Linux-Advocacy Digest #68, Volume #31 Tue, 26 Dec 00 19:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 (Jim Broughton)
Re: Why Advocacy? (pip)
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Bob Lyday)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Jason Bowen)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows Stability ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Why Advocacy? (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Installshield and IBM will end this argument ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Why Advocacy? (pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 22:25:01 GMT
The post in question was in regard to Linux's inherent ability to
decentralize it's general interface, be it a console or a GUI. The comment
was that Windows hadn't caught up to this concept of remote computing, in
which I corrected the poster, stating that Windows HAD this ability to
remote serve it's GUI to other terminals through the Windows NT Terminal
Services edition. The responding post was that Windows NT terminal services
edition was a piece of crap because it was "slow". And console (MSDOS, err,
console prompt) is also available through the Windows 2000 telnet server.
The responding reply was that Windows NT TSE was a sluggard, resource hog
over dumb terminals. I replied that most of the limitations to Windows TSE
were network related, not computing / workstation hardware.
Further commentary ensued when people claimed that regardless, Windows NT
TSE was still sluggish.
This is where the logical commentary stopped, and obvious, mindless trolling
began.
Then you (to cut 'it' short) asked what was going on, and to clarify my
definition of "user interface".
I define "User Interface" as, in the capacity of "desktop" or
"workstation"...
Any software application that provides a direct method of input and visual,
or tactile response to said input (through appropriate mechanisms).
Linux's collection of User interfaces suck. KDE2 goes a long way into
reducing the amount of "suck" in it, and Enlightenment goes even further, to
add "eye-candy", but the resulting UI's don't go into adding FUNCTIONALITY
that is substantial to the previous revisions of KDE and Gnome &
Enlightenment (or sawmill).
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 21:54:28 GMT
> <ogu16.52812$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
>
> [moved down]
>
> >
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> >message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Kyle Jacobs
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 04:22:44 GMT
> >> <oSe16.55343$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >Windows NT TERMINAL SERVICES EDITION does exactly that genius. And
> >Windows
> >> >2000 now serve's a remote console session (remote DOS prompt)
> >> >
> >> >Gee, sucks when Windows is moving along, and Linux is standing still.
> >>
> >> Dumb question, but what can Windows NT Terminal Services do that
> >> Linux + X + xterm + ssh (ssh has an X server proxy that encrypts
traffic)
> >> can't?
> >Serve the Windows Explorer interface so users can get real, important
work
> >done.
>
> Meaning precisely what? Although you are technically correct (I forgot
> to mention Apache, Jakarta, or PHP) [*], I'd like to clarify this.
> My understanding of the word "interface" includes two sub-parts:
> one is Java-like, in which the user of the interface (the very word is
> actually reserved in standard Java, unlike 'delegate' :-) ) is provided
> what is essentially a contract (actually, an API, which stands for, IIRC,
> "application procedure interface", a term I'm not fond of because of
> the ambiguity of which "application" is being talked about, the provider
> of the interface (which in itself is an app), or the consumer).
> The second is far more general, and includes such subtypes as "graphical
> user interface" and "command line interface", both of which are
> interfaces to, as you put it, "get real work done".
>
> Since IE is a full-fledged HTML-capable (+ DHTML, + XMHTML, + ActiveX,
> + Java, + JavaScript, etc.) browser, it would fall into the second
> category; this indicates that you are apparently claiming that Linux
> doesn't support a browser-driven user interface (a third subcategory,
> which is often called a "web application").
>
> However, you'd be wrong in that case; Linux supports Jakarta and PHP
> just fine (Jakarta serves up Java 'servlets', which are similar to
> ActiveX objects; they allow for dynamic generation of data and can
> also retrieve data from other things on the server side for presentation
> to the user, in a more or less controlled fashion); both hook into a
> HTML-capable webserver (Apache) and can even hook up a database
> (Postgres, msql, mysql, Oracle, DB2) to said webserver, allowing
> all sorts of nifty things to happen such as "shopping carts".
>
> There's even an option for security (OpenSSL, which is similar to ssh,
> except it's an encryption library instead of a daemon + connector
> client; I don't remember whether ssh can sit on top of OpenSSL or not).
>
> To be fair, Microsoft supports all of these options as well, and
> more (LDAP, for example -- although even here Linux probably has
> a server/client pair; I just don't know what it's called offhand.
