Linux-Advocacy Digest #405, Volume #31 Thu, 11 Jan 01 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Hell ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Scientific Software Engineer needed ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The real truth about NT
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Re: kernel problems ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:05:25 -0500
Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Clue for the clueless...there is absolutely NOTHING that is "intuitive"
> > about computers for the new user.
>
> Actually, there is. But because you concider bash intuitive, this concept
> is totally lost upon you.
>
> > If Windows was so easy to use...
> > Then why is the ratio of Windows help-desk staff : Windows users
> > sooooooo much larger than with Unix.
>
> Windows is on more workstations, UNIX is on more servers. If UNIX were on
> the same number of workstations as Windows is now, there would be more UNIX
> help desk staffers, wouldn't there?
>
> > Hint fucking Hint. The ENTIRE Helpdesk staff for all of GM's Unix
> > users (over 15,000 UNIX desktops) is less than 20 people. That includes
> > both 1st and 2nd level support.
>
> You must love GM a lot, because they seem to be your only model enterprise
> agency. GM needs engineering software, most other industries don't (with the
> exclusion of Aerospace). GM also hires engineers to work on those
> workstations, with a few staffers who are either management, or assembeley
> staff using the occasional workstation. Gee, does this model seem a little
> idealistic to you? It does to me.
>
> > Conversely, about 2 miles down the road, the number of Windows helpdesk
> > people at Kmart Headquarters (about 1500 desktops) is around 50, and
> > the level of service is WORSE (GM Unix helpdesk--have a Unix helpdesk
> > agent ON THE PHONE with the user within 60 seconds....Kmart Windows
> > helpdesk -- call-back within 3 hours).
>
> Bad idea using white-trash mart as an example in this matter. KKK-mart's
> internet (and most of their computer systems) strat is quite new, and was
> only instituted at the demand of their very pissed off stockholders.
> Although this example shows REAL computing in action, they're computer
> systems are quite recent.
>
> > If it's so much more "intuitive", then why so many Windows helpdesk
> > people for so few users at such a low standard of service (and,
> > by the way, Kmart pays IT people quite well).
>
> Because Windows allows people who truly have better things to do than get a
> major in CS to use a computer. UNIX on the desktop (when instituted
> properly) would have the same problem if it were a noticeable majority of
> workstation machines (like Windows is).
>
> Simply put, it's a math problem. The scale of UNIX systems is generally
> smaller, whereas Windows workstations are commonplace.
15,000 Unix workstation : 20 Unix Helpdesk people -- response time < 60 seconds
1,500 Windows desktops : 50 Windows Helpdesk people -- response time > 2 hours
Do the math, if you can....MORON!
>
> If the reverse was true, your logic would also follow (as a generalization).
>
> Of course, if your experience would venture outside the realm of GM's
> computer needs, and what you hear from your IT friends at KKKmart, you would
> know this.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Scientific Software Engineer needed
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:06:38 -0500
Tim Cain wrote:
>
> You don't want too fucking much, do you?
There's no problem with asking. The question is...are they willing to pay
what that combination of skills is worth?
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:08:57 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 01:03:04 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Personally, I hate having to add a decent mp3 player, a CD
> mastering app, or a basic archiving tool to NT5.
Personally I hate not have ANY decent varieties of the programs you
mention available for Linux.
Oh yea, for NT5 Try MusicMatch Jukebox and Winzip.
Both free/shareware.
> I also hate it when NT5 knows that it has found a Blade 3D but
> won't bother to tell the end user that it has done so and that
> there is a generic driver available to use.
And I hate that you can get 3D acceleration for the Matrox card under
Xfree 3.3 but if you use 4.x the performance suffers (or the other way
around, I forget). Under Mandrake they even tell you this when you
select the card.
No consistency with Linux, it's just a mess.
> You're throwing stones in a glass house.
No stones necessary, Linux collapses under it's own weight.
>[deletia]
>
> Besides, the debian package management tools are well worth
> any minor manual effort. Even by novice end user standards,
> those tools trump what WinDOS has by a wide margin.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The real truth about NT
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:07:58 -0000
On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 21:45:19 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> > Dlue for the clueless: Disk drive images are NOT an acceptable
>> > alternative to backup tapes.
>>
>> Ses you.
>>
>> There are other backup media than tapes. CD-R comes to mind.
>
>Let's see....CD-R
>
>Write once....and then it can't be used again.
>Capacity ... less than 1G.
>
>4mm DAT
>
>Write once....it's still good for several hundred RE-recordings
[deletia]
It depends on whom you ask really. DAT media doesn't
have much of a reputation for reliability.
