Linux-Advocacy Digest #833, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Windows review ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Windows review (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Uptimes ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: switching to linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action (Bob Hauck)
Re: Finding hardware compatible with Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: suggest me one which can handle multiple POP3 email addresses? ("Jackal Jack")
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows ("Jackal Jack")
Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Tim Smith)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Tim Smith)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Matthew Soltysiak)
Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!) (Matthew Soltysiak)
Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!) (Matthew Soltysiak)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Finding hardware compatible with Linux ("mmnnoo")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:43:47 GMT
"SwifT -" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000, Nick Ruisi wrote:
>
> > Anyway, who the hell wants the old "your network settings have
> > changed, press any key to reboot" message on a production server?
>
> Although Linux is still far ahead of Microsoft on that point (networking),
> this example has exceeded his end-date. Microsoft Windows 2000 can change
> it's settings without rebooting.
The capability is greatly exagerated. Try changing the netbios name.
Or loading software written for NT that still tells you to reboot.
Maybe you have to, maybe you don't. Would you rather reboot
now or find out later something isn't working?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:46:26 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9158hu$dbd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > >
> > > > The folders aren't so much of a problem as the menus because you
> > > > can at least type one letter of a name to jump somewhere that might
> > > > be close (depending...).
> > >
> > > Why are the menus a problem?
> >
> > How do you get 'close' to something in a menu, or temporarily
> > sort it to float the thing you want to the top?
>
> You type the uderlined letter.
The Start/Programs menu doesn't have any.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:51:33 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9158hv$dbd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Once you put enough things in a handy place it turns out not to be handy
> > any more.
>
> How many things are you talking about?
A hundred or so are already annoying.
> You've desktop, quick launch, assortment of bars of your choice, start
menu,
> programs, how long do you think it will take you to fill all of them?
About a day. If I did everything through a GUI there would have to be
thousands.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:55:25 GMT
"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:GnqZ5.58636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Exactly. One of the key benefits of a GUI is that even if you have no
clue
> what to do next, you can generally find it fairly handily.
I think a better way to say this is that a GUI makes it easier to
do something even if you don't know the right thing to do. But
it may not be the right thing.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:01:30 GMT
"Monkeyboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gary Connors
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Do check again, anyone with root privileges and not enough knowledge
> > > can
> > > crush a *nix, or any other OS, for that matter.
> > >
> >
> > Going willy-nilly in root is a far cry from Win2K hosing itself when you
> > install a wrong application.
>
>
> You said "...regardless of the user...". That includes privileges of ALL
> kinds.
>
No, with real computers the user is not the same as the administrator.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:07:21 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 11 Dec 2000 23:13:46 -0600, Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >> W2k was Microsoft's worst seller yet.
> >
> >Flat wrong. It's beaten EVERY single sales goal MS has set for it.
>
> I don't think your response addresses Charlie's point.
>
>
> >> And Linux's popularity in non-us countries show's
> >> growth rates above 40% per year depending on
> >> country.
> >
> >gee, a 40% increase in zambobwie from 10 to 14 copies - whopieee!
>
> What's the Linux share of the server market? More than 14 copies I think.
>
OK We'll concede 15 copies in Zimbabwe.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:07:27 GMT
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GnqZ5.58636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Exactly. One of the key benefits of a GUI is that even if you have no
> clue
> > what to do next, you can generally find it fairly handily.
>
> I think a better way to say this is that a GUI makes it easier to
> do something even if you don't know the right thing to do. But
> it may not be the right thing.
The funny thing is that most of the functionality of a GUI can
be achieved by text-based windows, such as supported by ncurses or
by the old Borland TurboVision library (which I really liked a lot!)
You linux dudes (with Red Hat) can try the "linuxconf" (GUI) versus
"linuxconf --text" (curses!).
And, hey, the goddam election is finally over! Woo hoo!
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:14:48 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 06:36:42 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:912q3f$b6d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >Quite well, since my customers are intelligent enough not to specify
> >Linux I
>
> Yes, it would be dense of them to ask a Microsoft Partner for a Linux
> solution.
>
We have suggested them in some cases but been shot down by the cost of
administration.
>
> >had to provide another example. BTW his figure for a 100 Seat NT/Win2k
> >Network is more on the order of $3-4K, and the only way it would cost
$10K
> >would be including some massive hardware costs. For instance the server
and
> >ALL the workstations.
>
> The way I read that you are saying that you can buy a server and 100
> workstations for $10K. That's a hellava deal there, $100 per station.
> Tell you what, I'll put up $10K and buy the 100 PC's. I'm pretty sure I
> can make a profit on the deal.
>
We are going to make a profit for the deal. In this case, however, the
customer already has the hardware. We are just supplying the network
software.
