Linux-Advocacy Digest #848, Volume #30 Wed, 13 Dec 00 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Jeff Glatt)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Jeff Glatt)
Predicting the Future ("Bracy")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (.)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: switching to linux (DeAnn)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Predicting the Future (Swangoremovemee)
Re: Linux doesn't support P4 (spicerun)
Re: Uptimes (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:46:28 GMT
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Jeff Glatt writes:
>
>> Steve Mading wrote:
>
>>>> The Ghost In The Machine writes:
>
>>>>> And then there are the laptops.... :-) Some of those can get
>>>>> downright weird.
>
>>>> Which is why Steve was being rather presumptuous.
>
>>> I admit it - I was being presumptuous in assuming that if you had
>>> some unique keyboard layout that was different, that you'd (1) be
>>> honest enough to say so in this discussion, and (2) realize that
>>> youi're being silly to argue the merits of key layouts for editors
>>> based on a very unique situation that won't work for others.
>>> I apologise for presuming you would be honest and forthcoming.
>>> Now I know not to make that mistake again.
>> Yay! More negative comments about Tholen for the digest!
>No doubt you'll completely ignore the fact that I was honest and
>forthcoming.
Steve was completely honest and forthcoming in stating that he
considers you to not be honest and forthcoming. This is hardly a
unique opinion of you. Many others have expressed similiar sentiments.
Would you like to read those?
>> They just keep rolling in from more and more usenet posters, day
>> after day!
>And you keep ignoring the facts, day after day.
You keep denying that all of these people think you're a jerk and
fool.
>No surprise there.
No surprise there
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:54:50 GMT
>Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>You play a game where he with the most free time wins the debate (just
>keep denying what the opponent says, and keep repeating the same
>questions until the other guy quits.)
Oh, I like this quote better. It's more explicit in its criticism of
Tholen, and more damning. And unlike Tholen, I don't fill my digest of
comments with quotes by the same two or three people. My very lenghty
digest includes quotes from a very large demographic of usenet posters
who all think that he's an asshole, fool, and nutcase. Here's one very
interesting treatise upon Tholen by Brad Wardell, one of OS/2's most
successful ISV's:
From: "Brad Wardell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Tholen Killfiled...
Message-ID: <AJkt3.604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 14 Aug 1999 20:56:00 GMT
Some years ago, I had a generally positive view of Dave Tholen, a
regular
OS/2 supporter because of his contribution to the community via
moderating
os2.announce. I was a participant, even then those days, in
os2.advocacy,
largely confined to advocating OS/2 versus the then vaporous Windows
NT 3.1.
A couple later, there was a discussion on here about what OS/2
software
developers and publishers should do with the OS/2 market collapsing.
During
the course of the discussion I advocated a cross-platform approach
which at
the time was villified by some of the more militant "advocates". Dave
Tholen amongst others suggested an alternative route - that ISVs
should
concentrate their efforts on the areas that OS/2 is strong in such as
banks
and other corporate niches.
In my response to his statement, I said that banks do not buy third
party OS/2 software, they buy OS/2 as a turnkey solution from their
IBM rep. This is still true today. Instead of recognizing my
experience in this area, Dave, fresh from arguing about voice
recognition technologies with Esther Schindler, the author of a voice
recognition software book, took it upon himself to begin trying to
disprove my statements.
At first, he argued that I was "wrong" because banks have purchased
third party OS/2 software -- that is, that I meant that literally no
bank in human history has ever purchased a single license of a non-IBM
OS/2 product. I had pointed out in subsequents posts (plural) that
this was not what was meant and that indeed, Stardock had sold many
licenses of its products to banks and other corporate entities. My
point was that an OS/2 ISV could not thrive making software
exclusively for banks or other areas where OS/2 is strong. The debate
degenerated from there and my opinion of him went from one where I
respected him as someone who was simply misunderstood to one
where I believed him to be weird or worse.
Since then, I had generally tried to just ignore Dave. I don't often
put people into my killfile in an advocacy group because well,
.advocacy can be a rough place and only the most extreme people should
be placed in a kill-file.
Many people have already kill-filed him. He's already been voted
Usenet Kook of the month twice so many people obviously decided to
flame him too. I tried ignoring him but he has repeatedly interupted
on-topic threads I've been involved in to antagonize me.
