Linux-Advocacy Digest #361, Volume #31 Wed, 10 Jan 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: kernel problems ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: kernel problems (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: kernel problems ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: kernel problems (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: kernel problems ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next? (Gary Hallock)
Re: kernel problems ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft? (hackerbabe)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (J Sloan)
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:21:06 GMT
"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> What the fuck's a "Penguinista"? Surely you can do better than that...
Take a glance in the mirror, and look for a sign...
> Yes, it's too much to ask that they might READ something for
> themselves. They're used to Windows helping them through everything
> with giant wizards etc.
Why the hell are wizards so wrong, just because they GET THE WORK DONE?!
(GASP) Blasphomy!
> >Just like the "Why do my fonts
> >look like shit?" question. See the "Font De-uglification How-To"to
> >band aid that one.
>
> Wow, you're starting to learn something.
Howto's are pathetic excuses for documentation. I think transcripts of
mental paintents make more sense then those howto's.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:30:05 GMT
In article <HsR66.27138$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>Oh boo hoo, you have to reboot your system. Boo hoo... Give me a break.
>
>Linux patch modules almost never work. They're just flat out unreliable,
>more often then they are reliable.
>
>And installing those patches is a royal pain in the ass, when most Windows
>drivers come with (GASP) INSTALLERS.
>
This could be why my friends Windows box with a SB live card sounds
similar to a 1968 transistor radio.
It's the old ONE SIZE fit's all concept again.
We have ONE port on the kernel so let's run everybody's sound card
thru this thing with a series of drivers for each!
Brilliant.
That's what made windows and that's what sucks.
And if you can't tell see this difference by now you probably
couldn't differentiate between a plate of cornbeef and a plate of shit.
Charlie
><TTK Ciar> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >With Windows, you don't need to recompile, you download the DRIVER run
>the
>> >INSTALLER and you've got yourself the latest, greatest from whoever made
>> >"it".
>>
>> Yes, you can do that with Linux, too. In Linux terminology,
>> though, they're called "kernel modules" instead of "drivers".
>> What Linux has that Windows does not have is the option to modify
>> and recompile your kernel if you need it to do something that
>> nobody's written a module for. Of course, you can *choose* not
>> to mess with the kernel too, which is better than having no choice
>> about the matter at all (a la Windows).
>>
>> Another difference is that in order to install a kernel module
>> (or uninstall one -- hey, try uninstalling random "drivers" on your
>> Windows box, and tell me who is "crude and inconsistent") you do not
>> have to exit your Linux applications or reboot afterwards. And I'll
>> bet Linux has more functional and useful modules than Windows has
>> drivers.
>>
>> >Gee, seems to be working.
>>
>> Yes, Linux works beautifully. Thanks for mentioning it.
>>
>> -- TTK
>>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:26:29 GMT
I think you might wish to rectify your post, before you get called other
"wonderful" things to newsgroups you've trolled in.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT, "Matt Soltysiak"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> > >enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests
on
> > >Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
> >
> > ***Snip the rest of a very bad troll.******
>
> Pot calling the snow black.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:23:03 GMT
Oh boo hoo, you have to reboot your system. Boo hoo... Give me a break.
Linux patch modules almost never work. They're just flat out unreliable,
more often then they are reliable.
And installing those patches is a royal pain in the ass, when most Windows
drivers come with (GASP) INSTALLERS.
<TTK Ciar> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >With Windows, you don't need to recompile, you download the DRIVER run
the
> >INSTALLER and you've got yourself the latest, greatest from whoever made
> >"it".
>
> Yes, you can do that with Linux, too. In Linux terminology,
> though, they're called "kernel modules" instead of "drivers".
> What Linux has that Windows does not have is the option to modify
> and recompile your kernel if you need it to do something that
> nobody's written a module for. Of course, you can *choose* not
> to mess with the kernel too, which is better than having no choice
> about the matter at all (a la Windows).
>
> Another difference is that in order to install a kernel module
> (or uninstall one -- hey, try uninstalling random "drivers" on your
> Windows box, and tell me who is "crude and inconsistent") you do not
> have to exit your Linux applications or reboot afterwards. And I'll
> bet Linux has more functional and useful modules than Windows has
> drivers.
>
> >Gee, seems to be working.
