Linux-Advocacy Digest #983, Volume #30 Tue, 19 Dec 00 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (glitch)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Perry Pip)
Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (jtnews)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Whistler review. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Steve)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (dvick)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (.)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:12:03 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> You should be goddamned ASHAMED of your self, you worthless pile of shit.
Why, I'm deeply hurt.
Not.
I think you've thoroughly deep-sixed any pretense that your arguments
are based on cold logic.
And though you've cross-posted to us.military.army, I have to repeat
that the U.S. military still gets a lot of subsidizing. Hell,
I've even heard a major talk about taking a turn at the government
teat. That says nothing derogatory about the soldier.
Chris
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:18:18 +0200
"David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91p2e5$39j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad C. Mulligan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> : Half rabbit. I was explaining that at least MS completes their projects
> : eventually. Where's the next kernel?
>
> Well, you said Windows 2000 was TWO years later than Microsoft had
> expected. Let's give Linus and friends another year and see what they
> come up with.
>
> Do you actually have a point anymore?
AFAIK, none of MS major products was finished in time, all of them slipped
past their deadlines.
Win2K was no exception in this matter.
Linux used to follow "release early & often" paradigm, the 2.4 kernel is a
big exception.
Linus should put his foot down and say, that is enough, nothing gets in
anymore, now we fix the bugs, and then we release, the rest can *wait* for
2.5 or 2.6 kernel.
Linux has this advantage over commercials OS, why doesn't it use it?
2.2 kernel is two years behind what the market need. Two years in one of the
fastest markets in the world, in an OS which isn't one of the simplest
around.
Yes, you *can* get a 2.4 kernel, but that wouldn't be a release, it would be
beta at best, unless they invented gamma already, and because of this, a lot
of people and companies would reject it.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:25:53 -0500
From: glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
> It's the end result that matters, not how one arrived or didn't arrive
> at it.
> In this case the end result is taking pictures with a camera.
> Windows can utilize the hardware, and as usual Linux can't.
actually the hardware utilizes Windows. Device manufacturers make the
drivers to work on an OS not the other way around. MS doesn't write
every single driver for all the devices it supports. It's not their job.
They just package it and (proof of this is when I was doing a
REinstallation a cuople weeks ago) they take the credit of saying
Windows support all the newest hardware even though they didn't do a
damn thing to make that happen, the device manufacturer did.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 20 Dec 2000 02:37:21 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Dec 2000 18:58:06 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The
>typical user wants to be able to go to their vendor for support. They don't
>want to have to go to this website, that website, etc, especially when the
>websites in question don't offer any kind of formal support.
If you want that kind of support you'll have to pay for it, no matter
what OS you use.
>Users expect basic things like the GUI to work, and they expect the vendor
>to be able to support it when it doesn't. It's the distributors job to provide
>an integrated system that works to the users, and to provide them with an
>alternative solution (for example, downloads and instructions to fix the
>problems) in the unlikely event that it doesn't. If the distributor is not
>able to provide the information the user needs to get hardware that the
>distributor claims is supported, then clearly that would be a failure
>of the distributor.
Does Microsoft provide this kind of support for their Windows
versions, or will they send you off to a hardware vendor when some
hardware doesn't work with their OS??
Perry
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM 1 billion dollar deal - Linux!
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:49:11 -0600
"Jim Lewis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91osrk$7m7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Allow me to clarify EF's comments.
> >>
> >> See, EF believes Microsoft has a running embedded product,
>
> >NT Embedded has been released for almost 2 years. It is a running
product,
> >and one of my clients is in fact using it in one of their laser CNC
> >products.
>
> >> that Microsofts TCO is actually acceptable, and that
>
> >If it wasn't, why would people use it? Acceptable means people accept
it.
> >Correct?
>
> >> the majority of Windows developers using GCC to produce
> >> Windows development.
>
> >Don't exagerate to prove a point. I never said any such thing and you
know
> >it. You have just now graduated from being clueless to being an
intentional
> >liar.
>
> >> So, as you can audit, EF is in his own little world out
> >> there.
>
> >Fuck off dipshit.
>
> Wonderful. Very impressive. But then, you give others little reason
> to expect much.
