Linux-Advocacy Digest #127, Volume #31 Fri, 29 Dec 00 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Since this is an Advocacy.... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (mlw)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Andres Soolo)
Re: Since this is an Advocacy.... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: So how do we get from here to there? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux lacks ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Since this is an Advocacy....
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:33:44 -0700
Arthur Frain wrote:
>
> John W. Stevens wrote:
>
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 22:27:09 -0500, "Colin R. Day"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I already know how it works. In fact I learned that way back in 1979
> >> or so and it is old news. Now I concentrate on USING it instead of
> >> having to figure out how it works every time I add a new piece of
> >> hardware or software.
>
> > Excuse, but are you trying to claim you can't get the same kind of
> > problem under Windows, that you can get under Linux (having to tweak
> > it to work with new hardware)?!
>
> > If so, you're either extremely lucky, or extremely deluded.
>
> >> Windows 2000 allows me that luxury and Linux doesn't.
>
> > Wrong on both counts. There are indeed bits of hardware that Windows
> > 2K will barf on, and there are many pieces of hardware you can simply
> > stick into a Linux box, and have it work.
>
> Sorry to bring this up in response to your post, John,
> but I just bought my wife an HP 2250 Inkjet. It's a
> really excellent printer, and it works with Linux
> right out of the box (being Postscript and PCL 5
> capable so no drivers required).
>
> My wife still likes to use Windows for photos (it's
> a little more work under Linux), so she booted Windows
> and installed the printer software HP supplied. It
> not only doesn't work - any time she clicks anything
> related to the printer, the screen goes black and
> she has to hit the reset button (even CTRL-ALT-DEL
> won't work). I suggested maybe HP had updated drivers
> available, but her response was "Don't bother - I'll
> just use Linux".
>
> Now I have the luxury of not having to get the printer
> working under Windows.
HP is a multi-OS company, we sell/support:
1) Windows
2) Linux
3) HP-UX
As you might imagine, Bill doesn't let use tweak/fix number 1,
Sorry about that . . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:47:26 -0500
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 24 Dec 2000
> > >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > Memory: Handled by Windows, not DOS.
> > >> First accounted by himem.sys (a DOS driver, try removing it!)
> > >
> > >However, Schulman proves through the version numbers returned by the memory
> > >managers that Windows replaces himem.sys.
> >
> > Then whatever they replaced it with is part of DOS, isn't it, since
> > himem.sys is part of DOS?
>
> No.
>
> Your statement is akin to calling Linux "part of DOS" . . . simply
> because
> you can boot into Linux from DOS, and Linux replaces DOS, does not
> make Linux "part of DOS".
No, the reason why Windows is a DOS extender is because DOS remains
operational during Windows operation.
>
> > Isn't that why they call it a "DOS Extender"?
>
> himem.sys is not a "DOS Extender".
himem.sys is loaded into the DOS, and provides an API which is used by
the Windows 386 executive to extended DOS.
>
> > Which explains why Windows programs don't need help accessing DOS
> > filesystems,
>
> Windows programs do need help accessing DOS filesystems . . . no
> Windows program directly accesses a disk drive, it always goes
> through a file system.
Yes, Windows can augment DOS and provide a faster access to the disk,
but this is an extension.
>
> > since DOS is the OS to begin with,
>
> Wrong. DOS is not the "OS to begin with".
It is the OS which is started prior to starting the Windows environment,
it remains active while Windows is running, and remains operational
after Windows shuts down. I would say DOS is the OS to begin with,
unless you know another meaning of the phrase "to begin with."
>
> > and the Win32 middleware
> > just acts as a redirector.
>
> Win32 is not "middleware". Win32 is the interface specification.
Hence, middleware.
>
> > The "Windows 386 executive" runs on DOS.
>
> Wrong.
How so?
>
> Do you have any technical training?
>
> In anything?
Much, and on many systems.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: 30 Dec 2000 00:49:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Yatima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This whole "Linux isn't affordable" whining is bullshit.
That too, but I stripped it away this time along with other BS to make
room for my point.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acid absorbs 47 times its own weight in excess Reality.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Since this is an Advocacy....
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:46:58 -0700
Martigan wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 1) DON'T POST TO ADVOCACY GROUPS TO GET HELP!
>
> I-- I wasn't posting for help in the first place! Just an observation
> on to why Bill Gates is making money on his OS
In that case, might I suggest you reconsider your posting
content a little bit?
Problems are not limited to one OS, and the root cause for
most Linux problems is exactly the same root cause for
most Windows problems, and is exactly the reason that Macs
are far less likely to experience that class of problem . . .
So you are more likely to be on track with discussions about
facets of Linux that are specific to Linux, such as it's
tendency to rely on the fact that it can be investigated,
and repaired in pieces, by a motivated individual, where with
Windows, if it doesn't work, there aren't many options available
to you.
This is a good thing, of course, because problem analysis,
investigation, and repair are skills only the technically
inclined aquire, so putting the tools and hooks into Windows
to accomplish this would be a waste of time and money.
It's easier to simply say: "Reinstall it."
;-)
Strangely enough, reinstallation is never seen as "user unfriendly",
don't ask me why.
