Linux-Advocacy Digest #889, Volume #30 Thu, 14 Dec 00 21:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) (Marty)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (OT) (humor) (Marty)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Nobody wants Windows because it don't Super Computer. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (David Dorward)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (glitch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:39:55 GMT
In article <yP9_5.6921$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JFS was probably not that much work to port to Linux, since it already
ran
> on AIX. And DB2 is most certianly not free. I took "1500 Linux
developers"
> to mean 1500 people working on linux, not 1500 people working on code
that
> runs on linux.
>
> Even so, 1500 developers should be producing a ton more than this.
>
Tell me again, bwana, how many developers Microsoft had working on
Windows 2000. And all they produced was a single operating system.
Adding to the list....
Freeway, the new S/390 announced this week. Runs Linux. And Shark,
IBM's answer to EMC's storage subsystems, fully Linux enabled. The
press release is on C|Net if you're interested.
Considering the vast number of products that IBM offers, 1500 developers
is actually quite small.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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! (OT) (humor)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:48:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>>>>> David Ogg writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>
> >>>>>>>> Counting problems?
>
> >>>>>>> See what I mean about his illogic?
>
> >>>>>> What alleged illogic, Marty?
>
> >>>>> Are you suggesting that a counting problem is an attribute indicative
> >>>>> of being logical?
>
> >>>> I wasn't suggesting anything, Marty; I was asking a question.
>
> >>> Then why use the word "alleged"?
>
> >> Because you alleged illogic on my part, Marty.
>
> > I see that you are having more reading comprehension problems.
>
> How ironic.
Ah, so you also see your reading comprehension problem? Progress!
> > Why would I respond to you and refer to you in the third person?
>
> Why would you claim that the subject in another thread was not one-liners
> when it clearly was, Marty?
Non sequitur.
> Your odd behavior isn't always explainable.
You're erroneously presupposing "odd behavior" on my part.
Meanwhile, you've failed to answer the question. Figures.
> >> I see that you still haven't substantiated your claim.
>
> > I haven't made such a claim in this discussion.
>
> MA] See what I mean about his illogic?
"His" does not refer to you, as context clearly shows.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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! (OT) (humor)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 01:51:04 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> David Ogg wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Wow, you three should get a room!
>
> >>>>> PS: Thanks for providing the new "seed" for another "logical debate".
> >>>>> The old one was pretty-much spent.
>
> >>>> More like a new "infantile game" of yours, Marty.
>
> >>> Or more accurately, another opportunity for you to spew invective with
> >>> impunity.
>
> >> What alleged "invective", Marty?
>
> > DT] More like a new "infantile game" of yours, Marty.
>
> Where is the alleged invective, Marty?
Haven't you been paying attention? Here it is again:
DT] More like a new "infantile game" of yours, Marty.
> I'm simply using your own description for your own behavior.
Then you should have no trouble showing that I referred to my current behavior
in this way. Do so.
> >>>> But you don't need any seed for that.
>
> >>> On the contrary, I do, given that I have no idea how to play this
> >>> alleged "infantile game".
>
> >> Illogical, given that you described your behavior that way.
>
> > Prove that I have described my current behavior this way, if you think
> > you can.
>
> You're presupposing your ability to comprehend proof, Marty.
And for good reason.
> For example, I proved that the subject of another discussion was
> "one-liners",
Or more accurately, you pontificated to this effect.
> and yet you insisted that the subject was the example of a one-liner.
And for good reason.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:03:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Russ Lyttle writes:
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> >>>>>>>>> All this "unintuitive" behavior of power switches is causing a major
> >>>>>>>>> problem in California.
>
> >>>>>>>> Illogical. It is quite possible that people will generally know what
> >>>>>>>> to do with a power switch without needing to consult a manual, but will
> >>>>>>>> not generally know how much power is consumed in the on and off states.
> >>>>>>>> Consider the AC adaptor for a modem, for example. The power switch is
> >>>>>>>> on the modem, not the AC adaptor.
