Linux-Advocacy Digest #38, Volume #31 Sat, 23 Dec 00 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: This group should rename itself (Gary Hallock)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Whistler review. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (Tim Smith)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (Tim Smith)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (Tim Smith)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (Tim Smith)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (.)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Gary Hallock)
Re: This group should rename itself ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (J Sloan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:14:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
[Some detritus snipped]
> I have Mandrake 7.2 already set up and running, as best as it can for
> Linux that is.
>
> Open a terminal window under kde and that's the end of it. You can
> never open another one because it is hung. [snip]
>
> Wheel mouse worked fine until I tried Gnome instead of kde and it (the
> wheel) never worked again after that. Re-installing via DrakConf
> didn't help.
>
> Use the Fontmanager to find my Windows TT Fonts, which it does, but
> they never show up in any of the menues to be selected. SO where are
> they and how do I use them?
>
> Setting up an account in Gnome Dialer doesn't work. When you hit OK
> button after inputting all the data it just goes back to a blank, like
> when you started. [snip]
>
> Selecting "Help" in just about any program brings up that totally
> useless generic KDE help (How to move a mouse etc), or a message that
> help hasn't been written yet. Doesn't surprise me seeing as half of
> kde hasn't been written yet. It looks and acts like a toy and is very
> unstable.
>
> Menues between the various window managers don't have the same
> selections in them. [snip]
>
> Speaking of Enlightenment (pretty nice BTW), once you run it all of
> your menues in kde and Gnome get screwed up. [snip]
>
> Printing doesn't work with StarOffice and CUPS.
>
> Trying to change the fonts under Gnome Terminal is an exercise in
> confusion. [snip]
>
> XFree 4.x kills the WheelMouse. Never works even with imwheel.
>
> My Matrox G400 with 16 meg is identified as a 4 meg card. No way to
> change it because Linux insists it has 4 meg.
>
> Not to mention none of my USB devices work.
>
> Add to this that Netscape looks like crap [snip]
>
> MusicMatch Jukebox is a half assed, bloated (13meg) pig that runs like
> molasses under Wino.
>
> Typical of Linux programs, it is a generation behind the Windows
> version.
>
> Konquerer doesn't manage certificates well and has an annoying pause
> in it every time you click on a link. [snip]
>
> And on and on and on....
That's quite a confession of your impatience and stupidity, Flatfish.
Sounds like you really FLOUNDER when presented with simple choices in
a setup script. You choose a distribution at random, the apps you
want to install at random, you misconfigure and wonder why it doesn't
work.
> Free or not, one has to wonder if anyone test's these things before
> they ship this garbage.
Why don't you suggest this to Mandrake?
> So tell me again, why should I switch from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why
> should anyone switch? Is there a compelling reason? Surely just
> looking at the painful boxy fonts of Linux is enough to make one run
> back to Windows. The way I see it I would be taking a huge step
> backwards all for the joy of running Linux.
Man, I've had the complete opposite experience from yours. Sure, I've
had problems in both Linux and Win 2000, but Linux runs fast and reliably,
much more pleasant than Win 2000, although Win 2000 does have some
good improvements [see, the Halloween Papers were right about the need
to learn from Linux].
> Nothing much has changed in 2 years from a UI point of view.
Funny, I was going to say the same thing about Win 2000. And you're
absolutely wrong about that statement for Linux. I've loaded both
Mandrake/KDE and RedHat/Gnome. I prefer the latter, but they both
go smooth as silk.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 19:16:57 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This group should rename itself
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> KDE applications have problems. Try accessing a directory with a large
> number of files. Watch what happens, try to click on a file whilst it's
> running. It doesn't crash, but it picks the _wrong_ file.
>
I just tried it. Worked perfectly. It picked the right file every time.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:20:27 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > No, Linux splits the user interface and treats it like it were a program.
> > UNIX did this because IT HAD NO CHOICE. Linux does this because...???
>
> No...it was done that way because it MAKES MORE SENSE and KEEPS
> SYSTEM STABILITY HIGH.
Bravo!!! Here! Here!
And only now is Windozzzzzzzz getting a "terminal server". I'm curious
though, as to where that leaves "pcAnywhere"?
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:29:07 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
>
> Does Rush Limbaughs truth spewing feel like holy water on a vampire? It does
> seem to have that effect on the most extreme socialists who's one true enemy
> IS TRUTH.
So where does Rush Limbaugh come in with this "truth" thing?
You can always tell when he's lying... the sentence starts with "Trust me on
this, ladies and gentlemen." I don't know how people can listen to that
birdbrain for anything except the same kind of entertainment they'd get
from Jerry Springer or Judge Harlan. The man is cognitive dissonance personified.
But, if you enjoy him, good for you.
