Linux-Advocacy Digest #30, Volume #31 Sat, 23 Dec 00 06:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: This group should rename itself ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Which retail Linux distribution is best? (Philip Neves)
Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied. (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 (Philip Neves)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) (Philip Neves)
Re: This group should rename itself (Pete Goodwin)
Re: This group should rename itself (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (Philip Neves)
Re: This group should rename itself (Pete Goodwin)
Re: This group should rename itself (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: This group should rename itself
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 23 Dec 2000 17:47:47 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Besides, if I really thought Linux sucked, why am I using it right now?
>Actually i suspect you are using it for the same reasons many people
>"use" it:
Don't know about Pete, but let's see how well I fit your "many people"
mold:
>1. Using something different for a change is exciting.
I always find that using something different is a highly frustrating
experience --- partly, because I am unfamiliar (or at least not familiar
to the tune of daily use) with it, and partly because I use what I use
normally because it *is* what works best for me.
>2. It allows you that control factor over your system that you once
>had when you ran DOS.
As in "it let's you actually see things, and if they go wrong, fix them"?
Yep, that sounds about right.
>3. It is powerful.
Feel the power, man....
>4. It is a novelty and is very different from Windows.
Isn't that the same as point (1)? And if something I have been using
for more than 8 years now is a novelty, than maybe I am still young.
Yeah!
>5. You are hoping that you can someday replace Windows with Linux and
>are betting that this release is "the one".
Uh, what? A friend of mine recently suggested to buy a new computer for
my daily use, and put Windows on the old one (replacing my OS of choice).
I told her I had done that several times, and the average half life of
such a Windows installation was about a week --- after that, I would usually
end up putting back the OS I prefer....
>How many hoops or sacrifices do you have to put up with to run Linux
>Pete?
>Can you honestly say that reading mail, surfing the net, playing
>video/audio viewing images, word processing etc is easier and superior
>under Linux not counting cost?
Yes, so-so, yes and no, yes, don't do it.
Yes, mail handling is easier under Linux, at least for me. Call me
old-fashioned, but I happen to *like* elm.
Surfing the net is easier for well-designed web sites, but not so for
bad ones. Lynx is great, and Lynx combined with virtual consoles,
seamless networking and the host of text-oriented stuff Linux provides
is a killer --- as long as the sites are well done. Otherwise, it's
Netscape to the rescue, which is a bit of a pig. I have installed, but
not yet tried, Konqueror.
Playing Video is not one of Linux's traditional strong points (although
I use a Linux machine as a digital VCR, which I would have been unable
to under Windows --- but that's probably not what you were thinking about).
Yes, watching DVDs is still hard and/or illegal and/or impossible.
Then again, I really *like* my MP3 player. It runs on the machine that
is connected to the right one of my three monitors, and whenever it
starts playing a new title, it puts the scanned album cover in the X
background, with a list of all titles on the album next to it (and the
currently playing one highlighted), and the current title in nice
big letters underneath. But the good part is that with the keyboard I
have in my lap (which is shared between 4 machines, and might at any
point in time be logically connected to any one of them --- physical
connection is to the computer driving the left hand screen), I can
always press NUMPAD-0 to skip to a random song from my collection, or
press NUMPAD-'.' to stay within the album and (upon subsequent pressed)
skip to the next song on the album. No matter what I am doing at the time,
no matter whether I am writing a Usenet post on the machine connected to
the middle monitor (as I am doing now), it always works. And while it
may sound archaic to have but two buttons on your MP3 player, I find that
this setup gives me great listening pleasure without any hassles.
Viewing images is something I do every day --- my PhD is in image compression.
Linux is great for it... but then maybe you and I are looking at images
differently ;-)
I don't do word processing (when I do write formatted text, I do
typesetting), so I can't comment on it.
>Is Linux "really" better for you Pete, or are you trying to convince
>yourself that it is?