> NT has ASP (via IIS), although I understand there's a Solaris-capable
> webserver that can do VisualBasic, plus part of COM -- and JSP and ASP
> compete for dynamic server page generation).
>
> So, again, I'd like for you to clarify your comment. I hope the
> above clarifies my question. :-)
>
> [snip]
>
> [*] One problem is making sure we compare apples to apples. Comparing
> a bare-bones NT system to a fully-loaded-and-configured-with-
> everything-on-it-including-the-kitchen-sink Linux system -- even if
> everything on the Linux system is freeware -- would be patently
unfair.
> Ditto for comparing a fully-loaded NT system (including third-party
> stuff) to a bare-bones Linux system that has nothing but core
> utilities such as mv, rm, and shutdown -- without even ifconfig
> or networking.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random clarification here
> up 89 days, 17:37, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:27:02 -0700
billh wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>
> > > > Typical liberal. Complains that nobody is fixing his problems for
> him.
> > >
> > > And which of our nation's problems are you fixing, wannabe-war-hero?
> >
> > Tell us again you how believet that German, Japanes, North Korean,
> > Japanese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese soldiers never fired at
> > American medics.
>
> You again demonstrate that you truly are obsessed.
Maybe . . . but his responses to you are also the same kind of response
you would make to someone who is deluded . . . a fixed, constant
repetition of a question or fact, one that encourages the recipient to
re-consider their delusion, is a common practice in certain kinds of
therapy.
Attempting to rephrase, or letting the point slip, encourages the
patient to find a way to hang on to their delusions.
Of course, such kinds of treatment are usually effective only in an
in-patient situation, so Aaron is wasting his time.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Question with Security on Linux/Unix versus Windows NT/2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:46:57 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 12:07:23 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> Borlands Delphi versions 3,4 and 5.
> >
> >Nope. Delphi works just fine on a user account if you've installed it
from
> >that user account. You don't need systemwide access.
>
> It would be nice if you could install it from one account and use it
> from a different one, don't you think? At the very least multiple users
> should be able to install independent copies of it. Otherwise, your
> multi-user OS isn't very multi-user, for that application.
Borland provides a tool to import the registry into the users hive, but it's
still not very good. Borland of all people should be able to write an
install program that does this, but they don't bother.
------------------------------
From: Jim Broughton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:02:44 GMT
Jeepster wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, what do Linux users feel about this OS?
I don't care one way or the other. Windows 2000 is absolutly
irrelevent to me. Not that it may or may not be a good OS.
I just don't care one way or the other.
>
> Do they hate it or admire it?
niether.
>
> Hate because its MS
well this part does have a point. BUT read above.
>
> or
> Admire cos it is an OS that is comparable with Linux?
>
Comparable? your kidding right? Win 2000 is a desktop oriented
end user OS that was meant to bring stability to a tainted
line of vulnerable near OS's. Linux is a network server oriented
OS with a decent but not perfect desktop parked on top of it.
In what way are they comparable? (not really meant to be
an sort of flame bait. can we keep it civil?)
--
Jim Broughton
(The AmigaOS now there was an OS!)
If Sense were common everyone would have it!
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:02:41 +0000
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> <snype>
>
> >> This is unfair. Take USB, as Xmas has passed I now have a USB mouse
> >> which worked fine under windows, yet I know that I really don't want the
> >> pain of configuring USB under Linux and would prefer to wait until 2.4.
> >> Linux is a better OS technically, but many end users are not as
> >> concerned if it does not easily support hardware and perhaps more
> >> importantly software. Linux will in time.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Maybe USB-support is not perfect in Linux. So I don´t buy USB-Devices
> > because I want the OS and not a special kind of a mouse.
> Down at my local computer store, I can either spend $189 for a Mickysoft
> USB mouse or $50 on a decent logitec PS/2 mouse. What would you choose?
> most poeple would know which mouse I would choose and it an't the
> over-priced, glorified micksoft mouse.
...and this is typical of the problems of some Linux advocates. It is
now the users fault for selecting bad hardware. Don't you both see
problems with your argument?
Also, "glorified" features are sometimes very useful. It is called
progress. With that attitude you'd never user GUI.