>
> >>>>>>> Logical. The behavior of the power switch changed from its traditional
> >>>>>>> role. People *think* it still works the way it did 10 years ago.
>
> >>>>>> Oh really? Your Curtis Mathes is older than that. You claim it kept
> >>>>>> the power on.
>
> >>>>> Yes, but it was very unusual for its time.
>
> >>>> Really? I had a clock-radio that when "off" kept the clock on. Very usual
> >>>> for its time.
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>> Its behavior isn't capable of being comprehended without logical thought.
>
> >>>>>> And with logical thought, the average consumer will know how much power
> >>>>>> is still being consumed by a unit even when the switch is in the off
> >>>>>> position? That's not the issue here.
>
> >>>>>>> (See definition of intuitive).
>
> >>>>>> Practice what you preach.
>
> >>>>>>> They are still trying to make decisions
> >>>>>>> based on the traditional use of the power switch - power cord setup.
>
> >>>>>> On the contrary, sounds like your example involves a mislabeled
> >>>>>> button. There is a difference between "video blank" and "power off".
> >>>>>> You've described the former. I've been talking about the latter.
>
> >>>>> No, they concern the device that serves as a power switch these days.
>
> >>>> An "off" switch that leaves 10 amps of power running isn't much of an
> >>>> off switch.
>
> >> Note: no response.
>
> Note: still no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>> The issue of all these devices still drawing power is keeping a
> >>>>>>>>> load on the system that it wasn't designed to handle.
>
> >>>>>>>> Are you suggesting that systems outside of California were somehow
> >>>>>>>> designed to handle it?
>
> >>>>>>> No. Outside CA, NY, and MA, there have been more plants built. These
> >>>>>>> plants are now selling some of their excess off peak power to CA. In the
> >>>>>>> past CA would sell power to Texas during the peak time in Texas and
> >>>>>>> Texas would sell to CA during the peak time there. Now the transfer is
> >>>>>>> all one way. To CA. But it is getting difficult for Texas utilities to
> >>>>>>> justify building more plants just to have power to sell to CA. They have
> >>>>>>> to justify the need for plants based on need in Texas.
>
> >>>>>> That has nothing to do with being designed to handle the load.
>
> >>>>>>>>> That coupled with lack of new power generation in California is putting
> >>>>>>>>> a strain on the system now, promising a major breakdown in the near
> >>>>>>>>> future.
>
> >>>>>>>> Sounds like those Californians are going to have to do without their
> >>>>>>>> 72-inch projection televisions. (Did your Curtis Mathes need 10 amps
> >>>>>>>> to keep its filament going?)
>
> >>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Relying to much on intuition and not enough on reason is going
> >>>>>>>>> to get a lot of people killed.
>
> >>>>>>>> The power consumed by a device in the off state has absolutely
> >>>>>>>> nothing to do with the issue of whether the power switch itself
> >>>>>>>> is intuitive.
>
> >>>>>> Note: no response.
>
> >>>>> OK, what is your intuitive concept of the operation of a power switch?
>
> >>>> One position is "on" and the other position is "off".
>
> >>> The switch marked "on" and "off" on my 1903A4 Springfield is a Power
> >>> Switch?
>
> >> Show me your 1903A4 Springfield.
>
> > Next time you are in Arizona, give me a call.
>
> What's your number? I usually get to Arizona at least once a year. It's
> a big state, however. Don't expect me to look you up in Yuma.
>
Tucson/Pheonix. E-mail me.
> >>> Not all switches marked thus perform the same functions or
> >>> perform the same functions the same way!
>
> >> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they do.
>
> > Looking at your post you definately said your concept of a power switch
> > has "One position is "on" and the other position is "off"."
>
> Yet you illogically turned that around and tried to make it sound like
> every switch with an "on" and an "off" must be a power switch.
>
> > So if that isn't your concept of a power switch, what is?
>
> Something that changes the state of the power applied to a device:
> power on, power off. That doesn't mean every switch with an "on"
> and an "off" is a power swtich. That's just plain illogical.