[deletia]
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:04:59 GMT
In article <lHQ66.26328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, your absolutely correct.
>
> XFree86 & GNOME/KDE2 are slower than Windows 2000.
You are actually quite correct. Xfree86 IS somewhat slower than
Windows 2000. The degree of the difference is a function of several
variables including the graphics controller chip used, the speed of
the main processor, the amount of real RAM, the amount of Video RAM,
the number of bits per pixel, and the resolution used.
Microsoft Windows 2000 directdraw was designed so that the VDI connects
to the drivers through a memory queue. X11 was designed so that the
equivalent to the VDI (Xlib) connects to the XServer via a
serial byte stream.
When both the client and the server are running on the same machine,
you actually lose some performance due to the serialization marshalling
and demarshalling.
When one machine must connect to a remote machine, X11 has the distinct
advantage. Windows must add several layers of abstraction and
marshalling
and demarshalling to provide this function.
Some other points to note:
Linux encourages the use of multiple virtual desktops. KDE on Mandrake
7.2 defaults to 4 virtual desktops. Since it is possible to switch from
desktop to desktop, applications must be able to regenerate the window
from nothing each time desktops are switched. This reduces the benefits
of buffers built into the Graphics chips.
Windows 2000 doesn't even offer the option of multiple desktops.
Windows
2000 is one of the first versions of Windows to really effectively
manage
multiple overlaping windows. NT 4.0 could BSOD due to overlapping
windows simply because there wasn't enough virtual
memory for the system.
> The Windows 2000 directdraw layer is much
> more refined than whatever the
> hell XFree86 calls it's rendering subsystem.
> Directdraw just "makes it feel
> faster" and that's what counts.
To make matters worse, Netscape has a very annoying memory
leak that grows exponentially when entering text into a
scrollable text box. this can force the Xserver to do
unnecessary swapping. The work-arounds are to use Kommander
for these chores, or to edit your response in a text editor
and then paste it into the textbox.
This is the most legitimate complaint about Linux. People have
been pointing it out for about 2 years and Netscape hasn't changed
it. According to one rumor, this is because Microsoft told AOL
that unless they stopped ALL nonessential support (security fixes),
Microsoft would pull AOL off of all desktops. I don't know if this
is true, but it resembles other threats made by Microsoft executives.
> When I multitask under XFree86 I can FEEL the system slowing down.
Input is
> clearly placed below program priority under XFree86 & Linux. What's
more,
Actually, the Xserver, which runs in APPLICATION space as a SERVER
runs on the same priority as other general applications. Other server
applications sometimes run at higher priority. This can be tuned using
the "top" command.
Keep in mind that X11 was designed for systems that often
ran hundreds of programs, many of which WERE more important
that a single user's XServer. In the very early days, X servers
pushed display commands to Tektronix terminals.
On Windows NT, the original intent was to create a workstation, and
the Server effort was simply a result of the unenthusiastic response
to Windows NT 3.5. Since they couldn't sell it as a workstation, they
tried to sell it as a file and print server.
Windows 2000 actually tunes the system based on the license.
Windows 2000 Pro gives the disply very high priority and
windows literally "pop" onto the screen. Windows 2000 Enterprise
server is tuned to give services priority and is more "normal".
Ironically, much of what makes Windows 2000 "feel faster" is
the fact that Microsoft queues the commands before passing them
to the display processor. With a smart video card, you can
get some very rapid responses. This was probably a direct result
of incorporating X11 principles to the Win2K architecture.
> Windows 2000's new prioritizing system makes
> Windows operate faster.
Windows 2000 has numerous enhancements which make it run faster.
This includes more "unix-like" scheduling, faster context switching,
exploitation of muliprocessing (ethernet, drive, and video all working
at the same time rather than serially). Many of these concepts came
from UNIX as well.
It is quite obvious from the combination of Press Releases, 3rd party
coverage, comments made by Microsoft employees, and observable
changes in behavior and performance, that Microsoft borrowed
heavily from UNIX. I don't know what Microsoft had to do to
get clearance from SCO, but Windows 2000 clearly adopts many
UNIX principles.
> whereas XFree86 and Linux still use the general priority
> system for ALL tasks, like it or not.
Actually, this can easily be finely tuned. You can use "top" to tune
the system "on the fly". For most applications, the general setting is
sufficient.
Each application has a "Nice" value which ranges from +20 to -20.
These are used to calculate a rotating priority. The priority increases
each time the scheduler attempts to schedule.
When managing hundreds of processes, it's necessary to make sure that
even the lowest priority processes aren't completely starved of machine
cycles. With the range of priorities, highest priority processes get
hundreds of times more CPU cycles than the lowest priority processes.