Don't know about Pete, but it sure as hell really really is better for
me ;-)
Bernie
--
A desperate disease requires a dangerous remedy
Guy Fawkes
Conspirator in the 1605 Gunpowder Plot
6 November 1605
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 03:35:10 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Is Linux or Unix vulnerable to this?
> >
> > Nothing in Linux prevents you from saving a binary attachment and
executing
> > it. If you're running as Root when you do this, it can do anything.
>
> bzzt, wrong answer - there are mechanisms in Linux like
> immutable files, etc which make it impossible for even root
> to overwrite or delete them.
We're talking about formatting the drive.
------------------------------
From: Philip Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Which retail Linux distribution is best?
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:33:48 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> None, they all suck equally..
>
> Bottom line is that Linux sucks and any normal person will agree.
>
> Try it for yourself and see how much it sucks...
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
Why do idiots like you come on to news groups just to trash a system. Do
you not have anything better to do with your time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Subject: Re: New to Linux, and I am not satisfied.
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:47:12 GMT
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 02:19:49 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 19 Dec 2000 17:03:55
|GMT;
|>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:41:11 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|>
|>>Does anyone know of a good news provider? I think all the good ones
|>>(Deja, Supernews, etc) have all "gone web", and while they might offer
|>
|>I used to run a small ISP. We finally had to give up on doing Usenet
|>ourselves because it just became too much of a drain on resources. We
|>contracted with RemarQ (aka Supernews), and that worked out quite well.
|>You might suggest this to your "small town" ISP.
|
|I'm at the point where, if that's what a small town ISP uses, I want to
|use that. I would hope that I could find it somewhere for commodity
|rates. I should be using Linux soon, so getting a 'full feed' would be
|feasible, but I'm not going to pay out the wazoo for an overly
|commercialized service like 'RemarQ'.
I don't think you *really* want a 'full feed'. Last time I checked
the stats, that was about 10Gb/day and rising.
(That figure is years out of date)
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: Philip Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 09:45:27 GMT
Zane wrote:
> At work we use Windows NT on workstations and the other day people got
> email with an attached virus. The virus reformatted that persons hardrive
> if they clicked on the attachment.
>
> I thought the purpose of NT was to protect the workstation from being
> manipulated either from the user of that workstation or from an outside
> source. Isn't that why you have an administrator login versus a login for
> a user?
>
> Is Linux or Unix vulnerable to this?
>
>
>
>
>
As of right now There are no viruses that I know of for linux. I've been
using linux for five years and I have never heard of one. The reason why, I
think, is virus writers respect the system and don't generally want to hurt
it. For a virus to format a hard drive under linux the user running the
virus would have to be the super user anyways. So, the dammage a virus can
do to a system can be contained somewhat. Of course these are general
statements that are true right now. It doesn't mean that there won't be
someone who will surprise everyone later. Generally your safe from viruses
when you run a linux system.
------------------------------
From: Philip Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:11:09 GMT
Randy Galbraith wrote:
> DefaultUser,
>
> >>I've been dickin around with Linux RH 7.0 for a couple of weeks. Getting
> just the f***n USB-printer to print is a major hassle. Installing the
> Printer Drivers for the GIMP magically made the printer work, then
> suddenly it would not work.
> There's a news server just for LINUX PRINTING, people, attesting to the
> challenges of printing under Linux news.linuxprinting.org with plenty of
> info. After buying a few thick volumes on Red Hat, and other Linux books
> I could still not find a remedy. <<
>
> [snip other hard-time-to-get-things-working comments]
>
> What you say is true, Linux can be a real challenge to install and
> configure. My experience is that it is getting easier with each new
> release
> (I've only installed RedHat, so I can't speak to other releases). I think
> people with a Windows (or worse Mac) background are going to be surprised
> (and obviously frustrated) by this. However, is ease of install the most
> important quality of an operating system? This is where the Windows rub
> really comes in, since most users of Windows have it pre-installed for
> them,
> very little effort is required in order to first use Windows. However,
> when things start to go wrong, Lord help you, because your operating
> system won't.