>
You said the intuitive concept of a power switch was a switch with one
position "on" and the other "off".
> > And why did you say it was your concept of a power switch?
>
> Because you asked me about my concept of a power switch.
>
> > why won't my computer fire 30-06 rounds from the magazine when
> > the power switch is in the "on" position.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that your computer has a magazine
> from which it might be able to fire rounds.
No, I'm supposing my computer has a switch with one position marked "on"
and the other marked "off". The '03A4 loads from a magazine when in the
switch is in the "on" position. Therefore it is intuitive that the
computer would do the same.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Windows because it don't Super Computer.
Date: 15 Dec 2000 02:04:55 GMT
On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:20:17 GMT, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>On 14 Dec 2000 13:55:35 GMT,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Because you're not a marketing spokesperson (heaven help anyone misguided
>>enough to hire you for that purpose!) and because the user base is quite
>>small, and because the "free"-ness of Linux is about much more than
>>price.
>
>Thought about that back in 97.
>Today, however, this notion is gone.
>
>Linux has been around almost 10 years now.
>
>It was considered fad from say 94 thru 97-98.
That's a straw man. I didn't say it was a "fad". I certainly hope it's
not a fad, because my plans for next year involve full time development
on Linux.
>Another good thing about Linux is it's FREE for EVERYONE.
>Let me emphasis this word, "EVERYONE".
? Your point ?
>It's tuff to get fired from a free software development
>job. Further, it's even tougher to fire the marketing help.
? Why ? Do you mean that one can't get "fired" from writing a free
project ? Well that may be true, but I don't see what your point is.
>>Linux's success is largely due to the fact that it's a grass-roots movement.
>>It's easy to learn Linux. Just go to Borders or Barnes & Noble and get one
>>of many books, or just use the free LDP docs. The "free as in speech" is
>>probably more important than "free as in beer", because it has helped Linux
>>attract a lot of very good developers.
>
>Well,
>That and the fact it's totally free for download from the internet
The "free download" is irrelevant. The only people who can afford the
band width to download it can also afford to buy an OS.
>and it has the most tremendous uptime of any OS on the market.
I don't know (or care) how it compares to Win 2k (because I don't use
and don't plan to use W2k). However, it's pretty silly to call it the
"most reliable" OS. Commercial UNIX and mainframe OSs whip its butt. It
is quite reliable, but certainly not the "most reliable".
>>The "free as in beer" helps, but not that much. Below a certain price, it
>>doesn't make that much difference to most home users. For example, BeOS
>>costs less than a Redhat box set, but they haven't attracted as many
>>developers as Linux. BTW, the "cheap" argument doesn't really hold water
>>for Linux anyway (not for most home users). Most home users need to invest
>>a lot of effort into setting things up, spend money on books, and many also
>>buy boxes and spend money on replacement hardware.
>>
>
>Humm. I think your totally exaggerating this setup time.
>Appearently you've never heard of Linuxconf or Webmin.
I helped make a distribution based on RH6, so yes I do know about these
things (though I admit to not using them very often -- I find they get
in the way for the most part).
However, the real problems a home user tends to have are often caused
by hardware compatibility problems, since a lot of users are misguided
enough to buy Windows-preloaded machines. If they purchased preload
machines, the time overhead would drop somewhat, though it is still an
issue. My experience has been that a lot of the GUI stuff isn't complete
enough to stand on its own. For example, I can set up dial-up with kppp,
but to set up my Linux as an IP masquerading gateway, I needed to
read some HOWTOs.
>With Webmin you can set up your entire box in just 30 minutes,
>that's web servers, ftpd, sshd, telnetd, samba {WINS} server,
>users, chron, anything you want.
All the servers should run OOTB. If you're just trying to set up a
server, it's actually very easy, and even a beginner should be able to
get a functional server with a default install.
The main problem they'll have to face is securing their box. (pretty
simple -- *if* you know how)
>But stock installs for workstation use is generally no effort at all.