> It also just plain takes FOREVER to redraw these windows whenever I
move
> them around during a high-CPU operation.
Perhaps you'd like to quantify that. My observation is that Linux
redraws
take 2-3 seconds (not "forever") since each process must send all of the
raster commands required to render the original window. This compares
to roughly a 1/4 second delay for Windows 2000.
Thus far, I've installed Windows 2000 4 times. It seems to have a nasty
habit of becoming unbootable when 3rd party software does "something".
My guess is that this is a case of "DLL Hell" gone berzerk. Microsoft
is hoping or assuming that 3rd party vendors will fall all over
themselves
to rewrite all of their applications under MTS, COM+, and MSMQ.
Unfortunately, Microsoft has also become a very poor risk for 3rd party
software vendors. Their treatment of workstation vendors, services
vendors,
and even database vendors has not inspired a great push to spend
millions
to develop software that Microsoft might offer a few million for once
you've
established a market.
> The thought of an OS ALONE requiring over a gigabyte of disk space to
> install itself is f***ed up.. Windows 2000 is THE most "bloated"
Windows
> available and Win2k professional only requires 640 megabytes of disk
space.
> Hmm...
This is a bit amusing. The Linux distribution comes which the
equivalent
of 2000 Windows applications. The core systems only take about 20 meg.
Each
application only takes a few megabytes or less.
> Maybe if Linux had quality software and a quality method of installing
it,
Actually, there are 3 different packge installation tools. RPM is the
most universally accepted. In some cases, symbolic links have to be
created
to manage installation directories.
> Linux distro's wouldn't need to come out of the box with gigabytes
upon
> gigabytes of useless, redundant software.
Useless is a matter of taste and preference. Redundancy is simply
an acknowledgement that most users want a choice of tools. The
most popular choice isn't always the best choice for all users.
This is herasey to the Microsoft organization who believes that
Microsofts products should be the ONLY choice.
Linux has to provide most of their software in bundleware because there
are so few distribution channels.
It's very likely that once we start to see Linux machines running
and on display in retail stores, that we will also see many of the
3rd party vendors who currently provide demonstration versions of their
software (completely functional but not including all of the wizards,
templates, and macros included in the commercial version.
Linux has also been most effective at distributing commercial through
the internet. Millions of users have downloaded the software, ordered
enablement licenses, and paid for them by credit card. The most
dramatic
example is VMWare, which has managed to sell quite a few copies at $300
per copy. The version which enables Windows 95/98 as a Linux client
for $75 also seems to be quite popular.
> "Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> news:vnJ66.163412$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) wrote:
> >
> > > I've installed it on 3 machines. It takes less time to install
Mandrake
> > > and nearly 1000 packages (equivalent of 500 Windows applications
such as
> > > Office, Notes, BackOffice, ...) in less time than it took to
unstall
> > > JUST windows 2000.
> > From my experience installed Windows 98 SE/Windows 2000 is about the
same
> > time as install all the packages of Linux Mandrake 7.2
Actually, Win98 takes a bit less time. I didn't really like it though.
I wasn't using USB and had problems with certain 3rd party software.
I went with Windows NT or WINE (Win95 emulation under Linux).
> > > Mandrake is billed as the best distribution for new Linux users.
> > > I'm a very experienced user and I like it. SuSE has more bells
> > > and whistles, but Mandrake make the OS more invisible.
> >
> > You're a very experienced user of what? Linux? Windows?
I've used Windows since Windows 286 (1988), and Linux since 1992.
I've used Windows NT since 1997, and Windows 2000 for a few hundred
hours since installing it in May of last year. I'm waiting for SP2
or SE to come out. Right now, I feel like I blew $300.
> > > > >>What edge? I can't see anything on Linux
> > > > >> running faster than on Windows.
> > > > >>Response on X seems sluggish at times.
> > >
> > > The time when response **should** be sluggish is when the
application
> > > is first being initialized. When you click the application icon,
> > > or select from the menu, you don't see anything for several
seconds.
> >
> > I stand by what I said, X seems sluggish compared to Windows. Now,
maybe I
> > should be more specific - in this case, I was referring to KDE.
I've used KDE. I've described my observations. Switching from window
to window, or desktop to desktop is pretty rapid. It doesn't "pop" the
way Windows 2000 does, but there is no "suffering". I'm running a SVGA
driver (Trident 9367) on a 200 Mhz Thinkpad 770.
> > > On windows, the application starts letting you know right away
that the
> > > application is loading, and keeps taking control of your screen to
give
> > > you lots of informative updates.
> >
> > Some Windows applications do this... but not all.