>
> If you substitute a different OS everywhere you said Linux, you'll see my
> point, as in.... "I just bought the open source version of IBM's OS/390,
> installed it on my laptop and couldn't get the mouse to work, therefore
> OS/390 must suck!" Windows treats you like a baby and tries to spoon feed
> you everything you need. In contrast Linux treats you like an adult, and
> as
> such demands more of you, but at the same time, it gives more as well.
> Keep with it, and in a few months you'll suddenly see the light, then
> you'll wonder why you ever ran Windows!
>
> - Randy Galbraith
>
>
>
I just finished installing my linux distrubution from scratch and I must
say that the more I learn about this system the more I like it. I've been
using linux for 5 years and I have to say that the things that make people
complain about the OS is also the things that give it so much power. Take
for instance the print software that everyone complains about. It allows
you to create multiple printer services. I can have a queue and have Two or
more printers service that queue. I can place security mesures into the
system to insure that people don't abuse the system. This is stuff that you
need to purchase special software for to do under windows. Plus I can
service different types of print jobs as well. If a job comes in from a Mac
and another comes in from a PC. There's no problem my print queue takes
care of this. Linux print software was designed for heavy typefacing
applications and therefore has a huge number of features. This makes it
difficult to install and get set up. Once it is installed however the print
software is more reliable then its windows counterpart.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This group should rename itself
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:13:19 +0000
Shane Phelps wrote:
> > Oh come on! I don't need long experience of Linux to tell me Linux + KDE
> > is no match for Windows!
> >
> > If you're comparing Linux on its own to Windows, then that's another
> > story. However, I'm not, I'm comparing Linux + KDE to Windows.
> >
>
> Am I misinterpreting this if I paraphrase it as
> "MS Windows is a better Window manager than KDE"?
That and the fact that Windows is more stable than KDE2.0
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This group should rename itself
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:27:18 +0000
spicerun wrote:
> Did you comprehend what you read?
Yes.
> And add a little propaganda on the way in hopes you influence somebody
> back to Windows. More than a few
> people on this group know MS FUD when we see it. And you do your best
> to spread it.
That's your assumption, that's not my intent.
> Especially when you decide that the discussion will take place on the
> Windows horizon....and arrogant enough to
> try to bring that horizon to our group where it isn't needed or wanted.
> And as long as you can only see on
> the Windows horizon, you are incapable of a reasoned and rational
> discussion as you demonstrate time after
> time on these posts.
And who put the discussion there? This is a Linux Advocacy group, so I
thought, not a Linux only or Linux bigots group.
As for incapable of reasoned and rational discussion, that's your opinion.
> Pete, This is Comp.OS.Linux.Advocacy! It means that you are here to
> advocate Linux......not Windows or any other OSes.
> Nowhere in the name of this group does it invite Windows advocacy or
> anything related to Windows.
> I would think a reasonable person would realize comp.os.linux.advocacy
> is a Linux only advocacy group.
> Are you sure you can read? or reason? I really wonder now since you
> don't seem to understand that this group
> isn't for advocating anything other than Linux.
But this group doesn't even do that! It spreads lies and FUD about Windows.
When I see an obvious exageration or whatever about Windows, what did you
expect? That I'll ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist?
> Thanks for verifying that you are a Wintroll only marginally trying to
> use Linux so you can get 'fodder' for your mis-
> information. If you were really serious, you'd spend the same amount of
> time to learn Linux that you did for Windows.
> And I'm very certain you didn't learn Windows in any short record
> time...(And if you did learn Windows in a short period
> of time, you would have missed out on knowing about a lot of features
> because you didn't bother learning them.)
> At any rate, you've just blown your credibility in this newsgroup.
Your opinion, not mine.
This conversation is going nowhere rapidly fast as you are looking for what
you want to hear.
