, 8 Dec 2000 22:43:27 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Anonymous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >Nobody else is using the term that way.
>>
>> I disagree. Regardless, it is the most accurate, consistent, and
>> practical way to use the term.
>>
>> >In fact, according to everyone else
>> >but you, you can disable TCP/IP in Linux simply by removing the IP from
>all
>> >cards (including loopback).
>>
>> That's because they don't understand what "disable TCP/IP" means in the
>> context of both your and their use of the term. Nor do you.
>
>Oh, that's right. You're omnipotent. NOBODY else knows what they're
>talking about, not even other Linux advocates with years of experience.
>
>> No, the subject is that you have to reboot to remove or add the TCP/IP
>> protocol (later you redacted that to disabled the bindings, using the
>> fact that nobody was being very careful of the difference early in the
>> thread), when you shouldn't have to, since unlike Linux, TCP/IP isn't
>> built into the kernel. It steams you pretty bad that this shows Windows
>> in such a bad light, since there's no conceivable reason but bad design
>> that something that isn't built into the kernel requires rebooting to
>> function correctly, not on a modern competitive OS, anyway.
>
>No. I stated you had to reboot to remove TCP/IP either in Windows or Linux.
>Others in this thread started saying "Why remove it when you can merely
>disable it" and when I said you could disable it the same way under Windows,
>you made the claim that you couldn't.
>
No that isn't what you said Fukenbush. You said you could remove
TCP/IP from Windows without rebooting. And I said you were full
of shit then. And I'm saying your full of shit now as you can't
remove the TCP/IP stack from the Windows kernel {KNOT-----HEAD}
To DISABLE TCP/IP you HAVE to re-boot Windows to do it.
To DISABLE TCP/IP in Linux you DON'T That's DO NOT have to reboot.
And you can stuff it with that OTHERS SAID bullcrap as any fool
can go back in the thread and read exactly what you said.
And you are still a silly ass weasel liar.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 23:16:49 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
>
> "Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Swangoremovemee wrote:
> >
> > > This group is your best source for that type of information because
> > > the penguin people love to spew that sort of garbage generally at
> > > about the same time the Windows users start talking about
> > > applications.
> >
> > Uptime is usually a server consideration. There are 2 mail servers on
> > linux, sendmail and postfix, that are head and shoulders above the 1 win
> > offering of note in terms of reliability and scalability. There are 2
> > http servers, apache and tux, that beat the hell out of the 1 win
> > offering of note in terms of reliability.
>
> Which one win offering were you referring to: Domino/Notes, SMTP, Exchange,
> Groupwise or the old MS Mail?
Domino exists on many server platforms including linux. Domino is
integrating sendmail into their next release to improve its scalability
and reliability. SMTP is the name of the protocol that all of these
servers use. MS mail is not an enterprise mail server. Haven't tried
groupwise. Guess that leaves exchange.
>
> >
> > Of course, 3 of those 4 applications will run on solaris and bsd, so
> > that puts windows a distant 4th in terms of reliability in terms of http
> > and smtp server applications. Throw in ircd and inn and now we have 4
> > of the major protocols on 3 platforms that windows can't match in terms
> > of application reliability.
> >
> > Typical of a winvocate to think that application = end user
> > application.
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://salvador.venice.ca.us
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:09:00 GMT
[snips]
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well I'll tell you...
>
> What's bad about your TRUTH is it's bullshit.
> Linux is a better graphics station. The proof can
> be found in many places but the one I like the best
> is the FACT the movie Titanic was made using Linux.
Umm... wasn't Linux used to run the render farm? He's talking things like
color correction, which would seem to indicate he's using the graphics
design/editing end of things - and telling you that Linux can't hold up in
_that_ arena.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:23:40 GMT
Marty writes:
>> Lee Sau Dan writes:
>>>>>> The fact that it needs to be learned is what makes something
>>>>>> not intuitive.
>>>>> So, walking and talking are intuitive, aren't they?
>>>> Did I say that walking and talking do not need to be
>>>> learned?
>>> I was to tired. :(
>>>
>>> So, walking and talking aren't intuitive, are they?
>> Well, I don't know of any infant that just happens to start
>> speaking some language not heard from the person or persons
>> rearing it. Do you?
> Do you comprehend baby-talk
I comprehend your "infantile game", Marty.
> or are you of the school of thought that it is gibberish?
Your "infantile game" is pretty useless, Marty.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[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: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:10:03 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:10:15 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >[snips]
> >
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> I read these kinds of contests every day and I wonder why people
> >> are stupid enough to have them?
> >
> >Dunno... but you proceeded to start one anyway, didn't you?
> >
> >
>
>
> This is the answer to my posting?
>
> You don't get brownie points here for being an asshole
> unless you have a point to make.
>
> Where's YOUR point?
I think you just made it for me. :)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:26:02 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> Are you claiming to have detachable fingers?
>> No more so than Steve Mading.
> Since Dave was feeling espeicially pendantic,
No more so than you.
> I've adjusted my statement, to, "Okay, it does require a puny amount
> of movment of the arm to get the pinkie up to the esc key, but it's
> so tiny and trivial that it never entered into my consious thought,
> and it doesn't fucking matter, since it it's merely a 'stretch'
> motion, which doesn't make you lose your place, like a 'swing' motion
> does.