> I'd believe $3-$4K for CALS and W2K Server, maybe, that's $30 to $40 per
> seat. That probably doesn't include any client software licenses
> though. How much for 100 seats of Office? Now, how much for 100 seats
> of StarOffice?
>
This is a school installation and no applications are specified, the
stations are designated for student Internet training and use.
We get very good pricing for Office but would be happy to install Star
Office for anyone dumb enough to insist on it. Fortunately for our
customers, most of them haven't heard of it. We may be an MSP but we also
supply whatever the customer desires MS Solution or not, note to the
conspiracy theorists, we aren't limited by any agreement to only supplying
MS Software the pricing is simply hard to beat.
>
> >> BOTH netcraft and www.uptimes.net show, then the cost of trouble
> >> shooting W2K is much higher than the Unixes.
> >
> >Proof please.
> >
> >I mean some real world figures, because actual users of these platforms
> >disagree with you.
>
> Who? Microsoft? You're the one proposing a proprietary solution based
> on TCO savings covering the license costs. You provide the proof.
>
You provide proof other than Netcraft and uptimes that show Windows harder
to administer, my experience tells me otherwise.
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: switching to linux
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:06:52 GMT
In article <916fdc$331$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"migs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> hi...
> im thinking of switching to linux and have installers for redhat
> caldera, suse, and slackware.
> is there any diff between these distriburtions??? if so what are the
pros
> and cons??
Caldera's Lizard installer is the best of the bunch. Excellent hardware
detection, good interface, a newbie's dream. Good integration with
Novell if that matters.
SuSe, very popular in Europe for good reason, very complete, a nice
clean package and a decent installer. Latest release has more current
packages than Caldera.
Redhat, can be finicky, geared towards server administrators who know
their way around UNIX/Linux and aren't afraid to RTFM. RH 7.0 is mildly
buggy, as are all RH releases ending in zero. Wait for 7.1 or later.
Slackware. A trip down memory lane.
I'd go with Caldera first, and either Suse or Redhat second. Depends on
your ability and your requirements. But what the... you've got them
all, why not install every one of them and then let us know how it
worked out? That'd be interesting to hear your opinions about them.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:43:43 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 00:49:17 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Grin: reminds me of when the last place I worked for (U S West, information
>technologies) took the slogan "life is better here". Within days, everyone
>around the office was using the slogan "life is bitter here."
That's what QWorst's customers say too <grin>.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Finding hardware compatible with Linux
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:38:58 GMT
In article <915mu2$msb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm looking at getting a new system in the new year, but I'm looking
to
> find which hardware (modems, video cards, etc) will work with Linux.
> Is there a good site anywhere that will tell me what works and what
> doesn't?
Some general rules of thumb....
Make sure the motherboard doesn't have anything integrated; stick with
physically separate sound, video, and modem cards.
Avoid buying any peripherals that don't say on the box "supports Windows
3.1". If the box says only Win95/98 and not Win31, its probably a
host-based controller or controllerless periph. In other words, a
Windows-only product. Better yet, the box should say "supports Linux".
For video, have a look at the XFree86 website for the latest video card
info. It seems to be changing almost daily.
For audio, see either the ALSA-project website, or the OSS supported
hardware list. Unlike ALSA, OSS isn't free, but supports darn near
everything on the market.
Once you pick a distro, look at the hardware list on their site.
Of course the easiest way is to buy a system built from the ground up to
run Linux. I just priced a gaming box at Linuxboxen.com, and the cost
was competetive with the Windows-only vendors. I'm not endorsing
Linuxboxen since I haven't yet purchased anything from them, I'm just
using them as an example that there are vendors out there that now cater
specifically to the Linux crowd.
Good luck. Let us know what you got after Christmas is over.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Jackal Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: suggest me one which can handle multiple POP3 email addresses?
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 13:35:53 +0800
Outlook Express with VMWare.
news <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91487i$2su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I have installed RedHat 6. It's working fine. The KDE can handle dialup
very
> efficiently. But I need an email client. I have visited the site.
>
>
> can anyone suggest me one which can handle multiple POP3 email addresses?
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Joarder
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Jackal Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: no.alt.arkiv,tw.bbs.comp.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 11:55:41 +0800
Paul Colquhoun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
wrote:
> That report is 18 months old. Here is a more recent report
> where Linux outperforms Windows by about 3 to 1
>
> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-07-05-001-04-OP
>
> 18 months is a long time in the computer industry.
The two machines have DIFFERENT hardware configurations. There is no base
for comparision. This report does not show that Linux outperforms Windows in
any sense... :-|
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:08:24 GMT
Open source is dying. It is being hijacked by the Corporate big wigs. Sun,
Corel, Redhat and IBM are doing everyone a favor by destroying the anarchy
that is open source software. I just started a download of StarOffice 5.2.