In reality, Dave deserves the flaming he gets because he purposely
goes out of his way to antagonize lots of people who in turn flame him
for it.
So what exactly makes people want to flame him?
It's his style of antagonism and quantity of it. Dave, and apparently
a few others, mistakenly think that robotic dialog is the same as
logic. Let me illustrate:
If I were to post "The sky is blue."
Dave might choose to say:
"The sky is not blue at night."
or
"Define 'blue'."
Let's then add that the discussion this statement was in was about
video hardware and someone made the sky comment offhandedly. Dave
would proceed to hijack the discussion and turn it into a semantical
debate on the color of the sky. He would never try to prove anything,
he would merely try to prove that the sky not always blue all of the
time. Over time, he would then broaden your statement into a
completely different meaning in order to antagonize someone. "Just
like you thought it is daytime 24 hours per day in Norway."
You do this sort of thing enough times to enough people and you will
either be kill filed a lot and/or flamed a lot which both are true in
Dave's case.
One of the more basic flaws in Dave's reasoning is what I call a
failure to comprehend the law of thresholds. In many cases, these
thresholds are determined by consensus in a community. This is where
Dave really fairs poorly.
For instance:
I would argue that most people would agree that compiling a program
and offering it for sale does not make you an OS/2 ISV except in the
most literal sense. But at the same time, by definition, writing a
program and offering it for sale DOES make you an ISV (independent
software vendor). The difference only becomes relevant when you choose
to talk to actual human beings who are interested in relevancy, not
technical definitions.
I would also argue that being an OS/2 ISV does not necessarily mean
you have influence (except in the most technical sense).
If I can change a single OS/2 user's mind I can factually state that I
have influence on the OS/2 market.
Now to bring home my point about logic:
However, it would not be logical to conclude "I have influence on the
OS/2 market" because that statement does not pass the law of
thresholds because there is an unspoken consensus that when someone
makes that statement they are meaning that they have a certain,
unspecificly large amount of support over a multitude of OS/2 users.
But Dave will do this over and over again. And he'll even object if
someone uses the same reasoning in return in areas that matter to him.
Dave will claim to be an OS/2 ISV simply because he has compiled an
OS/2 program and made it available for sale at some point. His
statement is correct in a technical sense but when conversing with
human beings, people go by thresholds, not absolute minimum. Like I
said, Dave himself objects when people apply the same reasoning:
When I pointed out that I had taught undergraduate courses at Western
Michigan University fur a full year and therefore by his reasoning
that makes me an educator, Dave didn't like that. When I stated I was
an astronomer because I had a telescope and have looked up in the
heavens he didn't like that either. Why? Because both my statements
fail the law of thresholds -- that unspoken consensus that when I say
I'm an educator or an astromer that that those activities represent a
large portion of my time -- which they don't. Just like Dave's
statement about being an OS/2 ISV does not hold up to the law of
thresholds.
It's the law of thresholds that keeps people from spewing all sorts of
irrelevant nonsense. If people didn't follow it, communication would
break down. If someone asked what you did for a living you could
answer everything you've ever done that has earned money for instance.
Dave alone chooses not to follow the norms of society by behaving
contrary to the law of thresholds.
So at this point, it becomes clear that Dave substitutes irrelevant
facts for logic and most posts degenerate into proving or disproving
whether someone's "Fact" is true or not instead of trying to prove or
disprove that the position the other person took is logical or not.
Therefore, since most debates will ultimately require at some point
that the law of thresholds be applied -- that is, that both parties
must agree that there's a consensus on certain terms, phrases, and
states, and Tholen either can't or chooses not to accept that there is
a consensus on hardly anything, it is impossible to hold a normal
conversation with him.
As a result, I am choosing to kill-file him since he can't seem to
avoid trying to pull me into his irrelevant discussions and flaming
him doesn't seem to encourage him to stop trying to pull me into his
irrelevant discussions.
As a reality check to all those in this news group, when you read
someone's post, pretend that everyone here, me, you, whoever, are in
the same room. Now imagine what the response people would get if they
spoke as they write in this room. Does anyone, who has actually read
Tholen's posts in depth, think that Dave would be able to walk out of
the room at the end of the day without someone having clobbered him
for the way he acts?
