Linux-Advocacy Digest #119, Volume #31 Fri, 29 Dec 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away" (JM)
Re: Windows Stability (JM)
Re: Windows Stability (JM)
Re: Why Advocacy? (JM)
Re: Why Advocacy? (JM)
Re: Why Advocacy? (JM)
Re: Why Advocacy? (JM)
Re: Why Advocacy? (JM)
Re: Why Advocacy? (JM)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (JM)
Re: Linux is awful (JM)
Re: Linux, it is great. ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:12:25 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 03:47:23 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>maximus wrote:
>
>> I entered this forum looking for help and offered some past history as
>> a concern for the future of Linux.
>
>That was your first mistake - this place is haunted by extremists
>of all sorts,
Muhahahahaha....boo. :-) Mind you, we do seem to have this one guy
claire/Steve/Keys88/flatfish++ ...
>including microsoft shills who post fabricated Linux
>problems, and even microsoft employees posing as neutral
>bystanders, telling of their wondrous experiences with microsoft
>windows - Of course there are extremists on the other side
>too, but this is not the newsgroup to go for help - the signal to
>noise ratio is way too low.
But it is entertaining. :-) But you're right; comp.os.linux.setup
or comp.os.linux.developer.* might be more appropriate for
certain types of problems.
>
>I suggest you try one of the technical linux newsgroups or
>mailing lists if you want help with technical issues.
>
>> Goodbye and good luck.
>
>Good luck as well to you sir!
Indeed.
>
>jjs
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random solution here
up 91 days, 14:57, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:17:50 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 28 Dec 2000 20:05:29 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Todd wrote:
>
>> This is far different from simply having to know a logon. For example, if I
>> knew the root password for a UNIX box, I could get to it over the Internet
>> from home.
>
>Looks like your Unix knowledge is lacking.
>
>I can give you the hostnames and root passwords to any or
>all of my unix servers and you would still never get in.
Didn't somebody actually broadcast his root password for a PPC Linux
box with the proviso that "if you crack it, you can have it"?
Something like www.linuxppc.com? (AFAIK, nobody won.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- I guess the guy offering got to take it home, lucky him....
up 91 days, 15:01, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Profitability of Linux being a challenge
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:06:18 GMT
In article <92d3gu$l0f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
>
http://www.32bitsonline.com/article.php3?file=issues/200012/news20001205
1&pa
> ge=1
> >
> > "Caldera Systems [Nasdaq: CALD] announced today another new
executive.
> > Edgie E. Donakey was named to the position of vice president and
chief
> > of staff. Coming with a long history at 3Com, Danakey will be
> > responsible overseeing the integration of Caldera's many
acquisitions
> > particularly Santa Cruz Operations' (SCO) server software and
> > professional services divisions . SCO was acquired earlier this
fall."
> >
> > [....]
> >
> > "These two recent appointments are attempts to bring life to a
battered
> > Caldera who has seen its stock erode from a high of $33.00 to close
> > today at only $2.00."
> >
> > "The appointment have failed to produce any excitement in the
markets as
> > it was dragged down by Linux distribution leader RedHat. RedHat
[Nasdaq:
> > RHAT] announced today that it was cutting 20 jobs and closing three
> > office in order to conserve cash and help further RedHat's push
towards
> > profitability."
> >
> > "Linux stocks, in general, have falled out of favour with investors.
In
> > spite of today's huge market rally, Linux stocks such as RedHat and
VA
> > Linux Systems [Nasdaq: LNUX] have failed to move up. Instead, both
have
> > moved further into the red."
>
> Interesting graphs:
>
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=3&page=charting&mode=basics&sym
bol=
> CALD%60&selected=CALD%60
>
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=4&page=charting&mode=basics&sym
bol=
> LNUX%60&selected=LNUX%60
>
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=10&page=charting&mode=basics&sy
mbol
> =APLX%60&selected=APLX%60
>
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=10&page=charting&mode=basics&sy
mbol
> =SUNW%60&selected=SUNW%60
>
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=4&page=charting&mode=basics&sym
bol=
> RHAT%60&selected=RHAT%60
>
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?chart=10&page=charting&mode=basics&sy
mbol
> =MSFT%60&selected=MSFT%60
Try this (past lines together)
http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=ChartStocks&mode=basics&;
chart=3&symbol=CALD&symbol=LNUX&symbol=APLX&symbol=SUNW&
symbol=RHAT&symbol=MSFT&symbol=AOL&symbol=YHOO&symbol=&symbol=
While Linux stocks dropped substantially, so did internet stocks.