How about configuring poorly supported soundcards, modems, printers,
scanners and monitors ? This is the sort of thing that gives new users
a lot of trouble.
>True, BUT! You have to pay those GD licenses whilst your paying
>the developers anyway.
Yes, but the number of developers is not a fixed constant. It can be
increased, or even bumped up temporarily (by hiring a consultant)
> And those developers have little trouble
>developing in Linux.
Whether or not the development tools are worth the money depends on
whether or not they save developer time.
> It's actually quicker to develop using Linux
>tools than Windows.
That would depend on what you are trying to develop. Actually, the main
advantage of Linux is that it's easier to port UNIX applications there.
> Take a look at the record from 91 the start
>of Linux. In less than 10 years this system is performing better
>and has more features than Windows itself and it's 20 year development
>record.
It doesn't have "more features", it has different, and somewhat orthogonal
features.
>Server cost is significant but the cost of compilers for developers
>is also significant. Some of the BEST commercially available
>development tools are 6K a pop for a once seat license.
No they are not.
If you just want a C++ compiler, try out Borland C++ builder (cost: $0-).
You are confusing "compilers" with "application
development frameworks". The things include a lot of functionality
not available in any of the Linux development tools.
I suppsoe if one went out of the way to be wasteful, it would be possible
to make a nontrivial expense of development tools, but barring that,
developers are much more expensive. Even the figure you offer is only
about 8% or so of a typical developers cost (nb: this is higher than the
salary because it includes benefits etc). So if the developers are
9% more productive, you're winning.
>NT and W2k are not operating systems as operating systems
>have the capability to allow packages to fail without
>taking the entire system down {BLUE SCREEN}.
I don't understand this comment. Are you trying to tell us that Win2k
doesn't have protected memory ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 02:04:12 +0000
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Here's another interesting - unsolvable thread.
>
> Name the THING you can do with Windows you
> CAN NOT do with Linux.
Play most commercial games and watch DVDs (legally!).
Everything else I do using Linux.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:11:45 -0500
From: glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
I got DeCSS if anyone wants it. it's only 50k or so so it won't take
anytime time at all to send it thru email or whatever.
David Dorward wrote:
>
> Swango 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?
>
> I don't use RedHat myself, but didn't it warn you? The instructions
> certainly should have done.
>
> Common sense says that you should make a backup before you do any major
> change on your computer.
>
> > Even after that Rocky Horror Show, using Linux is like moving back in
> > time about 10 years in the computer world. My scanner, printer, and
> > USB camera don't work. My Cdrw gives errors all the time although it
> > seems to burn fine. My cordless mouse doesn't work properly and I find
> > kde to be sluggish even on a 600 mhz system with 256 megabites of
> > memory.
>
> On the other hand all of my hardware is supported, the only exception being
> my DVD drive (although I could have a hunt for DeCSS if I were willing to
> risk lots of (c)s being fired at me. To be more accurate the DVD drive is
> supported as its just a big CDROM drive (in effect) but encrypted DVD Movie
> discs aren't supported.
>
> USB camera support is available for some models with the 2.4 kernel (or 2.2
> with a back patch). http://www.gphoto.org/
>
> KDE is a massive piece of software, I prefer Gnome and Enlighenment - also
> massive. And far more responsible then Windows (installed for duel booting
> for DVDs).
>
> > Windows 2000 is so much better and from what I have seen Whistler is
> > going to be even better than Windows 2000.
>
> I've used Windows 2000, and hated it. Not even the most ardent Microsoft
> lover I know uses it. His disc sites in its box and the machine he set up
> last week has NT4 on it.
>
> > Back to Windows for me and maybe I will look at Linux sometime down
> > the road, but for now it's a coaster.
>
> I'll stick to AOL and Compuserv discs for that.
>
> > I can see why Linux is free, because they would never get out of court
> > if they charged people for this tripe.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/
>
> The only people I know who don't like linux are those not willing to put
> any effort at all in to getting it working.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