>
> Yes, Linux works beautifully. Thanks for mentioning it.
>
> -- TTK
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:27:40 GMT
In article <SqR66.27105$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> What the fuck's a "Penguinista"? Surely you can do better than that...
>
>Take a glance in the mirror, and look for a sign...
>
>> Yes, it's too much to ask that they might READ something for
>> themselves. They're used to Windows helping them through everything
>> with giant wizards etc.
>
>Why the hell are wizards so wrong, just because they GET THE WORK DONE?!
>(GASP) Blasphomy!
>
>> >Just like the "Why do my fonts
>> >look like shit?" question. See the "Font De-uglification How-To"to
>> >band aid that one.
>>
>> Wow, you're starting to learn something.
>
>Howto's are pathetic excuses for documentation. I think transcripts of
>mental paintents make more sense then those howto's.
>
>
Have you ever looked at MS help?
Look, I think Frankie did a better job of emulating a drunk singer.
In today's world only a total weenie head is planning on investing
much in Windows.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:24:31 GMT
That's because Windows 2000 users shut their computers down at night, and
actually sleep.
Why? Because their human.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT, "Matt Soltysiak"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
> >enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
> >Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
>
> ***Snip the rest of a very bad troll.******
>
>
> Matt, if you are going to troll at least make it reasonable because
> this one is a total zero on the troll meter.
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:29:41 GMT
Well, when Linux comes up with something better.
But by then, I'll be long since dead, we all will be, and it won't matter
(well, as far as I'm concerned anyway...)
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <HsR66.27138$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Jacobs
wrote:
> >Oh boo hoo, you have to reboot your system. Boo hoo... Give me a break.
> >
> >Linux patch modules almost never work. They're just flat out unreliable,
> >more often then they are reliable.
> >
> >And installing those patches is a royal pain in the ass, when most
Windows
> >drivers come with (GASP) INSTALLERS.
> >
>
> This could be why my friends Windows box with a SB live card sounds
> similar to a 1968 transistor radio.
>
> It's the old ONE SIZE fit's all concept again.
>
> We have ONE port on the kernel so let's run everybody's sound card
> thru this thing with a series of drivers for each!
>
> Brilliant.
>
> That's what made windows and that's what sucks.
>
> And if you can't tell see this difference by now you probably
> couldn't differentiate between a plate of cornbeef and a plate of shit.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
>
> ><TTK Ciar> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >With Windows, you don't need to recompile, you download the DRIVER run
> >the
> >> >INSTALLER and you've got yourself the latest, greatest from whoever
made
> >> >"it".
> >>
> >> Yes, you can do that with Linux, too. In Linux terminology,
> >> though, they're called "kernel modules" instead of "drivers".
> >> What Linux has that Windows does not have is the option to modify
> >> and recompile your kernel if you need it to do something that
> >> nobody's written a module for. Of course, you can *choose* not
> >> to mess with the kernel too, which is better than having no choice
> >> about the matter at all (a la Windows).
> >>
> >> Another difference is that in order to install a kernel module
> >> (or uninstall one -- hey, try uninstalling random "drivers" on your
> >> Windows box, and tell me who is "crude and inconsistent") you do not
> >> have to exit your Linux applications or reboot afterwards. And I'll
> >> bet Linux has more functional and useful modules than Windows has
> >> drivers.
> >>
> >> >Gee, seems to be working.
> >>
> >> Yes, Linux works beautifully. Thanks for mentioning it.
> >>
> >> -- TTK
> >>
> >
> >
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 23:32:12 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.os2.apps,comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.networking.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Operating Systems? Where would you go next?
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
>
> Yes...I know...I have used XEDIT off and on for a total of 6 years,
> and I have never seen a 3270 manual.
>
> However, he's also arguing that I should have read the non-existant
> 3270 manual to use XEDIT properly.
>
Wrong on two counts. First, I never said you had to read the 3270 manual
to use xedit properly, despite your constantly repeating this lie.
Second, the 3270 manual is not non-existant. I provided a link to the
manual and you can even get it in hardcopy form if you want.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:30:21 GMT
Microsoft's support site is a thousands times better than anything the LDP
could squeeze out of it's ass in a century.