> > > Sorry but were you just born into Linux Greatness? So you are the
> > > one...the true Linux god, he whom has never had problems before.
> >
> > Lesson 3:
> >
> > 3) Don't insult or denigrate those from whom you seek help.
>
> III--Sorry if you felt insulted BUT I wasn't asking for hekp and ya
> lashed at me.
;-)
Lesson 4: Learn to read attributions . . . I didn't lash at you, that
was somebody else.
:-)
But, hey, if you weren't asking for help, then you might want to
change the way you write your advocacy news group postings.
The proper way to start such postings is with a personal attack,
ala "You MORON!", or "You are such a TWIT!"
The use of exclamation marks is encouraged . . . the more the merrier,
except that any number above four indicates an extreme mental
imbalance on the part of the poster.
Obfuscation, relabeling and redefinition, on the fly, are also
highly thought of. There are several experts on that here.
Pseudo-intellectual obfuscation, followed by denigration of your
intelligence after your all to understandable confusion . . .
another common practice.
See: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame1.html
For pictures and definitions to go along with the attributions
you will see in this group.
> > He has every right to be judgemental, you posted this in an advocacy
> > group.
> >
>
> O.k. your right with that!
.advocacy: HOME OF THE FLAME WAR!
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how do we get from here to there?
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:53:30 -0700
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : A good, but empty response. What particular application *MUST* Linux
> : have to compete on the desktop?
>
> Bad question.
Not at all. How can you learn, if you don't ask?
> Different people use computers for different
> things.
Yes, but that doesn't invalidate the question, does it?
Simply save *ALL* the answers given, then prioritize the list, right?
Everybody will have a MUST, and if enough people list the same
program as a MUST, then that's probably the highest priority,
wouldn't you think?
> If there was such a thing as an application that
> one MUST have on the desktop, then I'd see that application
> on all these Windows machines peope have at home too. But
> the only apps *everybody* has at home are web browsers, file
> managers, and web browser plugins.
By MUST, I wasn't trying to imply everybody, I was simply
looking for a clear picture of what needs remain unfilfilled
for the greatest number . . .
> Everything else varies
> from one person's machine to another *already* in the Windows
> world. Many people don't have games. Many people don't have
> a word processor. Many people don't have a spreadsheet. These
> things are all optional. Why assume Linux needs a universal
> set of such tools to compete with Windows, when Windows itself
> doesn't seem to need them?
I didn't make that assumption, actually . . . I was looking for that
program or set of programs that a fairly large number of people
needed, that Linux didn't yet have.
If found, I could concentrate on that particular niche for my
next free-software project, dont'cha know . . .
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 17:59:52 -0700
Yatima wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:37:41 -0700, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >You need to realize, yatima, that "re-installing" is the default
> >(and nearly ONLY) problem resolution techinque that Windows users
> >have . . . while it is possible to fix some problems in Windows
> >without re-installing, to do so requires the one thing that Windows
> >users hate above all else . . . learning about their computers.
>
> Reinstalling in Windows is such a PITA because you need to reconfigure
> things back to your custom settings. When I switched Linux distributions
> from Mandrake to Debian I just wiped my / partition while perserving my
> /home partiion ( and /usr/local/ which is a sym link to /home/local/ on
> my system) and I was able to perserve all of my customizations. The only
> stuff to setup was XFree and my cdrw which took about 20 min (cable
> modem using dhcp set itself up :).
Yah, but . . . do you realize what you had to learn to make
it that easy?
I'm a firm believer in "learning is an investment that pays for
itself", but most people don't believe that . . . they see the
time spent on learning as irretrievably wasted, lost.
Never mind the facts, it's perception that counts.
> Definitely a lot more time consuming though IME.
You're absolutely right . . . but how many people actually sit
down and figure that out?
Learning is *frustrating*, and *hard* *work*, while simply
reinstalling is easy, mindless activity.
Just click the pretty buttons.
> I guess I just prefer
> to set up my computer once and have it work without worrying about it.
Ditto.
Just as importantly, I prefer to fix the part that's not working,
instead of having to refix everything after an install.
> To be fair, however, I've not had anything nightmarish happen to me
> under windows. It's generally just more frustrating for me than linux.
Ditto. But that's 'cause I can actually dig in and fix the source of
a problem. The tools are there, and the system is modular.
Fixing Windows is like trying to fix a ball bearing.
> Case in point: I repaired one file in a multipart rar file under windows
> and wanted to replace the damaged original file with the new repaired
> file. No problem, right? Well, I moved the old file out of the directory
> and move the new file in (to avoid naming conflicts) and attempted to
> rename the new file to foo.r08. Unfortunately, windows recognized that
> it was a .rar file and procedeeded to tack on .rar to the end of the
> file giving me foo.r08.rar. No amount of cajoling seemed effective in
> persuading windows to see it my way and I was tempted to boot into
> linux, rename the file, and copy it back. Luckily, I was able to rename
> the file appropriately *within* winrar but not with explorer.
"We know BETTER than YOU DO!"
Yah. I hate that attitude . . .