As a matter of interest it is a Logitech mouse and it also comes with a
usb-ps/2 adapter. This is hardly the point. Everything is possible, but
if you want an advantage of windows it is off the hoof usb and 1394
support. These are examples where Linux must catch up. Own up, own the
problem and stop avoiding the issue. There is nothing wrong with the
current situation as it will produce the best results in the long term
when properly thought out support is included.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 15:05:10 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:32:41 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Bob Lyday wrote:
>
> >> You are obviously an idiot. NT, 2000Pro, 2000Server, 2000Advanced
> >> Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux do not whip OS/2 ass in any way
> >> whatsoever, really.
>
> >Uh huh. And just how are you going to back this up? Never used OS/2,
> >so I wouldn't know.
Figures, Israel. Stop looking like a fool and attacking the Amiga and
OS/2. They are both excellent OS's, as are the BSD's and Linux. Stop
hyping Win2K. It makes you look ignorant. Perhaps you should give
OS/2 a whirl before you trash it?
>
> OS/2 was a very nice system compared to Win95 and NT3, which were more
> or less contemporary with OS/2 2.0. The problem is that development
> basically stopped a while ago. Yes, IBM has released updates, but they
> haven't been making the effort that the MS and Linux camps have been.
True to a point.
>
> For example, OS/2 had a truly OO desktop based on something called
> "SOM". The classic example of the use of this was a program that
> overrode the folder class to create a new kind of folder that understood
> ftp. So you could have remote ftp sites on your desktop. There were
> other programs such as Object Desktop that took advantage of this to
> enhance the system in all kinds of ways. The system scripting language,
> Rexx, knew about the desktop and could be used to manipulate it. It was
> really quite ahead of it's time.
>
> But with COM and KParts and Bonobo, the other guys have this technology
> too now
SOM and DSOM continue to kill COM and DCOM. The WPS has never been
equaled as a GUI and perhaps never will be. None of the Linux GUI's
come close.
and IBM hasn't made any fundamental improvements to OS/2's in
> quite a while. They just don't seem to care much anymore, which means
> that the whole market has stagnated.
Many OS/2 users are furious about IBM's betrayal of the best OS on
Intel.
Compare and contrast to the Linux,
> BSD, and NT communities.
>
> >Uh, well, BSD and Linux are being actively worked on, and have seen
> >numerous continual improvements.
>
> Yes, and that's the problem with OS/2. IBM has left it for dead. They
> kick out a few updates once in a while to keep certain big users happy
> and that's about it.
You are of course right to a point. However, OS/2 continues to have
the best TCP-IP stack in the industry, along with the best JVM, and of
course the best GUI. In addition, OS/2 multithreads and multitasks
better than any OS on Intel. In addition, it is faster and manages
resources better than any *nix. Plus it is way way way easier to use
and maintain than any of the *nixen. OS/2 is also the only OS with
built-in voice navigation. IMO, though, the *nixen are more stable,
especially Free BSD, BSD-OS and Irix, which seem to be the most
reliable and stable of the *nixen.
I know nothing about Inferno.
--
Bob
In the interest of the Christmas spirit, the nasty anti-Dubya sig has
been put aside. Don't despair, it will return shortly. ;) However,
spammers will get no mercy during the holidays. Therefore, you must
continue to remove "killthespammers" to reply. ;)
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:02:26 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said LShaping in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:24:50 GMT;
> >"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OTOH, saying that conservative extends to "conserving" something is
> entirely bogus.
Were you trying to respond to LShaping, or me?
In any event, once again, you fail to even explain your assertion.
I'll repeat: conservative is indeed partialy about conserving, your
beliefs not with standing.
> That conservatives (in the USA, at least) are for human
> rights and individual liberties is less bogus, but only because it is
> mostly propaganda (proganda that they buy into unimpeachably).
More bald assertion.
You are entitled to write what ever you want (unless, of course, you
violate a liberal principle, in which case the PC-liberals will shut you
down), but you've yet to identify what specific issues you have with the
conservative agenda.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[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: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:15:58 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> 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.
And yet . . . you failed utterly to refute what he said on his two web
pages.
Sarah Jessica Parker was spewing the usual FUD that liberals do, about
conservatives.
The deafening silence about the Hillary book deal is simply the
par-for-the-course-hypocrisy you expect to get from Democrats.
As someone who almost never listens to Rush, I was neutral on him until
your postings . . . now, after scanning through his web site, and
listening to him for a few days, I'm intrigued.
I'll have to go buy his books, now . . . and start listening to his
radio show.
Thanks for turning me on to him!