Chris
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:43:44 GMT
On Sat, 23 Dec 2000 18:23:03 GMT, Chad C. Mulligan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sounds somewhat like your own "I doesn't work for me" doesn't it?
I was commenting on HP drivers which didn't work. The other Chad said
they never have problems.
But it doesn't matter because I'm in his kill file. I like to answer
his posts anyway just to be perverse.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 00:54:56 GMT
Yes, that is exactly what he meant but if you actually paid attention
to reality you would understand that he meant the most popular
commercial OS integrates those attributes (being full of bugs and
using deceptive marketing). You know, the one you shamelessly
hype...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
. The most popular comm
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:kLW06.52125$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> When you say "nicely integrates" you mean cut and paste and call a distro,
> right?
>
> I've seen a three year old tape paper togather better than most of the
> distro's keep their product "integration" tight.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:91v18f$4c0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > >You can choose from distributions that don't work at all (Corel).
> > >Distributions that are a year and a half behind (Debian and
> > >Slackware).
> > >Distributions that are full of bugs (Redhat).
> > >And distributions that use deceptive marketing (Mandrake).
> >
> > Or you could go with the competing product, which nicely integrates all
> > those features into one readily available and immensely popular package
> ;-)
> >
> > Bernie "Too Easy!" Meyer
> > --
> > A thick skin is a gift from God
> > Konrad Adenauer
> > First Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany
> > New York Times, 30 December 1959
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: 23 Dec 2000 16:37:31 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 02:42:02 -0500, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hardly; it is the textbooks which agree with mlw's statement that
>"Windows" is not an OS. And it isn't. Its middleware, most
Which textbooks?
The typical definition of OS is along the lines of it is the software
that does the scheduling, controls access to devices, manages memory,
and provides the filesystem.
Let's check Win95 against these:
Scheduling: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
Device access: Handled by VXDs, which are Windows drivers, not DOS
drivers.
Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
Filesystem: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: 23 Dec 2000 16:42:01 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:52:46 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You seem to be confusing Windows 9x with NT. I refer you to Andrew
>Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows 95, Developers Resource Kit" or
>"Inside Windows 95" by Adrian King. (MS Press). Or you could download
>the Windows DDK and read the help files.
It is customary to only cite sources you've read.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:02:16 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:r7616.23024$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >
> > > So much for lower up front costs. There goes TCO even further up for
> Linux.
> >
> > Think quantity, not units of one.
> >
>
> Working for a company that supports many single server installations,
units
> of one are significant. Or are you saying it takes a quantity of Linux to
> equal a single NT system?
>
Just the opposite. But, when you get one Linux server configured the way
you want, you can clone a thousand copies and roll them out. No
third party software required to do it, no license fees, no endless
rebooting after installing applications. The cost associated with a
person keeping the system up to date may not only be lower in the
first place with Linux but you can spread the same work over as many
copies as you need.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: 23 Dec 2000 17:00:06 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Smith wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000 20:03:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Logitech decided to add one. MS also had the new optical mouse first,
>> >Logitech licensed the technology about 6 months later again (as did Apple).
>>
>> And as did Microsoft...the new optical mouse was developed by HP. I
>> believe that is mentioned on one of Microsoft's descriptions of it on
>> their web site.
>
> I don't know who was first with it, but I was using an optical mouse on
>Sun box in 1988. You're making all this up, Smith.
Read carefully. Notice we are all saying "new optical mouse". That is
to distinguish it from optical mice like the one you were using in 1988
(and that others were using well before that).
Your optical mouse worked by using a special mousepad with a fine grid
on it, which the mouse sensed. It was almost useless without the
special pad, and also required you to keep it aligned with the pad,
probably.
The new optical mice, developed by HP, do not require any special mouse
pad. In fact, they don't require a pad at all. They work by
illuminating the surface below the mouse with a bright LED, and taking a
picture of that surface with a CCD camera. They take about 1500
pictures per second, and use image processing software running on a DSP
in the mouse to compare the pictures, and deduce how the mouse has
moved.
The new optical mice work on pretty much any approximately flat surface
you are likely to have near your computer. E.g., your desk, a piece of
paper, your pants leg, a Jack in the Box Monster Taco...pretty much
anything other than a mirror.
You might want to make some effort to keep up with technology before
accusing people of making things up.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: 23 Dec 2000 17:04:02 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:16:34 GMT, Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why MSN Messenger in particular though, there are plenty of other messaging
>programs that do run in Linux: IRC, ICQ. Plus AIM and it's compatibles (gaim).
Is there a Linux ICQ client that doesn't suck?
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:10:26 GMT
"Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ca616.23035$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > If I pay for it it is a product. Production releases of software
aren't
> > > services they are product. Beta isn't production releases. Ergo no
> > > product.