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <SqR66.27105$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kyle Jacobs
wrote:
> >"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> What the fuck's a "Penguinista"? Surely you can do better than that...
> >
> >Take a glance in the mirror, and look for a sign...
> >
> >> Yes, it's too much to ask that they might READ something for
> >> themselves. They're used to Windows helping them through everything
> >> with giant wizards etc.
> >
> >Why the hell are wizards so wrong, just because they GET THE WORK DONE?!
> >(GASP) Blasphomy!
> >
> >> >Just like the "Why do my fonts
> >> >look like shit?" question. See the "Font De-uglification How-To"to
> >> >band aid that one.
> >>
> >> Wow, you're starting to learn something.
> >
> >Howto's are pathetic excuses for documentation. I think transcripts of
> >mental paintents make more sense then those howto's.
> >
> >
>
> Have you ever looked at MS help?
>
> Look, I think Frankie did a better job of emulating a drunk singer.
>
> In today's world only a total weenie head is planning on investing
> much in Windows.
>
> Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 04:37:35 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:57:49 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:93fhop$cut$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> We've completely covered this and decided quite a long time ago that
>> thats because youre a complete idiot.
>
>Really? Because he has a point; KDE looks a little like Windows. Even the
>KDE website attests to this.
There's a big difference between "looks like" and "is a clone of".
At a design level, there is not that much resemblence. There is a
CORBA-like component model, but there are other things. Actually, KDE
and GNOME are more similar to each other than they are to anything else.
BTW it's only true that KDE so much as "looks like" Windows when you use the
default settings.
>And yet they are still plodding ahead with their potential revoulition for
>Linux. You do realize without "them", you would not have a Linux. THose
>movers and shakers are what motivates independent programmers to waste their
>free time, without pay, creating some idillic, dumb little app for Linux.
>If the movers and shakers were all to disappear, Linux would go back to a
>small little circle of geeks with WAY too much time on their hands.
I don't think so. The movers and shakers came after the programmers, not
before. And despite a very tough year for the "movers and shakers", all
of the software projects associated with Linux are doing just fine.
I think these companies help market Linux and attract some publicity, but
I don't believe that they are as important as you make it sound like.
>> And at this point, for a good chunk of applications, linux is as good as
>> any other useful unix-ey operating system. AND it doesnt cost anything.
>
>THis is the mark that indicates you are a penguinist. Forseeing Linux as
>the BEST UNIX variant out there. Please. FreeBSD totaly has you beat out
>on the server technology arena, and Linux just can't hold a candle to
>commercial UNIX's either.
Would you care to substantiate that claim ? How is FreeBSD "better" ?
What "technology" does FreeBSD have that Linux doesn't ?
As for commercial UNIXs, I've used some of them, and believe me,
Linux *is* better.
Last I checked, Solaris doesn't install TCP wrappers out of the box.
Most commercial UNIX boxes come with a laughable security
configuration. Most of them ship without a C++ compiler, some ship
without any compiler at all.
The advantage that Linux enjoys is that it's very easy to set Linux
up as a server. The configuration is reasonable out of the box. You
may have to make configuration changes, but you won't have to recompile
and reinstall half of your software. And utilities like RPM make
it much easier to get things going. Some of the Solaris sys admins
had a hard time installing PHP4. Well on RH, it's a piece of cake --
just grab the latest version of Apache, and the accompanying PHP
packages and install.
>Same with workstations. Commercial UNIX's have Linux beat so bad, it makes
>Windows and Linux look like an even playing field.
This is completely wrong. ALl of the innovations on the UNIX desktop have
been taking place in Linux land. While the open group push their obsolete
Motif, and are slowly fading into a well deserved obscurity, KDE and GNOME
are actively developed on Linux, and Sun Microsystems are already starting
to embrace these technologies. It's only a matter of time before the
Linux based QT and GTK take on greater roles.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 04:45:05 GMT
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:41:45 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Have you heard of "topic drift" ?
>
>This is on topic...
>
>> >Second, "Linux not for the desktop" is a load of shit.
>>
>> I didn't say that. I said it's not for the average home users
>> desktop. But it's great on (for example) a UNIX developer's desktop.
>
>Yes, it's an operating system for programmers, by programmers, trying to
>pass itself off as a MAINSTREAM OS.