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason Bowen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.inferno
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: 26 Dec 2000 23:16:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 26 Dec 2000 00:32:41 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Bob Lyday wrote:
>>
>> >> You are obviously an idiot. NT, 2000Pro, 2000Server, 2000Advanced
>> >> Server, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and Linux do not whip OS/2 ass in any way
>> >> whatsoever, really.
>>
>> >Uh huh. And just how are you going to back this up? Never used OS/2,
>> >so I wouldn't know.
>
>Figures, Israel. Stop looking like a fool and attacking the Amiga and
>OS/2. They are both excellent OS's, as are the BSD's and Linux. Stop
>hyping Win2K. It makes you look ignorant. Perhaps you should give
>OS/2 a whirl before you trash it?
So tell us, how much Windows experience do you have? I figure you'll try
to make some feeble attempt at humor here.
>
>SOM and DSOM continue to kill COM and DCOM. The WPS has never been
>equaled as a GUI and perhaps never will be. None of the Linux GUI's
>come close.
In what ways? Can you tell us how som and dsom help you in your coding
adventures?
>
> and IBM hasn't made any fundamental improvements to OS/2's in
>> quite a while. They just don't seem to care much anymore, which means
>> that the whole market has stagnated.
>
>Many OS/2 users are furious about IBM's betrayal of the best OS on
>Intel.
How many is many? And what does it matter? They own it and will do with
it as they wish.
>
>Compare and contrast to the Linux,
>> BSD, and NT communities.
>>
>> >Uh, well, BSD and Linux are being actively worked on, and have seen
>> >numerous continual improvements.
>>
>> Yes, and that's the problem with OS/2. IBM has left it for dead. They
>> kick out a few updates once in a while to keep certain big users happy
>> and that's about it.
>
>You are of course right to a point. However, OS/2 continues to have
>the best TCP-IP stack in the industry, along with the best JVM, and of
>course the best GUI. In addition, OS/2 multithreads and multitasks
>better than any OS on Intel. In addition, it is faster and manages
>resources better than any *nix. Plus it is way way way easier to use
>and maintain than any of the *nixen. OS/2 is also the only OS with
>built-in voice navigation. IMO, though, the *nixen are more stable,
>especially Free BSD, BSD-OS and Irix, which seem to be the most
>reliable and stable of the *nixen.
>
Sounds like a bunch of opinion to me. You read something and it becomes
your experience heh? So tell me did you talk the graduate OS course too?
>I know nothing about Inferno.
I don't think you know much about OS/2 either.
>--
>Bob
>In the interest of the Christmas spirit, the nasty anti-Dubya sig has
>been put aside. Don't despair, it will return shortly. ;) However,
>spammers will get no mercy during the holidays. Therefore, you must
>continue to remove "killthespammers" to reply. ;)
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 16:20:32 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 04 Dec 2000 05:42:26
> [...]
> >Rush is loud, obnoxious, pompous, opinionated and , more often than not,
> >absolutely right in what he says.
>
> Think harder.
Typical, elistist posting:
"If you don't agree with my opinion of Rush, you just aren't as
intelligent as me, or you just aren't thinking at all."
Did it ever occur to you that people just as intelligent as yourself
could listen to Rush, think about what he says . . . and agree with him?
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:25:39 GMT
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:928sa4$fqv$03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > Wrong.
> > I can run today's windows on a 4 years old mid-range computer quite
> > comfortablely, be that a server or a desktop.
> > I don't do it for reasons that has nothing to do with Windows the OS, I
> > can't play any of the new games on a 4 year old computer, many
> > applications would work horribly or not work at all on a four years old
> > computer. OTOH, I've nearby a win2k (P233,32MB) which run Bryce half the
> > time.
> >
> > On general, I've noticed, Windows can run on a 5 years old mid-to-high
> > range computers.
> >
>
> You know, don't you, that 2K will NOT even install an an machine with 32MB
> So why do you tell lies like this. Even NT4 would be a pain in the ass on
a
> machine like that. I know, I had the bad luck and had to install NT4 on
> stuff like that. You can't even run decent Minsweeper on such a machine
> On the other hand, Linux would chomp away quite happyly on that thing
>
Amazing my Win2K retail box states that 32Meg is minimum and 4GB is max.