I don't like it when people deliberately misrepresent my words. Do you?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:51:46 -0600
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:x9R%5.81460$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > > I'm not wrong for Windows 98/ME.
> >
> > Yes you are.
>
> You've done this before, Erik. It doesn't work very well. How exactly am I
> wrong?
Are you blind? You are answering my explanations as to why you are wrong.
> > > The registry is a couple of files on Windows 98/ME.
> >
> > I just said that. "additionally, each user has their own registry
hive".
>
> I was talking about the whole registry.
As opposed to the 1/8th registry? What the hell are you talking about?
> > > True, you can generate a text file with REGEDIT. But how do you load
it
> > > back into Windows 98/ME?
> >
> > By using Regedit to import it back in.
>
> How? If you have Windows up and running and NO registry, how do you import
> it?
Regedit also works from a DOS command line.
> > 98 provides a registry backup utility as well.
>
> Is this ScanReg? I tried to backup my registry with that. It kept crapping
> out. It then insisted on reverting my configuration back by six months.
YUK!
I wonder how that happened, perhaps by reverting from a BACKUP which you
claimed could not be done?
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:51:38 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
If I reverse engineer the camera protocol through the USB interface,
develop a Linux driver, distribute the driver under the GPL
over the Internet, can I be sued by Intel for violating their
intellectual property?
Kasper Dupont wrote:
>
> jtnews wrote:
> >
> > The Intel Easy PC camera is not supported in Linux!
> > You can't even write a driver for it!
> >
> > I got it as a "free" add-on with my new Dell Dimension
> > L600cx, but now it seems I made the wrong choice!
> >
> > Why does a $40 cheapo camera have to be proprietary for
> > Intel? I thought Intel made all their money because they make
> > huge volumes of flash memory chips over their competitors.
> >
> > I better choose the Lexmark color printer as a free add on next
> > time!
> >
>
> Of course it is posible to write a driver for that
> camera, but you would have to reverse engineer the
> protocols.
>
> Depending on how it is connected you could hook in
> a piece of hardware or software to watch the
> communication.
>
> I don't understand Intel's policy, a Linux driver
> would allow more people to use the camera and then
> they could expect to sell more cameras. But
> perhaps they have some secret agreement with MS.
>
> --
> Kasper Dupont
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:58:20 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91oej9$sn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What he didnt tell you is that it says clearly in the mandrake installer
> that XFree 4.0.1 IS NOT SUPPORTED, AND THAT YOURE ON YOUR OWN IF YOU
DECIDE
> TO USE IT.
That's not true, and I didn't "decide" to use it. Mandrakes install
installed it all by itself without a single question about if I wanted it
installed or not.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:03:43 GMT
On 20 Dec 2000 09:26:53 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Hmm, that sounds strangely familiar. Only the roles were reversed.
>The ultra-cheap package of CMOS video camera and BT848-based capture card
>I bought earlier this year never worked under Windows. Just wouldn't.
>No go.
What brand and model camera would that be? Sounds like something is
conflicting on your system, because if the camera didn't work under
Windows they would never be able to sell one.
>Does this mean that Windows is an "inferior OS"? I don't think so --- it
>just means that this particular piece of junk is not supported by Windows,
>despite claims to the contrary on the package. No more, and no less.
No.
It means you have a configuration problem with "your" system.
Different than trying to use certain USB devices under Linux which
will NEVER work with current distributions no matter how much tweaking
is done because Linux's USB support is a kludge.
>If I ever have a Windows installation that goes that smoothly, I shall
>mark the day in my calendar with a big red circle. But don't hold your
>breath.
Haven't had a problem since Windows 98. I agree earlier versions
presented problems for some configurations.
>Does that mean Windows is inferior to Mandrake 7.2? I don't think so.
>It just isn't very good at dealing with changing hardware. It isn't
>very good at a whole lot of things, just like Linux. And it's quite
>good at some others, just like Linux. And all the anecdotal evidence
>in the world won't change that.
Sounds like the default gateway problem with Mandrake that screws up
ppp. See the setup groups for information.