Operating systems don't try to "pass themselves off" as anything. Linux
is an operating system, you're talking about it as if it's a person.
>> The target audience at the time was Linus himself -- a CS graduate
>> student.
>
>Well, that didn't work, otherwise RedHat would already be out of business.
Huh ? Linus is still a user ! I'd say it worked.
>> But "begin an OS for grandma" was not a design goal, and it is not
>> something that is likely to come as a by-product of the original design
>> goals.
>
>Well, it is now. Intentionally or otherwise.
No it's not.
>> Why is the burden of proof upon me ? Can you find a place where linux.com
>> recommends Linux to the average home user ? linux.com is a website for
>> people who already use Linux. It doesn't include much in the way of
>> information for those who don't use Linux already.
>
>Translation:
Don't give me this "Translation" BS. Address the comments I made or don't,
but don't try to rewrite my words into some kind of straw man.
> Linux.com is a propaganda website, and every single article
>they write in reguard to 'Linux vs. Windows' will attest to that. They
>don't compare it {linux} with Windows NT Server, or advanced server 2000,
>no, they compare it with Windows 95 & 98, and Me. Really, if Linux could
>hold a candle to Me, I wouldn't be posting to ALS.
Could you show me an example of such an article ?
>Fine, check Linux.tucows.com, check slashdot. Check the archives.
Do your own research. The burden of proof is on you.
BTW,
(*) the irrelevant rantings of some inconsequential slashdot loon don't
count
(*) the above is true if you replace "slashdot loon" with "usenet goon".
>It's time to stop the noisy blind ones from speaking FOR the Linux
>community. It's an awful excuse for discount publicity.
from time to time, I step out and give them all hell. And I enjoy it!
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:41:35 GMT
I guess you haven't used FreeBSD then.
FreeBSD kicks Linux into it's deserved corner as a server through
unification AND technology.
Firstly, FreeBSD isn't a terrible Hodge-podge of everyone's different
library files (dll hell for Linux). FreeBSD has unifying library revisions,
unifying dependencies, and the ports collection to dynamically locate,
compile and INSTALL programs, their dependencies AND anything else required
to run "it".
There may not be a central admin system, but thanks to the uniformity of the
platform, 3rd party programs that perform administrative tasks are POSSIBLE
and WORK under FreeBSD, instead of having to deal with the massive array of
text files, and VI... (Flashback circa 1989).
FreeBSD's swap "chunk" is quite superior to Linux's swap system, providing
efficiency in a component that is quite desperately required in a service
situation.
That's why FreeBSD is superior.
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 03:57:49 GMT, Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:93fhop$cut$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> We've completely covered this and decided quite a long time ago that
> >> thats because youre a complete idiot.
> >
> >Really? Because he has a point; KDE looks a little like Windows. Even
the
> >KDE website attests to this.
>
> There's a big difference between "looks like" and "is a clone of".
> At a design level, there is not that much resemblence. There is a
> CORBA-like component model, but there are other things. Actually, KDE
> and GNOME are more similar to each other than they are to anything else.
>
> BTW it's only true that KDE so much as "looks like" Windows when you use
the
> default settings.
>
> >And yet they are still plodding ahead with their potential revoulition
for
> >Linux. You do realize without "them", you would not have a Linux. THose
> >movers and shakers are what motivates independent programmers to waste
their
> >free time, without pay, creating some idillic, dumb little app for Linux.
> >If the movers and shakers were all to disappear, Linux would go back to a
> >small little circle of geeks with WAY too much time on their hands.
>
> I don't think so. The movers and shakers came after the programmers, not
> before. And despite a very tough year for the "movers and shakers", all
> of the software projects associated with Linux are doing just fine.
>
> I think these companies help market Linux and attract some publicity, but
> I don't believe that they are as important as you make it sound like.
>
> >> And at this point, for a good chunk of applications, linux is as good
as
> >> any other useful unix-ey operating system. AND it doesnt cost
anything.
> >
> >THis is the mark that indicates you are a penguinist. Forseeing Linux as
> >the BEST UNIX variant out there. Please. FreeBSD totaly has you beat
out
> >on the server technology arena, and Linux just can't hold a candle to
> >commercial UNIX's either.
>
> Would you care to substantiate that claim ? How is FreeBSD "better" ?