I still remember my friend borrowing memory from me, when he wanted to
install Linux, he didn't have enough to install but it ran fine in the
amount of memory he had on the computer.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 00:22:44 +0100
pip wrote:
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > <snype>
> >
> > >> This is unfair. Take USB, as Xmas has passed I now have a USB mouse
> > >> which worked fine under windows, yet I know that I really don't want
> > >> the pain of configuring USB under Linux and would prefer to wait
> > >> until 2.4. Linux is a better OS technically, but many end users are
> > >> not as concerned if it does not easily support hardware and perhaps
> > >> more importantly software. Linux will in time.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe USB-support is not perfect in Linux. So I don´t buy USB-Devices
> > > because I want the OS and not a special kind of a mouse.
> > Down at my local computer store, I can either spend $189 for a Mickysoft
> > USB mouse or $50 on a decent logitec PS/2 mouse. What would you choose?
> > most poeple would know which mouse I would choose and it an't the
> > over-priced, glorified micksoft mouse.
>
> ...and this is typical of the problems of some Linux advocates. It is
> now the users fault for selecting bad hardware. Don't you both see
> problems with your argument?
>
> Also, "glorified" features are sometimes very useful. It is called
> progress. With that attitude you'd never user GUI.
>
> As a matter of interest it is a Logitech mouse and it also comes with a
> usb-ps/2 adapter. This is hardly the point. Everything is possible, but
> if you want an advantage of windows it is off the hoof usb and 1394
> support. These are examples where Linux must catch up. Own up, own the
> problem and stop avoiding the issue. There is nothing wrong with the
> current situation as it will produce the best results in the long term
> when properly thought out support is included.
What ??
USB is really good for (what) ??
I my opinion, USB is just a piece of shit, thought of by Miccysoft, just to
detract people from the very real problems winblows has with any REAL
computing problem.
Up to this date i have not seen ANY good USB device, which you could
not buy also for SCSI. USB just stinks.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Installshield and IBM will end this argument
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:22:32 GMT
Thank f***ing god. It's about f***ing time.
"CJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean
all
> > the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
> >
> > I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day.
But
> > now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
> > getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> > distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
> > support.
> >
> > GUI based compilers won't solve the problems plaguing Linux, or the
software
> > installation system. It'd be nice to have a uniform package format,
> > something that all Linux's would have. From uniform packages would
> > inherently come simpler software installation.
>
> You must be a young tike. I seem to remember when Win 3.x came out.
>
> No uniform package installer, DOS apps you had to fight with to get
> working. Or they wouldn't work at all. There were very few true Win apps
> at the time. Most were DOS based running under Win.
>
> Why does Linux have to break out of the gate all grown up?
>
> It took Win awhile to get were it is today. And MS didn't make that
> happen.
>
> This company did.
>
> http://www.installshield.com/
>
> I just went to there page. Why don't you go there and look down at the
> bottom of the page.
>
> Under the title "Featured News". It looks like your argument will be
> moot soon.
>
>
> CJ
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:38:08 GMT
This is what I constantly tell people on this NG, I'd take FreeBSD over
Linux ANY DAY.
But, I am not personally in need of a data server. But my clients are.
So, I suggest a nice IS/IT contracting firm to send out an administrator,
with a commercial UNIX server, and voile! Reputable service, respectable
efficiency and scalability. Two of the three things mentioned are not
possible under Linux.
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:92ahed$g9g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ddW16.67214$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Just because you've had a picture perfect Linux experience doesn't mean
> all
> > the people I test for also have perfect experiences.
> >
> > I don't use Linux in a professional environment. I hope to, one day.
But
> > now, Linux is just a crappy plaything. My personal problem is it's not
> > getting better. On the desktop, it sucks. As a server? Only a few
> > distro's are even worth my 10 minutes. And god help me if I call tech
> > support.
>
> As a server, I find all the distributions of Linux useless, as I can get a
> BSD for the same price, get a higher quality product and lose nothing in
the
> process.
>
>
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 23:46:48 +0000
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> [snippage]
> What ??
> USB is really good for (what) ??
Read the spec
> I my opinion, USB is just a piece of shit,
I see you like a reasoned argument...
> thought of by Miccysoft, just to
> detract people from the very real problems winblows has with any REAL
> computing problem.
Shows you have not read the spec
> Up to this date i have not seen ANY good USB device, which you could
> not buy also for SCSI. USB just stinks.
You have not read the spec.
SCSI is not hot plug. Read the spec. Why do you think so many people in
the Linux community are working hard to get USB support? Don't detract
from their efforts.
You are not helping any cause :-(
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