> > So you lump me with the rest when I try to tell you Linux + KDE lags
> > behind Windows? Oh, BTW, I deliberately used to say Linux lags behind
> > Windows because noone here could be bothered to qualify Windows (i.e. 9x
> > or 2000) so why should I bother to qualify Linux?
>
> Again you are in a Linux advocacy group. Why should we care about
> anything Windows? Why can't you qualify
> Windows in the Windows advocacy groups? I know the answer...you just
> want to waste our time in this group.
> You're just a little kid seeing how much attention you can get.
Again your opinion. I'm beginning to see it is a waste of time talking to
you.
> And I call you a liar. I have had Windows crash on me within one hour.
And I have never had Windows crash on me within an hour.
So, since I know I'm telling the truth and you can't possibly know what
I've experience, so what?
Don't you understand what I'm saying here? I'm saying Windows may be
crashing for you within an hour, however that isn't necessarily a universal
experience - funnily enough that's what people told me about my troubles
with Linux.
> It was extremely easy....all you need is a
> network that goes up and down for a few seconds in the middle of
> transferring a file from/to your Windows machine to/from the remote
> machine.
We have two networks at work. TCP/IP and IPX/SPX. When IPX/SPX dies my
machine hangs for a while then it recovers.
> Funny how our Linux and Sun boxes at work don't seem to be
> affected in this scenario, but our Windows machines will
> either lock up or they will have to be rebooted anyhow just to get the
> network connectivity back.
Funny how my Linux box generated a kernel panic when I shut it down with
SMB mounted file systems.
> Another way is to have
> a malfunctioning CD that identifies itself correctly to Windows, but
> cannot read a disk (especially with a blown laser).
> I guarantee on any Windows system (and I've tried all of them with this
> scenario), your machine will be locked until you
> power down because Windows will not time out in trying to read a CD in
> the broken CD player. Care to explain why
> Windows won't give up after a period of time and decide there is a
> problem with the CD? This would be a great answer for
> you to post in the Windows groups.
How should I know? What may cause one machine to hang may not be a problem
on other machine. It's all down to drivers, is it not?
> Again you're lying and showing your Wintrolling nature. Even Microsoft
> doesn't call Windows 'that_ good.'
You can't even see sarcasm can you?
>
> > I was talking about Linux + KDE. I've seen my system freeze, I've seen
> > applications exit without warning and I've seen the KDE crash dialog.
> > That's what I meant by the same kind of problems.
>
> You should learn the difference between symptom and problem. What you
> are describing is a symptom that
> looks similiar. The problem...root of the freeze is totally different
> between the two OSes.
Of course I realise that!
> Too bad you didn't notice that the machine wasn't dead....and you can do
> things like restart KDE or diagnose
> the problem with a good chance of fixing the problem. You omit that
> Windows only gives a cryptic Blue
> Screen of Death that causes the computer to be rebooted....by the user
> if not automatically. Of course, my
> favorite Windows crash dialog is the one that says that Windows is now
> unstable and must be restarted.
On one occaison Linux froze totally. X, virtual consoles, remote access,
all gone.
I know Linux is more stable that Windows 9x. I've said so on many occaisons.
> I can live with this loss. Too bad that you don't even realize that you
> have an even greater loss and handicap.
> But I have no sympathy for you since you have decided to be
> closed-minded and are here just for attention.
And you look close minded to me, see above.
> I've waste enough time on you. While I will no longer respond to your
> posts, and will happily be letting other
> people know what a poor Steve Wintroll wannabe you really are.....Best
> of all, I will gladly let other people who
> wish to try Linux that you have no credibility of all. And don't think
> for a moment I care anything at all about what
> you say about me or Linux from this post on.
Fine, I can live with that. You can spread all the lies you like about me,
it won't make the slightest bit of difference. People will find out for
themselves, and then they will know who is telling lies or the truth.