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Predicting the Future
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:22:23 GMT
Considering we already have at least four distributions who have reached
the "Version 7.0" range (Mandrake 7.2, Red Hat 7.0, Suse 7.0, Slackware
7.1), I predict that in about four to five years, we'll see the following
headlines:
"Linux Mandrake Version 34.2 Released!"
"Red Hat 29.0 Now Shipping"
"LinuxWorld Takes a First Looks at SuSE 31.4"
"Debian 2.6.0 now available"
;-)
Bracy
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:59:09 GMT
On Tue, 12 Dec 2000 21:22:25 -0800, Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Funny you should mention Drestin and MSFT stock in the
>same sentence. Anyone recall Drestin's recommendation
>on COMNA (back around Valentine's Day IIRC) to buy
>MSFT (at over 100) because MSFT *always* goes up
>upon a new OS release - W2K at the time. He sure
>got that one right, didn't he? MSFT closed at 58 and
>change today - a 40+ % loss.
And RedHat is closing offices all over the world including one in New
England.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:00:48 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:58:00 +1300, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I try to be optimistic, however, the dickhead swango who can't even
>config, his computer puts real doubts about humanities ability to RTFM!
They can't even read an election ballot and you are expecting them to
run Linux?
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: 13 Dec 2000 18:01:20 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/15416.html
Wow, theyre even nice enough to tell you exactly how to do the
10 second workaround.
So actually, linux DOES install on a P4, and you still dont know
what youre talking about.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:03:22 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 05:35:11 GMT, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You have missed the point completely. Windows 98SE is compiled and
>optimized to work with the lowest grade processor possible (486), hence,
>the very poor speed improvement once the processor is upgraded (say from
>a PII to PIII). Compare that to Linux, where, if I have the latest
>processor, and Linux can recognise it, you have the ability to optimize
>the kernel to utilize the processor to its compacity.
Now if it only supported USB hardware properly like Windows and Mac.
If it only had a decent non pre-alpha web browser.
>If you RTFM that is included with your distro (like the huge one
>included with SuSE Linux), unless you are a complete moron, anyone
>should be able to compile a kernel.
You haven't tried to compile a kernel under Redhat 7 yet have you?
Try following the How-To and see if it works.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (DeAnn)
Subject: Re: switching to linux
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:59:33 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 08:12:22 +0800, "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??
>
>
Any of the major distributions is a reasable choice. Some
specific advantages of a few are listed below. Note, you can get the
GPL version of many distributions at places like cheapbytes.com and
"try out" a variety of distributions very cheaply. Any of the
following would be a good choice.
Red Hat: dominates US market, so more local help may be available.
Good longevity.
Mandrake: said to be the slickest at installing on newest hardware.
Suse. Full version comes with by far the most miscellaneous software.
An engineer's installer (allows a fair amount of control if you want
it, goes fairly push button if you don't). Good longevity. My
personal all-around favorite--because of all the good software and
reasonably good updater.
Slackware: Very flexible for old, odd hardware. Said to be most
;unix-standard. Upgrading means reinstalling (this is a
disadvantage). The only version I've been able to install on a ZIP
disk in UMSDOS--for when you really want AWK, etc. but have to use a
DOSWIN machine.
Debian. Totally GPL. Very flexible. Very good for old, small,
computers. Updates slowly (can be advantage or disadvantage,
depending on user prefererences). Very good updater. A bit harder to
install than most, but also more flexible if you are trying to do
unusual things like install via PPP. A contender for my personal
favorite, and a definite best on " very small" machines.
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:07:46 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 07:39:31 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wrong. Getting devices to work is the responsibility of the
>device manufacturer....to provide working device drivers.
As far as Linux is concerned it doesn't really matter because from the
consumer's point of view, if it doesn't work, it doesn't work and they
will look elsewhere.
If that person has a lot of money invested in hardware, like a
pre-load for example, they are not going to re-purchase hardware just
for the joy of running Linux unless they have a very specific reason
to do so.