Bottom line, corporations have been discovering Open Source and
are using consultants and Open Source rather than paying
substantially higher prices to have their content plopped
into sites by hosting companies have spent $billions on
proprietary software and massive arrays of hardware.
Keep in mind that Red Hat, who was the first "Pure Linux IPO" was
doing some pretty nutty things. They came back less than 3 months after
their initial IPO and issued an identical amount (effectively splitting
the stock without a swap). This cut the stock price from $140 to $70.
Then a bunch of the employees and "friends and family" bailed out
selling nearly half the original two issues, which cut the price from
$80 to $40. Finally IBM sold half of it's interest in Red Hat (likely
to diversify it's holdings across multiple Linux companies) which
dropped the price from $45 to $20.
In addition, Red Hat focused on growth by aquisition rather than
building on a stable business model and building a stable market.
Many of the businesses purchased were already losing money and
Red Hat was just grabbing intellectual properties at bargain
basement rates. Red Hat also failed to agressively address the desktop
market which gave Mandrake (Simon and Shuster) a big jump in overall
distribution.
Corel had it's share of problems as well. There was a lawsuit against
the CEO which clouded the viability of the stock, then the stock hit
$30/share on speculation that Corel Linux would be a hot product. The
debian installations didn't go as smoothly as planned, customers were
having trouble getting technical support, and many were calling the
person who recommended corel for installation help.
Linux is a very competitive market because there is a common
baseline of source code. Ultimately, the leading distributions
lead in the areas where they lead because they provide the best
product for that audience.
Red Hat is the leader for Servers and Server administrators.
Mandrake is the leader in Desktop systems for New or Lazy users.
SuSE is the leader in Desktop system for "Power Users".
Turbo Linux is the leader in Asia and in Clustered Servers.
Caldera is a leader in Small Office and Home Office, especially MLM
and consulting practices.
Debian is popular as a "Baseline", but limited in support and
capability. Corel did little to improve this situation.
Corel and Sun are doing very well with their office products
in terms of numbers. Revenue is climbing.
Part of the problem with earnings at the moment is that the
key players are spending a great deal on advertizing to
build brand recognition and brand identification. This was
essential for the "dot.coms" because users could easily and
freely hope from one portal to another without legally binding
commitments to any one portal. Television advertizing and
other promotions did increase traffic (and therefore revenue).
Many of the Linux vendors have been getting bad advice from
Dot.Com managers and Venture Capitalists who assume that Linux
is "Just Like the Internet".
Ironically, the most successful organizations (LinuxCare,
MandrakeSoft) have business models that keep them in the black.
When Bob Young was running Red Hat, he kept the company in
the black or only slightly in the red. When the VC and IPO
pressure came on, Red Hat was being pushed into some high risk
ventures, ineffective marketing campaigns (Cancelling Linux Expo
in Raleigh/Durham, but spending thousands on premium advertising).
Keep in mind that Red Hat is still doing very well. Even with all
the aquisitions (much of which diluted Linux revenues) they are still
growing at over 100% over the last year. Many of the other companies
are still reporting growth rates at 185% to 270% per year in terms of
both unit volumes and revenue.
Many of the really effective business models have been duplicated by
bigger companies. IBM's Open Source consulting and support groups
have established thriving practices based on consulting, co-hosting,
and service models. LinuxCare has also done very well - but has
had no need to issue stock due to a positive cash-flow situation.
The irony here is that companies who spend very little on advertizing
directly do almost as well as those who dump nearly $1 billion/year
into advertizing campaigns designed to promote their brand. The same
is true in the "Dot.Com" arena. Google, which spends very little on
advertizing does very well. DejaNews, which also does very little in
terms of broadcast media advertizing has also been running in the black
for most of the last 5 years.
> > What is it that these distributors
> > are doing that makes it so hard for
> > them to prosper while distributing
> > and providing support services for
> > the fastest growing OS market in history?
The rising tide floats all boats. Some companies think that if
they pay enough in advertising, that their boat will float higher
and rise faster. Some advertising is neccesary, since even today
many companies are still unaware of how much Open Source software
permeates every element of the Economic Prosperity we've enjoyed for
the last 5-7 years. It's ironic that everybody knows about Cisco
Systems, Sun Microsystems, and the major internet companies, yet
they have no clue that the "Real Drivers of Prosperity" were things
like BSD, TCP/IP, SendMail, NCSA Mosaic, Apache, and Linux.