>P.S.: Welcome back, heather69. I suspect you will regale us with stories
> about your retail experience in "major chainstores", and how
> Linux is the "numero uno" returned item, right? What will your
> relation to the manager be this time? Will she be your aunt? Your
> daughter? Your brother's wife?
Huh????
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:07:01 GMT
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:43:43 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>Never had that problem with Ghostscript. It prints to the same printer
>just fine (also missing some features).
Yea like Color output <snicker>....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:08:40 GMT
Ain't it the truth..............
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:53:21 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Ah, these past few weeks have reminded me of just spaced out these Linux zealots are,
>but how dedicated they are to their frugal ways.
>
>Linux is...
>They keep saying "Linux is more stable", it's faster, it's free. And they will swear
>up and down (and sooner kill themselves than admit otherwise) that Linux is free,
>faster and more reliable.
>
>Our reminder to keep us grouned.
> a.. Linux is NOT more stable.
>I love when Linux zealots claim that "Linux is sooo much more stable than anything
>Microsoft ever came out with". This used to be true. Linux had good stability, it
>was a true-32 bit OS from it's boot loader to "telinit 0". But come on, this claim
>is getting old.
>
> 1.. When you ask most Linux users which Windows they are complaining about, they
>are talking about Windows NT 4, or Windows 98. Both of which have been succeeeded by
>future revisions of Windows.
> 2.. Bad programming is still bad programming. Netscape 6 for Linux still causes
>unresponsive X sessions, "core" crap-out's under GNOME, and infrequently, but
>noticeably, completely unresonsive Linux sessions in general. It does the same thing
>to Microsoft Windows.
>And these "uptime" claims. Please. These are being posted by people running their
>Linux kernel, and a super-stripped down C shell. Really, if I was running the
>Windows command console, writing documents with "edit.com" and posting them using
>some MSDOS based usenet posting software, I'd never have to reboot either (except
>when I turn my PC off).
> 1.. Real computing involves running programs. LOTS of programs, loading them into
>and out from memory repeadly, over the course of a day, or two or three. It involves
>running multipul applications at once, and loading and unloading them as previously
>mentioned. Maybe, even running a video game here and there occasionaly. Doing all
>this, your invaraibly going to hit something that isn't coded perfectly, and is going
>to cause SOMETHING to go somewhere.
> a.. Linux is NOT Free
>Linux lovers keep saying "it's stable AND free, have Microsoft beat that!" Well,
>it's not more stable, so let's go into why Linux isnt' free.
> 1.. Linux is typicaly available for download. The most common formats are binary
>extractions of the CDROM's used to distrubute the copies of Linux. They are stored
>in their uncompressed entirety as an "image" file. This file is usually 600
>megabytes, or more. And may not involve just one IMAGE. It can involve two, three,
>or four (Connectiva). That requires broadband connections, because it would take
>weeks on a common modem. Broadband is a commodity, period.
> 2.. The "Image Files" require a CD writing device. That is a commodity, not a
>typical component. Most people DON'T own a CD writing device.
> 3.. Distributions are distributed in CD Packs. Which are sold for PROFIT. Need I
>go on?
> 4.. Distributions are not "updated". They are being replaced. RedHat Linux 6.1
>has been suceeded by RedHat Linux 6.2, and now 7.0. The only difference between the
>products is updated componetns inside the distribution that fix idiotic security and
>stability problems. If you cannot accomidate line items "1", or "2" above, your only
>choice for updating your distro is to buy another one. If you bought a fully
>commercial package, you may be entitled to free upgrades.
>Item "4" above shoots a hole in the claim that "Linux can be updated for free,
>Windows can't, you have to buy another one when 'big billy' says so." Fine, so
>instead of Microsoft controlling product udpates, you have to rely on often
>anonymous, 3rd parties to maintain and fix your OS components, and then you have to
>pay the distro maker more money to obtain the latest release.
>
> a.. Linux isn't much faster
>A vast majority of Linux's speed comes from processor optimizations at the kernel,
>and program level. Your software is hard-wired for your platform, delivering speed.
>Great. Except that Windows functions on all Intel i386 compliant platforms without
>kernel changes or software re-codes. Which means that Linux's only speed advantage
>lies in it's platform dependent, processor optimizations.