> What "technology" does FreeBSD have that Linux doesn't ?
>
> As for commercial UNIXs, I've used some of them, and believe me,
> Linux *is* better.
> Last I checked, Solaris doesn't install TCP wrappers out of the box.
> Most commercial UNIX boxes come with a laughable security
> configuration. Most of them ship without a C++ compiler, some ship
> without any compiler at all.
>
> The advantage that Linux enjoys is that it's very easy to set Linux
> up as a server. The configuration is reasonable out of the box. You
> may have to make configuration changes, but you won't have to recompile
> and reinstall half of your software. And utilities like RPM make
> it much easier to get things going. Some of the Solaris sys admins
> had a hard time installing PHP4. Well on RH, it's a piece of cake --
> just grab the latest version of Apache, and the accompanying PHP
> packages and install.
>
>
> >Same with workstations. Commercial UNIX's have Linux beat so bad, it
makes
> >Windows and Linux look like an even playing field.
>
> This is completely wrong. ALl of the innovations on the UNIX desktop have
> been taking place in Linux land. While the open group push their obsolete
> Motif, and are slowly fading into a well deserved obscurity, KDE and GNOME
> are actively developed on Linux, and Sun Microsystems are already starting
> to embrace these technologies. It's only a matter of time before the
> Linux based QT and GTK take on greater roles.
>
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 04:46:48 GMT
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:45:30 -0500, MH wrote:
>
>> The only way to get bugged by "Linux zealots" iis to go out of your way
>> to look for them (by going to COLA for example)
>
>Summary: "I'm a linux zealot"
Your logic is all back to front. You're assuming that set inclusion
(or logical implication) is reversible.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: hackerbabe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux envy Microsoft?
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 04:52:59 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Perry Pip wrote:
>
> > And to think they pride themselves in being objective. I can only
> Chuck Ayn Rand in the bin, read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"
> instead.
>
OK, I'll do that right after I submit my essay to the Ayn Rand Institute's
scholarship contest. http://www.aynrand.org/contests/ And yes, I am _that_
desperate for money.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:01:50 GMT
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:42:50 -0500, MH wrote:
>
>> >No. You may hope that Linux is not trying for that market but the
>> >movers and shakers with the money riding on Linux sure are hoping it
>> >is.
>>
>> Then they're riding on false hopes. BTW, I think they're more interested
>> in the corporate market than they are Joe-Home-Luser.
>
>And what better road to take to that destination than via Joe-Home-Luser?
via "Joe-Home-Developer".
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001 05:05:28 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Actually the so-called "32-CPU" windows system is just four 8 way
> > systems.
>
> Really? Is this including the NEC, Unisys and several other vendor's 32-CPU
> and 64-CPU boxes? One single box with 32-CPUs is actually just four 8-way
> CPUs? That's not what their sites say, so they must be falsely advertising,
> right?
All the so called "32-way" windows systems I have seen,
turn out to be, on closer inspection, clusters of 4 8 way PCs.
If you know of a true 32-way windows pc, do be a good
sport and provide a URL, OK?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 10 Jan 2001 05:08:49 GMT
On Tue, 9 Jan 2001 20:40:56 -0500, MH wrote:
>You love arguing semantics, don't you?
Not at all. I'm pointing out that it's misleading to call KDE a "Windows
clone". Saying that "It has UI conventions somewhat similar to Windows"
(which sounds more like what you meant) is a very different thing.
>The point is more that everybody understands the reference I made. Even the
No, they don't. In fact a lot of people misunderstand, in that they
mistakenly believe that KDE has a deep similarity to Windows because
they observe a few superficial similarties in the UI behaviours.
>KDE web site likens their UI design to the windows UI. It is a bridge to
>windows users, plain and simple.
I think it's more than a "bridge to Windows users". It might be true that
kwm and friends are a "bridge to Windows users". But kwm is just a small
subset of KDE. What's more important about KDE is that it provides
development tools that are suitable for writing GUI applications.
>By existing user base, I'm surmising you're referring to windows users. Most
No, I'm referring to Linux users. Most of the Linux users were using Linux
before KDE and GNOME were "fashionable" (or before these projects even
started) and most of them had been using UNIX for some time before them.
Nearly all of them use KDE or GNOME.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