> >
> > You mean it should work when you get it and not need any service
> > packs or upgrades to do what it was supposed to have done
> > right in the first place? There seems to be a real shortage
> > of software like that...
> >
>
> Not necessarily but the assurance that the service packs etc., will be
> forthcoming would be nice. A two year old package should have more than
> beta level replacement options.
Does that mean your experience with Microsoft has lowered your
expectations to the point that you think software won't ever work
right in the first place?
> > > Enough half rabbits.
> > >
> > > > Much of your misunderstanding comes from an inability to understand
> that
> > > > fundamental difference.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It isn't my misunderstanding but your apologizing for open sores
> > weaknesses
> > > that are at issue here.
> > >
> >
> > I think you are the one who misunderstands. I have Linux servers
running
> > the first and only copy I loaded on them over a year ago. One has never
> > been shut down - several others have only been down to relocate or
> > change their power connections. None of the Microsoft servers have
> > done as well. Everything prior to NT with sp6a has crashed, everything
> > newer has been down at least to install the necessary fixes. So much
> > for 'production releases'.
> >
>
> Thanks for making my point, no progress.... BTW I had a group of NT Sp4
> Servers with 400 days uptime what problems are you having.
You don't need progress if you don't ship a broken version due to
financial pressure to sell something now and then try to patch it
up over the next few years. The main problem I had
with NT through sp5 was that an application would crash leaving
a Dr. Watson dialog up, then regardless of whether you clicked the
continue or cancel option there was about a 90% chance that the
machine would lock up completely, killing everything else that was
running. If you only run perfect applications perhaps you can get
along without a robust OS. I can't do that, but fortunately it hasn't
been a problem under Linux.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: 24 Dec 2000 01:13:29 GMT
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Philip Neves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>> > Hey I've Installed linux from scratch and I use instant messaging does that
>> > make me thick or lazy.
>>
>> No, but run-on sentences and absent commas do.
> And what about quoting TWO screenful worth to add -- count 'em -- nine words
> of wisdom and one comma?
Thats just me being an asshole.
:)
=====.
--
"It's natural to expect there might be people doing stupid things
with computers"
---Michael Vatis, director of the FBI's national infrastructure
protection center commenting on Y2K concerns about hacker attacks
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:39:11 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:FFW06.51210$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:R5V06.21698$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >
> > > If I pay for it it is a product. Production releases of software aren't
> > > services they are product. Beta isn't production releases. Ergo no
> > > product.
> >
> > You mean it should work when you get it and not need any service
> > packs or upgrades to do what it was supposed to have done
> > right in the first place? There seems to be a real shortage
> > of software like that...
> >
>
> Not necessarily but the assurance that the service packs etc., will be
> forthcoming would be nice. A two year old package should have more than
> beta level replacement options.
>
You keep on harping on Star Office, whining about how there have been no
updates in 2 years and use that as some sort of failure of Open Source. Yet
you fail to admit that your basic premise is wrong - Star Office has existed
for years. Most of that 2 years lack of development you complain about was
during the time Star Office was CLOSE SOURCE. As soon as it became Open
Source, updates started to occur. So, what again is your argument? It looks
like you have provided evidence of the failure of closed source - just the
opposite of what you have been whining about.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: This group should rename itself
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 01:50:16 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 22 Dec 2000 22:11:55 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Besides, if I really thought Linux sucked, why am I using it right now?
>
> I dunno, you're stupid (only kidding) <BG>!
>
> Actually i suspect you are using it for the same reasons many people
> "use" it:
>
> 1. Using something different for a change is exciting.
It isn't different for someone who used unix before Microsoft even
thought about windows.
> 2. It allows you that control factor over your system that you once
> had when you ran DOS.
Why did anyone run DOS?
> 3. It is powerful.
Yes, unix was designed for powerful machines, and Linux
inherits the design.
> 4. It is a novelty and is very different from Windows.
How is a system that runs your 20 year old programs with
only a recompile a novelty?
> 5. You are hoping that you can someday replace Windows with Linux and
> are betting that this release is "the one".
Or you are wondering why anyone ever bothered with Windows
in the first place.
> 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.
Huh? With Windows you have to go buy third party products for
every little thing then reboot after installing each and hope that
it doesn't destroy some other program you have installed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: Sun, 24 Dec 2000 02:07:11 GMT
Tim Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:16:34 GMT, Ian Davey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Why MSN Messenger in particular though, there are plenty of other messaging
> >programs that do run in Linux: IRC, ICQ. Plus AIM and it's compatibles (gaim).
>
> Is there a Linux ICQ client that doesn't suck?
dunno, is there any icq client that doesn't suck?
seriously, I thought icq was absorbed by aol...
I've been using gaim, aim, and yahoo messenger...
There also exists "everybuddy" that does all of them IIRC -
MfG,
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
******************************