>
>XFree86 is Linux's only other X server (alternative is a commercial, unpopular
>product). Does XFree86 comes with hardware optimization for video graphics
>accelerators? Yes and No. It doesn't fully support any of the 3D technology in
>today's 3D accelerators, nothing quite even CLOSE to what Apple & Microsoft can do
>with 'em.
>
>As for other operations, like general interface, XFree86 is a sugglish nightmare.
>Really, using dedicated CPU time to create, and update the display is a sluggish and
>outdated practice that went the way of the dodo when hardware accelerated procedures
>were implemented. So there goes the GUI "speed" advantage.
>
>Summary: Linux is for cheap computer programmers, who have no idea what computing
>should be like for people who don't have the time to interface with their computers
>in C.
------------------------------
From: dvick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:48:48 -0500
Reply-To: .
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 02:12:03 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> You should be goddamned ASHAMED of your self, you worthless pile of shit.
>
>Why, I'm deeply hurt.
>
>Not.
>
>I think you've thoroughly deep-sixed any pretense that your arguments
>are based on cold logic.
>
>And though you've cross-posted to us.military.army, I have to repeat
>that the U.S. military still gets a lot of subsidizing. Hell,
>I've even heard a major talk about taking a turn at the government
>teat. That says nothing derogatory about the soldier.
>
>Chris
"taking a turn at the government teat"???
Isn't that just an insulting way of saying the government pays for the
armed forces? Where else do you expect the military to get funding
but from the government? Bakes sales? Charging money for HMMWV
rides?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 20 Dec 2000 03:56:48 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91oej9$sn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> What he didnt tell you is that it says clearly in the mandrake installer
>> that XFree 4.0.1 IS NOT SUPPORTED, AND THAT YOURE ON YOUR OWN IF YOU
> DECIDE
>> TO USE IT.
> That's not true, and I didn't "decide" to use it. Mandrakes install
> installed it all by itself without a single question about if I wanted it
> installed or not.
Thats odd. I installed mandrake 7.2 on this machine (im using it right now)
from ISOs I downloaded from their ftp site this evening. During the "X
config" portion of the install, I clearly had a choice between 4.0.1 and
3.3.6. The installer told me all about how 4.0.1 was better for 2D
application (my video card apparantly does not have a driver for 4.0.1
included in the mandrake install), but that it was experimental, and to
use at my own risk.
Further, it told me that there WAS a 3D driver (the latest mesa stuff
included) for my card under 3.3.6, but to use at my own risk.
And I must say, after minimal fixing, mandrake is quite nice. Unlike
redhat, for example, it installs BOTH xinetd and inetd, so that I
may use one or the other or both at my discression.
=====.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:06:35 GMT
Steve wrote:
> Ain't it the truth..............
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 05:53:21 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Ah, these past few weeks have reminded me of just spaced out these Linux zealots
>are, but how dedicated they are to their frugal ways.
I've got a lot of money to spend on computing - I just
happen to prefer Unix to pc OSes, and of all the unices
I prefer Linux.
>
> >Linux is...
> >They keep saying "Linux is more stable", it's faster, it's free. And they will
>swear up and down (and sooner kill themselves than admit otherwise) that Linux is
>free, faster and more reliable.
(shrug) not sure what to tell you - it is more stable -
As one who has used unix, mac and windows for years,
Linux is by far the most stable -
as for free, not sure how you can argue that one.
faster, the benchmarks I've run and the impartial ones
I know of (i.e. not microsoft controlled) have Linux on
top - for a quick heads-up, check out the specweb99
benchmarks at spec.org - Linux walks all over win2k.
> >
> > 2.. Bad programming is still bad programming. Netscape 6 for Linux still causes
>unresponsive X sessions, "core" crap-out's under GNOME, and infrequently, but
>noticeably, completely unresonsive Linux sessions in general. It does the same thing
>to Microsoft Windows.
> >And these "uptime" claims. Please. These are being posted by people running their
>Linux kernel, and a super-stripped down C shell. Really, if I was running the
>Windows command console, writing documents with "edit.com" and posting them using
>some MSDOS based usenet posting software, I'd never have to reboot either (except
>when I turn my PC off).