It may be appropriate for simple users, but not for more advanced
users.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lacks
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 01:07:34 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 29 Dec 2000 05:21:54
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 24 Dec 2000 11:59:44
> >> [...]
> >> >I understood it, well enough. So much tweaking and fiddling had to be
> >done
> >> >with the code it generated, it kind of defeated the purpose of
generating
> >it
> >> >in the first place. Clarion Developer actually did a far better job
than
> >> >DBIV in that area. Neither did a great job.
> >>
> >> But that's the point; using the "GUI" application builder and using the
> >> automatic code generator weren't as tied together as you though. Hell,
> >> dBase IV didn't even need to use that GUI; one command would drop you
> >> into the command-line, classic environment. Automatic application
> >> generators are obviously useless for anything but the most simplistic
> >> applications.
> >
> >As I said, the Application Generator's output defeated the purpose of
having
> >it to begin with. The development time would have been better spent
> >improving the internals. As a consequence, you had a release that was
less
> >reliable than the previous version. As I mentioned above, Clarion ran
> >circles around it for a fraction of the cost.
> >
> >PS: I'm fully aware of DBIV's relationship with the Application
Generator,
> >thank you.
>
> Yea, but you still considered it to be a reason that development was
> difficult, when it had nothing to do with it. You stated that since it
> was there, the internals were buggy, because had the programmers not
> worked on it, they would have fixed the bugs. I think this illustrates
> your lack of logical reasoning, to be honest.
I rather think it illustrates the product and company's eventual failure in
the marketplace.
>
> PS: I think you're getting defensive, and I know its my fault. Sorry.
This sort of discussion is fun. You stick to your guns and fight and that's
great.
Why on Earth would I be offended ? :)
>
> [...]
> >> >> It was more buggy than dBase III, but only about
> >> >> as buggy as dBase III+; new versions of software do tend to have new
> >> >> bugs. In the rush to FUD dBase to death, a lot was made of its
> >> >> 'bugginess', but it was not even really a particularly troublesome
> >> >> product.
> >> >
> >> >Not so much troublesome as mediocre. III was much better, IMHO.
> >>
> >> So it was a new version, and you wish to condemn it with feint praise,
> >> instead of FUD it to death.
> >
> >I call them simply as I see them.
>
> I recommend calling them as you know them to be, or not calling them at
> all. Our eyes can deceive was, quite easily.
I did. They weren't. Evidence: Where's Ashton Tate?
>
> >With what Ashton Tate was charging, one
> >should have expected much more. Again, spending time on a feature of
dubious
> >worth to the detriment of nuts and bolts is something worth complaining
> >about. Its' one of my pet Microsoft peeves too.
>
> A valid point. I honestly can't see the comparison, though. On one
> hand, we have someone trying something innovative, while still
> supporting their installed base, and on the other we have a monopolist
> entirely unconcerned with the quality of their product, because they're
> dependent on lock-in, rather than value.
The comparison was made where flash and innovation was concentrated on to
the detriment of core reliability. Both, indeed, are guilty of it. I'm all
for innovation so long as it actually IS innovation and not a marketing
gimmick. Smoke and mirrors don't impress me.
>
> [...]
> >> As long as the monopoly remained DOS, most people didn't even realize
it
> >> was anti-competitive. Once MS had to start bundling things and
> >> integrating to fend off every potential partial alternative which might
> >> limit the power of their OS monopoly, things started going down-hill
> >> VERY fast. Unfortunately, it was also during the time when most new
> >> users were just learning about computers.
> >
> >Timing is everything, true. One thing I'll say for Gates, his software
may
> >"blow chunks" but he's one hell of a businessman.
>
> He's a thief and a thug; a monopolist. He's never been a businessman,
> honestly.
Those are the things, unfortunately, that make a businessman spectacularly
successful.
>
> [...]
> >> This is software; there's room for an almost unlimited number of
> >> alternatives for anything. This 'natural software monopoly' thing is
> >> just a short-cut assumption to avoid having to think too hard. I'm not
> >> trying to insult you by pointing that out, I'm just trying to say that
> >> it is very common, and isn't accurate, consistent, or practical.
> >>
> >
> >In an ideal world your case would be true. This, however, isn't an ideal
> >world.
>
> Software is, though. Again, you seem to have problems with
> abstractions.
You're saying that the software market exists in an ideal world with rules
all its' own? You seem to have problems with realities.
Alternatives, indeed exist for software. That doesn't prevent companies from
getting a monopolistic stranglehold on a market. Windows on the desktop
being a prime example. Software is a commodity item. It's subject to CMA's
and all other sorts of monopolistic tricks. You think Microsoft all but
buried Apple and IBM by producing great and reliable products?
>
> >The natural tendency in a capitalistic environment is towards monopoly.
> >Period.
>
> This might be true, but its a point against capitalism. Because the
> natural tendency in a free market is towards competition, and free
> markets are incompatible with monopoly. Period. They're also against
> the law.
Capitolism is little more than a game of "King of the Hill". Companies in
the free market compete and out-hussle one another to get farther up the
hill. When they get to the top, they want to stay there and keep the others
from scurrying after them. They become monopolistic. Eventually they get
shoved off though.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