And that, considering the dismal amount of quality desktop
applications available for Linux, is not going to happen.
ie: So how many people do YOU know running StarOffice? I'll even let
you include the Windows version in your tally.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Swangoremovemee<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: al.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Predicting the Future
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 18:19:42 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 17:22:23 GMT, "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Considering we already have at least four distributions who have reached
>the "Version 7.0" range (Mandrake 7.2, Red Hat 7.0, Suse 7.0, Slackware
>7.1), I predict that in about four to five years, we'll see the following
>headlines:
>
>"Linux Mandrake Version 34.2 Released!"
>"Red Hat 29.0 Now Shipping"
>"LinuxWorld Takes a First Looks at SuSE 31.4"
Seeing as Redhat is closing down some of it's offices I suspect you
may have to remove one of those from your list.
Swango
"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux doesn't support P4
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 12:25:40 -0600
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/15416.html
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
If that was entirely true, then the second line in the article you cited
wouldn't state like it does in the following (in part):
"Intel itself confirms that only Red Hat and TurboLinux will install on
the P4,..."
Had you cared to get the whole story, you'd would have also seen this
tidbit via Slashdot.org:
http://www.linuxgram.com/newsitem.phtml?sid=108&aid=11373
where it states:
" Linux distributions like Caldera, Intel investment SuSE, MandrakeSoft
and Corel won't install because there's no information on the Pentium 4
in their CPUID databases. The data is needed to properly identify a CPU
during the install process. Without a Pentium 4 ID the installation
simply halts. Once new databases are ready, Intel says, just about any
Linux distribution should run. When the other Linux vendors will have
those databases ready is unclear."
Pete keeps claiming he isn't a Wintroll, yet he makes these posts that
don't tell the entire story....misinformation if you will...that favor
unjustified discrediting of Linux systems. Despite Pete's attempt to
imply that Linux doesn't and won't support Pentium 4, the truth is that
there are 2 distributions of Linux that do support the Pentium 4, and
others could be supporting it as soon as they make a small change as
shown in the above quote and article referred to by above link. And the
real bottom line isn't that Linux won't support Pentium 4s, it is that
some ditributions won't install themselves because they currently don't
recognize the Pentium 4. I'll bet Slackware will install just fine
seeing that Slackware relies on the user to tell it what it installs on.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 19:00:18 GMT
On Wed, 13 Dec 2000 03:14:48 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"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:
>> >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.
Is that after you showed them Microsoft's TCO study where they compared
Linux to commercial Unix on proprietary hardware and then tried to claim
that Linux == Unix as far as TCO? They sorta glossed over the fact that
NT's lower TCO was largely based on the use of commodity hardware, which
a Linux solution would also support, and cheaper admins, which seems to
get less true every day.
MS has a serious problem in the server space. They seem to know it too,
thus the spewing of "studies".
>> >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.
>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.
Are we talking about the same thing? Read what you wrote up above
there. You said that $10K "would be including some massive hardware
costs...ALL the workstations". $10K, 100 users, you do the math. I
don't think the $10K figure includes hardware for 100 users unless
you're giving them hardware you bought at Computer Renaissance.
>> 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.
But for business users you'd need applications. So the $3K figure is a
lowball figure. $10K isn't an unrealistic number for 100 users after
you include installation and setup. An Open Source solution could come
in at $0 for licensing and a comparable amount for installation and
setup. You're going to have to save a lot of money on TCO to make up
for that. And you know it too, which is why you are claiming that
Windows is easier to admin.
>We get very good pricing for Office but would be happy to install Star
>Office for anyone dumb enough to insist on it.
However good your pricing, it is going to be considerably more than $0.
It seems to me that while Star Office may not be quite as good as
Office, it isn't worth -$200 per copy on the face of it. What is worth
-$200 per copy is the fear that you won't be "compatible". If Sun can
get StarOffice established, then that fear evaporates and MS has another
big problem.
>> >> 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.
Why? My solution is cheaper up front and I'm saying that admin costs
are roughly equal. So I'm cheaper overall. You're the one saying
something that equates to "spend money to save money". Anyway, I don't
think I have any proof that you will accept. My experience tells me
that you are wrong. Maybe which is easier has something to do with what
your experience is with.
There is some evidence though, such as the huge popularity of Linux
solutions with ISP's and web-hosting companies, who have to manage
dozens or hundreds of servers.
But, again, you're the one proposing a closed, proprietary, solution
with a high up-front cost, not me. You need to justify that cost.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.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
******************************