Nope, these uptimes are from people like me who run real
servers in production environments - mail servers that do
a million messages a month, name servers that answer for
150 zones, web servers that host 30 commercial sites.
Linux uptimes of a year are routine, as with most unices.
OTOH, we also have nt boxes in the same shop, and they
require nightly reboots to keep from crashing due to memory
fragmentation and corruption. good solid hardware, not so the OS.
>
> > 1.. Real computing involves running programs. LOTS of programs, loading them
>into and out from memory repeadly, over the course of a day, or two or three. It
>involves running multipul applications at once, and loading and unloading them as
>previously mentioned. Maybe, even running a video game here and there occasionaly.
>Doing all this, your invaraibly going to hit something that isn't coded perfectly,
>and is going to cause SOMETHING to go somewhere.
I play quake 3 arena on my server box, and it simply doesn't crash.
> > a.. Linux is NOT Free
free as in free speech, you miss the point.
> > 2.. The "Image Files" require a CD writing device.
Nope, Linux can mount the ISO image and export it as
an nfs filesystem - presto, instant net install, no burner required.
> That is a commodity, not a typical component. Most people DON'T own a CD writing
>device.
And don't need one to install Linux -
>
> > 3.. Distributions are distributed in CD Packs. Which are sold for PROFIT. Need
>I go on?
Please do - what's your point, that Linux vendors shouldn't eat?
> > 4.. Distributions are not "updated". They are being replaced. RedHat Linux 6.1
>has been suceeded by RedHat Linux 6.2, and now 7.0. The only difference between the
>products is updated componetns inside the distribution that fix idiotic security and
>stability problems. If you cannot accomidate line items "1", or "2" above, your only
>choice for updating your distro is to buy another one. If you bought a fully
>commercial package, you may be entitled to free upgrades.
I download RedHat upgrades from redhat.com, freesoftware.com, etc -
my boxes are completely up to date, at no extra cost.
> >Item "4" above shoots a hole in the claim that "Linux can be updated for free,
>Windows can't, you have to buy another one when 'big billy' says so." Fine, so
>instead of Microsoft controlling product udpates, you have to rely on often
>anonymous, 3rd parties to maintain and fix your OS components, and then you have to
>pay the distro maker more money to obtain the latest release.
You are sadly misinformed - see my comment above.
>
> > a.. Linux isn't much faster
> >A vast majority of Linux's speed comes from processor optimizations at the kernel,
>and program level. Your software is hard-wired for your platform, delivering speed.
>Great. Except that Windows functions on all Intel i386 compliant platforms without
>kernel changes or software re-codes. Which means that Linux's only speed advantage
>lies in it's platform dependent, processor optimizations.
Linux runs on all intel i386 compliant platforms without kernel changes.
Who told you otherwise?
And of course, Linux also runs where windows never can:
Sparc, PPC, Mainframe, etc.
> >XFree86 is Linux's only other X server (alternative is a commercial, unpopular
>product). Does XFree86 comes with hardware optimization for video graphics
>accelerators? Yes and No. It doesn't fully support any of the 3D technology in
>today's 3D accelerators, nothing quite even CLOSE to what Apple & Microsoft can do
>with 'em.
I dunno, I'm pretty happy with my voodoo 3 - and the drivers
just keep getting better. Yes, windows had a big head start,
but that head start is going up in smoke.
> >As for other operations, like general interface, XFree86 is a sugglish nightmare.
>Really, using dedicated CPU time to create, and update the display is a sluggish and
>outdated practice that went the way of the dodo when hardware accelerated procedures
>were implemented. So there goes the GUI "speed" advantage.
You are ignorant of hardware acceleration facts, Xfree is using
my voodoo3 just fine - and will also use ATI rage 128 radeon,
or nvidia cards quite nicely.
>
> >Summary: Linux is for cheap computer programmers, who have no idea what computing
>should be like for people who don't have the time to interface with their computers
>in C.
bzzt, wrong answer - you lose, thanx for playing.
Linux is for people who don't like the limitations of windows,
who want something more than windows has to offer.
Hope this clears things up -
jjs
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