Much of this was because major corporations were so focused on
Year 2000 issues while being told by the CEO to "Get us on the Web"
that they simply outsourced "Everything Internet". The corporations
initially didn't have the budgets for T1 let alon DS5 connections
back in 1994-5. During the Y2K years from 1995-1999 they were more
worried about whether the COBOL programs on the MVS systems were going
to "blow their cookies" than they were about how to set up a UNIX based
web server (internally or externally). Some companies even let their
ISP hosting provider provide the "Intranet" site (restricting access
to the Corporate firewall IP address).
> > The OSS model and approach to
> > software development and production is
> > advocated as being profitable and
> > yet these leading Linux distributors
> > are struggling. I see these
> > articles popping up time and again.
The OSS model was originally built on a foundation of people who
didn't "right published software for a living". Quite simply, most
of the OSS products were developed by consultants, systems
administrators, and internal corporate IT staff who needed to solve
unique business problems in a hurry.
There have been roughly 40 attempts to emulate the Open Source model
in a commercial "Framework", ranging from C++ Class hierarchies and
Java JDKs and CORBA service extensions to Microsoft Foundation Classes,
OLE, COM, DCOM, and ActiveX. Ironically, even the best third party
products have not provided the Return on Investment, Return on Expenses,
and Total Cost of Ownership from Project Initiation to Retirement
that Open Source has provided.
A famous quote in 1984 was:
I see farther because I have stood on the
shoulders of Giants
- Newton;
I see no further because I'm standing on
the toes of other programmers
- Anonymous Programmer".
The Open Source program started in 1983 with the Berkeley BSD project
and was codified and formalized by the General Public License in
about 1985. There are over 6 billion lines of code now covered by
some form of Open Source "Public License Agreement". Most of this
code has been developed, tested, debugged, and hardend in some of
the most demanding production environments FOR some of the most
demanding production environments.
> You can probably blame GPL for that.
> It's *very* hard to make profit, or even
> just to make both ends meet when you have
Unfortunately, selling Open Source Software is a bit like selling
water. Nearly everyone can get water from the tap, right out of
their home. But companies like Perier, Evian, and Polish Springs
have managed to create demand for a "premioum product" that provides
only marginal benefits, essentially through the combination of a
good business plan, and good advertising.
And of course the biggest joke of all is that there is Microsoft,
which essentially mixes toxic waste and addictive controlled substances
with their "spring water" (Enhanced versions of OpenSource standards)
and manage to pawn it off as a "better product".
Microsoft took Marc Andreeson's Open Source product, published to the
NCSA under a government grant, and proceeded to violate the license
(since they purchased it through a "money laundering company" that
insulated Microsoft from the liability). Then they proceeded to
introduce security holes, exclusive extensions, and methods for
"watching the viewer" (giving them the electronic equivalent of a
bugging device on every computer). They then used this information
to bankrupt competitors ranging from News services to Travel Agents.
Put simply, Microsoft produced an inferior product and used it to
sell Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT (especially the NT server
market).
The biggest irony of all is that Most users browse the world wide
web, send e-mail, chat, and send JPEG and GIF files, and they actually
believe that Bill Gates personally wrote every line of code used to
provide that service.
Microsoft is proof that P.T. Barnum was wrong. Barnum said you can't
fool all the people all of the time. Yet Microsoft has been "showing
us the egres" for nearly 20 years. Each time they tell us not to
use Open Source because they have "something better in the next
release" ("A Better UNIX than UNIX"). Then they show up with paint
buckets and tell us to paint our half of the room from the center
of the room to the most isolated corner - while they paint their
half of the room toward the cash register and the exit. Even more
amusing is that they have been doing this for nearly 20 years.
(Since they introduced Microsoft BASIC on the Commodore Pet).
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Newbie: "Linux has come so far only to seem so far away"
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:22 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:29:51 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>I entered this forum looking for help and offered some past history as
>a concern for the future of Linux. I am not a Microsoft zealot nor a
>Linux zealot (or any kind of zealot). I thank the few who took the time
>to think before they hit the keyboard and offered some good advice. As
>for the rest who responded by their hostility and negativity ad
>nauseum, you have my deepest sympathy. You do great disservice to the
>really good Linux people who are working hard by their actions AND
>words to make Linux a success. I admire them. It's unfortunate that
>they have to coexist with the hot headed, negative, anti-everything but
>Linux people who *live and die* on this and other forums. Nothing has
>changed on these forums regarding polite protocol since over a year ago
>and it has gotten worse. My advice to anyone seeking help or even
>asking a simple question is to use the Linux newsgroups with caution
>and have a thick skin. Make sure that the person who is giving you
>*advice* is one of the GOOD people. Completely ignore the know all
>radicals that will verbally castrate you while giving bad advice. They
>are the anti-christ of Linux.