I'll adjust my statement as well: "Okay, it does require a puny amount
of movement of the arm to get the pinkie down to the cursor keys, but
it's so tiny and trivial that it never entered into my conscious thought,
and it doesn't matter, since it it's merely a 'stretch' motion, which
doesn't make you lose your place, like a 'swing' motion does.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:32:00 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>> And that somehow makes the use of hjkl for cursor movement intuitive?
> It is neither intuitive nor non-intuitive, since the term is so
> relative that you've have to spend a long time detailing all the
> user's previous circumstances before you can make a statement
> either way on it.
How many users have previous editor experience where the cursor is
controlled by the hjkl keys?
> Simply saying, "never used vi before" isn't enough.
Fortunately, I've said more than that.
> I never used it before, the first time I got my hands on
> it, but I picked it up fast. And no, I didn't like it at first,
> I hated the HJKL thing.
Liking or hating it isn't the issue. The issue is whether the cursor
movement using those keys was intuitive or not.
> But I *did* remember it and not have to waste time looking it up,
Remember it from what?
> so it wasn't a matter of intuitiveness that made me hate it - it
> was that I thought modal editing took too many keystrokes,
> constantly switching modes.
That is one of my dislikes as well.
> After I got really fast at it, and could compare, I was seeing that
> the modal editing was actually faster for me, precisely becuase I
> had less keys to have to cover with my fingers.
It's slower for me. So what? Speed wasn't the issue either.
Actually, I'm quite surprised at how much the discussion has
diverged from the issue. Seems like vi fans are trying to defend
their choice of editor, as if the comment that the use of hjkl for
cursor movement being non-intuitive was some sort of attack against
which a defense had to be mounted.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:30:13 GMT
On Fri, 08 Dec 2000 20:19:31 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux ABSOULUTELY supports USB, it just doesn't support anything plugged
>into it except the latest Microsoft Mice (Gee, and I thought we were
>banishing Billy here?) and a few Logitech USB devices (might as well be
>Microsoft)
>
>It's the little things, like the DEVICES we use, not the PLUG we use.
Actually USB devices work very well unless they are designed specifically
for Windows (known as Win (PCI) modems, Win printers etc.). Next time don't
buy devices designed just for Ms windows if you want to run Linux. You could
buy devices supported by Linux, Mac, DOS and Windows at the same time but,
you didn't. It's clearly your fault. My HP DeskJet 842C USB connected works
fine.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:39:37 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>> Fortunately, I didn't make such a blanket statement. My comment
>>>> was restricted to the use of hjkl for cursor movement. That's a
>>>> rather small subset of vi.
>>> Well, then we'll just have to disagree then. I don't think
>>> that's true for the first time user who hasn't gotten any
>>> preconcieved notions from using other editors first. You think
>>> it is.
>> Are you saying that the first-time user *will* know that hjkl
>> moves the cursor around???
> No, I'm not.
Then where did your "You think it is" come from?
> Just that this isn't any *MORE* counter-intuitive
> than anything else a text editor does.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't compare its intuitiveness or lack
thereof to any other things a text editor does.
> Let's go back to that example you cited earlier, where a user has
> been used to typewriters previously but not computers.
That wasn't my example.
> You said that such a person would intuitively think that hitting
> a letter will put it up on the page.
Somebody else said that, but it's reasonable.
> But you neglected to mention that that user also would think
> that hitting 'space' over written text would merely advance one
> column over (like vi does),
Not in insert mode.
> not insert new text or overwrite it with a blank.
It wasn't my example in which to neglect something.
> You also didn't mention that such a user would expect that if he
> hits 'return' on some already written text, that he will merely
> advance one line down (like vi does),
Not in insert mode.
> not split the line at that point.
It wasn't my example in which to neglect something.
> He would also expect that the lowercase 'l' is the same thing as
> hitting the digit '1'.
Not necessarily.
> He would also expect that hitting a 'c', a backspace, then a '/'
> will generate a cent-sign.
Not necessarily.
> Text editors aren't intuitive at all to someone who's never used
> one.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they are.
> The arrow keys and the hjkl keys are both just as unintuitive
> (why is the down-arrow in-line with the right and left arrows?)
I disagree. Plenty of other programs move things around with the
cursor keys, thus someone new to an editor, but with experience
using other programs, could find cursor movement with the cursor
keys to be quite intuitive.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2000 07:41:16 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>> Not exactly uncommon. When my VCR is "off", it's still on by
>>>> enough to keep a clock running and monitor its programming to
>>>> determine whether to turn "on" (or should I say "more on") and
>>>> record a program. Doesn't make the power switch any less
>>>> intuitive.
>>> Actually, I would say that that sort of power switch is highly
>>> unintuitive. Intuitively, you'd expect that turning something
>>> off would, you know, actually turn it off.
>> Depends on what you consider "off" to be. When you turn your
>> microwave oven off, do you expect it to lose the time? (Yes,
>> that does presuppose an oven with a clock on the display.
>> Are there any new models that don't have one of those built in?)
> I haven't seen any microwaves with an on/off button lately.
Okay then, "Start/Stop", if you must be pedantic.
> If they had them, then yeah, I'd expect them to at least turn
> the display off, and go down to a trickle that only serves
> to maintain a few K of RAM (for the clock and maybe some programs)
> (which takes very little power, as evidenced by calculators and
> watches, and could be done by battery like it is for CMOS
> settings on computers.)
Even with the display on, it could still be a trickle.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