True. But most Windows applications try to pop something up to let you
know that they are "really busy getting started". With KDE, your only
clue is the disk icon on the toolbar.
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:11:11 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:54:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:47:58 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>
>> What part of 'turn on computer' do you find so difficult?
>
>Looking at it, but only if it is running Linsux.
>
>Web pages look absolutely awful.
HTML is a markup language, not a replacement for msword.
>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> As far as text files go: it is nice to have information
>> exposed to you rather than hidden from you. In this
>> respect, Linux hardware configuration is superior.
>
>Sure it is. That is why you have to spend so much time doing it.
I spend less time futzing with Linux than I do with Windows.
Unix users are not somehow perversely any less lazy than
the rest of the planet.
>
>
>> At least with Linux, you know whether or not Linux has
>> recognized a device completely and what it is.
>
>As well as how badly it is going to function, if indeed it functions
>at all.
Short a few fps on some 3D games, pretty much like they
do under WinDOS.
Mind you, the problem you're whining about is just as much
of an issue for NT5 as it is for Linux.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:11:58 -0500
ono wrote:
>
> I'm in alt.linux.sux and where are you?
alt.ono.sux.
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:93jf12$91b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <93dbh4$8du4o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >You mean the simple make makedep make install didn't work properly?
> > > >
> > >
> > > So how do I compile a customised version of windows kernel then
> arsehole.
> > >
> > > Linux comes with pre-built kernels which work for anyone but some users
> > > want the latest cutting-edge version which is the only time kernel
> > > recompiles
> > > are needed. Where can you obtain the latest copy of MS's source to
> compile
> > > it then. The only reason windows doesn't have this problem is you are
> stuck
> > > with whatever MS chucks in the box and cannot get cutting-edge source.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Ya know, this is rediculous. I was posting to a LINUX forum, to ask a
> LINUX
> > question, and Windoze users decide to come and turn this into a damn
> abortion
> > protest. If you are not a LINUX user, here to advocate LINUX, then you are
> in
> > the wrong forum, I dunno, maybe IE manipulated the html to make this read
> > 'windows.advocacy' because it doesn't think any other OS exists, but YOU
> ARE
> > IN THE WRONG FORUM. Go back to your seg faults and let us discuss Linux
> here,
> > in OUR forum. Or, does the M$ philosophy rub off on its users and make
> them
> > believe that they own everything? Don't talk about something you know
> nothing
> > about. I just makes you look like a dumbass.
> >
> > C Pungent
> >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com
> > http://www.deja.com/
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 12 Jan 2001 03:10:04 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:18:28 GMT, Yatima <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 19:16:42 +0000,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I'm not out to impose my way of working on anyone. Terry Porter appears to
>>be confusing CLI applications running on terminals on X with running
>>various GUI applications as "using a GUI".
And Goodwin is confused about what a GUI and a CLI is. No one has yet offered
a acceptable definition. Goodwins endless claim that Windows is a GUI os,
and that Linux is a CLI os are tiresome.
Let's look at a Windows GUI IRC client, mIRC. This program has a text entry
field at the bottom, and is commonly used to enter text or commands.
Is this program a CLI ?
On the other hand SLRN can be run in a X window, and the mouse when clicked
on various places, causes certain actions. Is this program a GUI ?
I'd say the definition is unclear, but one fact remains perfectly clear, SLRN
can be accessed from a elcheapo mono 386, or a Xwindows dual Pentium. SLRN
is more versatile that mIRC.
>
>I'd agree. A CLI app in a terminal window on X is still CLI
I think its a murky definition.
> (not that
>there's anything wrong with that). Some CLI programs, when run this way,
>can take advantage of mouse input however.
>
>>I think the one area Linux does not have an edge over Windows is the
>>stability etc. of GUI applications. I've certainly seen a few problems with
>>KDE 2.0 so far.
Try something other than KDE ?
KDE hasnt even been around as long as Win95!
>
>I would agree that many of the windows GUI apps are more polished (This
>makes sense with an almost exlusively GUI oriented OS).
The word 'polished' doesnt mean a lot to me, lets talk remote GUI, stability,
Free Software, and accessable software engineers.
>
>>I prefer GUI's over CLI's.
So do I, in most cases.
>> CLI's are good for scripting or remote access.
Theyre also good for cheap access.
>>GUI's are pretty good for everything else - but you'd expect that from
>>someone who switched from OpenVMS/UNIX to Windows some years ago.
>
>I don't really agree that GUI apps are better for everything else. Of
>course, what would you expect from a someone who switched from windows
>and mac OS to linux :)
Ditto.
>
>I appreciate your civil and honest reply Pete.
>Take care,
>
>--
>yatima
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