What the fuck do you expect from an advocacy group? If you want help,
go to another fucking newsgroup. I come to this newsgroup to get away
from all the nice, friendly advice and beginners' questions. Where
else is everyone supposed to go to slag off other OSes apart from
advocacy groups?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:24 +0200
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:27:44 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> No, it's not quite as simple as that. If you had a systen with 4MB of
>> memory, you could use Linux on it. To use it to run Windows, you'd
>> need to spend another $45, and for what gain?
>Not true. You can use Windows in 4M. It works. It'll be slow, but then so
>will Linux in 4M if you plan to run any apps.
Not as slow as Windows.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:26 +0200
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 23:28:40 -0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Boris Dynin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) 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.
>Agreed. My home system: P200 with 96MB RAM - runs W2k Pro. It's not speed
>demon, but it's quite usable. I even use it when I work at home: run
>MS-Office, Visual Studio, etc. Compared to system I use at work: PIII-600
>with 256 MB RAM (W2k server) - it's considerably slower on some operations;
>but the speed is comparable on other ops.
But 96MB of RAM is quite a lot.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:27 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:45:23 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Craig Kelley wrote:
>
>> At least text files have comments and man pages.
>
>Do they ALL have man pages, I wonder.
>
>> They're easier to backup.
>regedit can export to a text file. How hard is that to backup?
A lot more awkward than backing up simple text files.
>> They're easier to copy in case you screw up.
>How hard is it to copy a text file?
That's AFTER you've gone through the awkwardness of
exporting/importing them.
>> They don't have silly entries like S0122-34203023-3023209402
>
>I won't dispute this one, but then I haven't looked at where NT stores its
>service entries in the registry, and under what key.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:28 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:57:03 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> If in doubt, LEAVE THE SEQUENCE NUMBERS ALONE!
>And what happens when YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SEQUENCE NUMBER SHOULD BE?
Decide yourself, or look in the documentation somewhere.
>> > 00 or 99? How can I tell? Which one should run before another?
>> If you're adding a new product (like, say, a database engine), then
>> that product's Administrative Manual will tell you how to number it.
>Ah yes, RTFM.
Yes.
>> At least with Unix, there's a definite way that YOU can control
>> what starts up at boot up, and in what sequence it happens.
>And what happens when one daemon depends another. Do I have control then?
>Does it NOT WORK!
If you put them in the right order then YES.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:29 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:35:14 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)) wrote:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
><snip>
>>>
>>> > There is a tremendous amount of legacy within a Unix system.
>>>
>>> like the "C:>" prompt on a windows 2000 pee cee?
>>
>>the _CP-M_ C:> prompt in LoseDOS 2000
>>
>or the [Linux]: prompt on a certain other OS, which doesn't even tell you
>which drive you are looking at or what path you are on (by default
>anyway!).
I like my Bash prompt to be a nice yellow text against a blue
background.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:30 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:42:14 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>
>> Run regedit?
>I've been told recently you can run regedit from a DOS prompt. I've not
>tried this (and if it's a WIN32 app. I don't see how it can work).
You can, but you have to type in a really LONG command, which as to be
exactly right, and then it only exports it to a GIANT text file.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:32 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:43:29 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> Yes, the keys and values in regedit are meaningless and you
>> can't see them all at once or easily diff the broken copy against
>> a working one. You can at least read the files you are talking
>> about linking - and you can use a tool that does the link for you.
>You can diff a text file can't you? regedit can export to a text file.
And it exports them all into nice, small, seperate files so they are
easy to manage.
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:33 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 10:50:54 +0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Steve Mading wrote:
>> : S and K are easy. But, what about the sequence number? What should it
>> : be? 00 or 99? How can I tell? Which one should run before another? Oh,
>> : so I go look it up in the manual, it really is that obvious!
>>
>> They happen in order, duh. (01 before 02 before 03...before 98 before 99)
>> Or would you rather have it automagically figure out based on the system
>> guessing what those files are trying to do? That's a disaster waiting
>> to happen - because when it gets it wrong (and it WILL), you can't
>> fix it.