(no new development since its appropriation by Sun over a year ago) and had
to submit a lengthy registration document and license agreement with Sun.
Free software indeed. Now I have an additional, largely useless, office
application, but I'll be bombarded by advertising from Sun. I'd rather pay
and not have these intrusions into my life.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: 12 Dec 2000 19:50:01 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Swango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Windows 2000 rocks and Linux is a sluggard if ever there was one. I
>tried Redhat and took the server install option and it promptly wiped
>out my entire hard disk. Fortunately I had a backup but what if I
>didn't?
Let me see if I understand this. You selected an option that is clearly
documented as being for people who want to wipe their entire systems and
turn them into Linux servers, and you are surprised that it wiped your
entire system and turned it into a Linux server?
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: 12 Dec 2000 19:59:22 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:24:16 GMT, kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, Microsoft includes features into their products (such as the
>clippy in the MSOffice) that are useless as an ejection seat in a
>helicopter.
Why would an ejection seat be useless in a helicopter? (Hint: some
ejection seats eject down).
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:14:11 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> Open source is dying. It is being hijacked by the Corporate big wigs. Sun,
> Corel, Redhat and IBM are doing everyone a favor by destroying the anarchy
> that is open source software.
Ok???? That's the first time i've heard of that. Open source that's
anarchy. Hmm.
> I just started a download of StarOffice 5.2.
> (no new development since its appropriation by Sun over a year ago) and had
> to submit a lengthy registration document and license agreement with Sun.
> Free software indeed. Now I have an additional, largely useless, office
> application, but I'll be bombarded by advertising from Sun. I'd rather pay
> and not have these intrusions into my life.
You don't have to provide your personal information to them. Just fill in
their fields with garbage information. Geez.
--
Matthew Soltysiak
Comp Sci/Soft Eng
ICQ: 3063118
------------------------------
From: Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:25:27 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
> I'm a self employed electronics person, who uses Linux
> exclusively to design electronic equipment, mostly micro
> processor controlled, and to do that, I use the wide range
> of applications available that run under Linux.
What software do you use under Linux for that? Most i've seen are garbage
compared to the commercial equivalents. Just out of curiousity.
>
>
> Could I do this under Windows, ..for sure, tho it would cost
> a lot more, and offer little, if not less for the extra money.
>
Really? Many would disagree with you. Actually, the whole industry would
disagree with you.
--
Matthew Soltysiak
Comp Sci/Soft Eng
ICQ: 3063118
------------------------------
From: Matthew Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real power of Linux (cry Winbabies cry!)
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:26:29 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Dec 2000 15:58:58 GMT,
> Keith Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
> >>I'm a self employed electronics person, who uses Linux
> >>exclusively to design electronic equipment, mostly micro
> >>processor controlled, and to do that, I use the wide range
> >>of applications available that run under Linux.
> >>
> >>Could I do this under Windows, ..for sure, tho it would cost
> >>a lot more, and offer little, if not less for the extra money.
> >
> >So your point is that the job can be successfully done on a Windows box with
> >no loss of functionality (little, if not less for the extra money), but that
> >in the case of Windows we should feel bad because a programmer actually earned
> >a living.
> >
> >Ah...
>
> No he doesn't give a flying shit how you feel. He's simply saying he
> get's a better deal for doing *his* work using Open Source
> products. If you wanna cry about it that's your problem.
Whoa, woman, take it easy. It seems you have a problem.
--
Matthew Soltysiak
Comp Sci/Soft Eng
ICQ: 3063118
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:19:13 GMT
Similar silliness from the transportation segment...
Hughes Air West == Hughes Air Worst
Republic Airlines == Repugnant Airlines
Southern Pacific == Suffering Pathetic
Denver and Rio Grande Western == Dangerous and Rapidly Getting Worse
It's not just software vendors.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Finding hardware compatible with Linux
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 04:45:43 GMT
I find the 'hardware compatibility' lists useless. You never know
whether it is the most recent version, or if it is complete, and
sometimes whether you're looking at the right list.
I think a much better strategy is to pick whatever hardware
you want, then do some searching on deja. If there is a
problem with the device, there will definitely be messages
about it, and you are likely to learn why it doesn't work as
well (i.e. "that won't work because it's a usb scanner and none
of them work with linux" (which may no longer be a fair example
for all I know))
In article <915mu2$msb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi, I'm looking at getting a new system in the new year, but I'm looking
> to find which hardware (modems, video cards, etc) will work with Linux.
> Is there a good site anywhere that will tell me what works and what
> doesn't?
>
> Thanks.
> Mike
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