You're one of the Linux bigots I was talking about.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Philip Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:26:34 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> > >
> > > "Truckasaurus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:90rvcr$g4h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > It is time to look at predictions for the year past - 2000:
> > > > This one's by Drestin Black:
> > > > "Message-ID: <hrlL3.7102$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > I'll argue with you there. I am willing to take a double or nothing
> bet
> > > > from
> > > > you, Windows 2000 will sell 2x more copies than the combined sales
> > > > of Linux
> > > > in 2000."
> > > >
> > > > Sadly enough, I think Dres wins this one. But if you look at it,
> > > > it's kind of a wussy guess - I mean Win has 90% of the desktop
> > > > market...
> > > >
> > > > 1 Prediction point for Dres, and 100 wuss points in the same
> direction!
> > > > Get som hair on your chest Dres, and give us a real prediction!
> > >
> > > I don't remember him making a wrong prediction yet - it helps that he
> > > probably has enough stock in MS to call Bill's cell phone :) but fact
> > > of
> the
> > > matter, he told it like it was.
> > >
> > > Giving "wuss points" is just sour grapes.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > Drestin hinself was going to buy 1000 shares. Hope
> > he did, but I suspect that was more of his usual BS.
> > It's all on deja if anyone wants to check it out.
> >
> > My investment advice would be to buy stocks that
> > actually increase in value. (And nope, I wouldn't
> > recommend RHAT or LNUX either)
>
> Gee, so the guy buys 1000 shares of a technology stock that has had a
> company history long record of increasing and recovering higher than
> before after any fall and it hasn't rebounded yet. Is there anyone who
> seriously believes MS stock will stay so low (other than penguin lovers
> and MS haters)? I've watched MS climb and fall but in the long term climb.
> I fully expect that it will recover it's value and more. Besides, it's a
> HELL of a bargin now at 58. I'd buy more if I had money to spare. He may
> have recommended buying stock (and been wrong at this time) but who's to
> say it won't be worth it later and even if it isn't, he didn't make a
> prediction, just gave a recommendation (he never claims to be a stock
> broker or expert in that field).
>
> Unlike rhat stock which has done nothing but fall, just like all other
> linux stock, without any signs or hopes of rising again. I mean, how CAN a
> company profit when it's product is available for free? I don't laugh as
> hard at Redhat as I do at it's investors and those pengin lovers that went
> crazy to buy the stock - remember those that whinned on-line when they
> missed their chance to buy the inflated stock and some were able to after
> all? I'll bet every single one of them are now feeling pretty stupid. It's
> like the for-a-month millionairs that had that redhat stock they couldn't
> sell when it was worth 100+ and now it's worth, what, a buck? I dunno... I
> wonder if they still think linux is their future? Unless eating dogfood is
> your thing, linux ain't the future for people who realize the mechanics of
> the world are greased by dollars.
>
> If I had 58,000 - I'd buy 1000 shares of MS right now.
>
>
I think that your wrong there bud. First of all think about what you are
saying. If MS is selling there product and their competitors are giving
their product away then MS's future is at risk as well. Redhat doesn't
count on linux alone for their revenues. They are bundling linux with
Oracle and other products that give there product more value.
Even if Redhat doesn't succeed Linux will always be there not just because
it is free but because I think there will alway be someone to write the
code. Everyone in the industry know that the money is in providing
solutions. Well if you are a solutions provider and you have to compete
with another solutions provider in the industry that uses windows then you
are going to have a price advantage over your Microsoft competitor. That is
nothing to sneeze at when you are talking about a price difference of $1500
for a server edition of NT and a $2 burned copy of linux. Tell me how can
you ignore that?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This group should rename itself
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:31:18 +0000
Donn Miller wrote:
> The problem with Windows is that it's really fickle. I've gotten uptimes
> longer than a day, as long as I stay away from the heavy stuff. When I
> used to use Cygwin extensively, Windows 98 would go down in one hour
> mostly. Windows 98/95 seems to have these "weak spots" such that when you
> hit them
> just right, it goes down. Linux probably doesn't have as many weak spots
> as Windows, and they're probably not as "tender" as Windows.