>My point was - for example, should NFS be started before TCP/IP? If NFS
>depends on TCP/IP and it breaks without it, setting arbitrary sequence
>numbers breaks startup.
If NFS depends on TCP/IP, then WHY THE FUCK would you start NFS before
TCP/IP??????
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:34 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 07:12:05 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima)) wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:17:41 -0500, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>That's good. But you know, I'll take the 30 seconds it takes to reboot the
>>winbox after a driver install over the 20 seconds it takes everytime I
>>launch Netscape to get a url box.
>Hmm. It takes ~5 sec here and konqueror (my primary browser) takes under
>2 sec (Athlon 700, 256M).
But what about a 333 with 28MB of RAM?
------------------------------
From: JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:22:36 +0200
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 06:38:21 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>) wrote:
>> I won't fault Linux, X or apps on this one... without faulting _all_
>systems
>> and apps where this is true. Which includes Windows. Try running 640x480
>> and large fonts, pop up, say, the display properties dialog, and see if
>you
>> can see the "okay cancel apply" buttons at the bottom of the screen... or
>if
>> you can scroll to them.
>Hehe, that's not what he said, the simple (sad) fact is that it's true.
>Linux does not present the user with either a consistent nor well designed
>GUI.
"Linux" doesn't have to: it's only technically a kernel.
>As a CLI OS it rocks. Well it must anyway, since it's so stable, but I
>can't and won't use CLI.
Why not?
>The Linux GUI (pick any flavor, it applies to all
>of them to different extents) has a hell of a long way to go to catch up to
>windows / MacOS (these having the advantage of having their GUIs built-in as
>a non-removable part of the OS). Seems to me that the Linux GUI is just a
How is that an advantage? What's so good about being FORCED to use a
GUI against your WILL? Even worse, you have to use a PARTICULAR GUI,
you have NO choice in the matter, no matter how bloated the GUI is.
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:21:14 -0000
>Well, KDE and GNOME are too unstable and too "heavy". They are like a copy
>of the Windows desktop but with worst performance and more byggy. The good
>thing about them: themes.
>I really like WindowMaker. Fast, simple and reliable. What can i possibly
>want more on a wm?
>
What about IceWM ( also based on win9x desktop) or fvwm2, fvwm95, blackbox,
enlightenment, etc.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 18:32:11 GMT
os2.advocacy removed from followups. (I wonder if anyone ported
X to OS2? Interesting thought, that.)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Erik Funkenbusch
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 02:30:32 -0600
<qUX26.4383$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Bob Lyday" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> > "Brad Wardell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:vRQ26.24038
>> > > > IBM has never been able to program their way out of a wet paper
>bag...
>> > >
>> > > I would have to disagree. No OS still can match the WPS or SOM yet
>and
>> > that
>> > > was back in 1992.
>> >
>> > Athena looks quite promising from the perspective of the WPS. It should
>be
>> > quite interesting to see it develop.
>>
>> What the hell is that, more vile M$ filth????????? Never even heard
>> of it......
>
>Given your signature below, this message is quite ironic.
>
>http://www.rocklyte.com/athena/index.html
This could be fun, considering MIT had an Athena project of their own.
It was basically a test widget set -- no frills, no pretty borders,
no gradated title bars, dumb scrollbars that required 3 buttons
to operate (but they did work), very ugly pushbuttons (basically, a label
with a thick black border), toggle buttons that looked identical
to pushbuttons, a rather basic but very reliable text widget (dunno
if anyone ever extended TextSource and TextSink though), a few
other things. The entire effect was a bit like a funny car [*] with a
plain gray shell -- useful and powerful, but no glitz, and hard to handle.
Later on, somebody cobbled up Xaw3d, which is AFAIK a prettier variant,
although I haven't tried programming in it.
The above website describes an OS, which is entirely different.
Confusion? Not too much -- nobody uses Athena anymore.
>
>Think before you flame.
Indeed; one should always think before flaming, in order to
improve the insult(s) therein :-). It's always better to write
"your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries"
than
"you suck". :-) :-) :-) (And even the above would lose points, if
I understand the "system" correctly, because it's not original; it
was lifted from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. But oh well.)
[.sigsnip]
[*] I'm of course referring to NHRA entrants, not a car that is strange,
although funny cars are pretty strange. :-) Most funny cars AFAIK
have colorful body shells plastered with decals (sponsors).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random racing car here
up 91 days, 15:08, running Linux.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