Windows 95/98/ME don't have protection on the system space, so any
application can blow the whole thing away.
> But then, what do you mean by "Windows"? We assume it's 95/98/ME unless
> you
> specifically state NT or 2000, correct? I acknowledge that 2000 is a
> pretty
> stable operating system. But even if I could get my hands on 2000 for
> free,
> I would still choose FreeBSD or Linux. I find I can accomplish more with
> unix variants, since I can make use of their tools, like awk, sed, perl,
> sh
> for pretty much everything, even web page design. You can put a unix CLI
> command shell on Windows 98 or NT, like bash or ash, but Windows just
> doesn't lend itself to CLI as well as unix. Unix was born for shell tools
> like grep, sed, awk, perl, etc, and although you can have these on
> Windows,
> they don't seem as comfortable as on unix. But, I suppose Windows is
> nicer
> for purely browsing the web, multimedia, games, etc. I will acknowledge
> that.
Generally when I see people complain about Windows I assume they mean
Windows 9x/ME. Some do include Windows NT/2000 but I find that harder to
believe than Windows 9x/ME.
Why would you want to use CLI on a GUI system? I left CLI behind a long
time ago. Whilst I recognise certain things are easier with a CLI (scripts
etc.) I just find life so much easier with a GUI. That's after all what
they were designed to be.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This group should rename itself
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 10:39:51 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. Using something different for a change is exciting.
A change is as good as a rest.
> 2. It allows you that control factor over your system that you once
> had when you ran DOS.
I never really started with DOS. I switched from RISC OS to Windows 3.1
then rapidly afterwards Windows 95.
> 3. It is powerful.
So is Windows. Why is this a reason?
> 4. It is a novelty and is very different from Windows.
I've worked on several OS's and I've used UNIX before, so it's not the
novelty it was once.
> 5. You are hoping that you can someday replace Windows with Linux and
> are betting that this release is "the one".
YES! YES YES!
> 6. You have convinced yourself that Linux "is" better than Windows for
> what you do. In some cases this may be true but, I suspect that if you
> take an honest look at what you have to go through just to run Linux
> (ie: how often are you adjusting things like fonts and so forth?) you
> will find that Windows is a far better choice.
I'm not convinced either way. Why do you think my system is dual bootable?
I can switch systems with one reboot.
> How many hoops or sacrifices do you have to put up with to run Linux
> Pete?
How often do I have to put up with blue screens on Windows? One thing I do
at home is surf the net. With Windows I would get the occaisonal blue
screen or hang. I've yet to see that happen with Linux.
> Can you honestly say that reading mail, surfing the net, playing
> video/audio viewing images, word processing etc is easier and superior
> under Linux not counting cost?
Reading mail, yes.
Surfing the net, yes. Netscape dies as easily on Linux as it does on Linux.
Konqueror is no substitute for Netscape, neither is Opera.
View images is easier on Windows (at least browsing is).
Word processing - ah I have Word 2000 and I use very few of its features.
StarOffice I've tried and it works well enough. KWord is a bit too buggy
for me.
What I can't do on Linux is: scan documents with my unsupported scanner, or
my web cam or my digital camera. Linux appears to turn off my USB hub.
> I can't and it isn't even close. The Linux applications look like
> crude toys next to the Windows equivalents and that is assuming they
> even work, which many of them don't.
KMail is OK, KNode is ok. Konqueror could do better.
> Is Linux "really" better for you Pete, or are you trying to convince
> yourself that it is?
At the moment it does what I want. Some things I drop back to Windows for.
I don't miss the blue screens or hangs I get on Windows.
When Borland finally release Delphi for Linux, what system do you think
I'll use it on?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
