Linux-Advocacy Digest #513, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 19:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Re: The Linux Show! (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Steve Mading)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(.)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: The Linux Show! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:37:11 -0000
On 16 Jan 2001 22:26:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 16 Jan 2001 19:46:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> On 16 Jan 2001 13:19:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>> On 16 Jan 2001 06:42:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 22:06:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn near
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>>>>>>>>>>>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>>>>>>>>>>>> awhile now.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The bulk of what constituted NeXTStep was display postscript, and is not
>>>>>>>>>>>running on linux at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...DPS has been running under Linux/GNU for at least 2 years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Indeed; I was quite incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Except that its much, much better under OpenStep/OSX. :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GNUstep is OpenStep.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Not in anyones wildest, wildest dreams.
>>>>>
>>>>>> OpenStep is a publically documented specification.
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, OpenStep started out as an operating system, and then became sort of a
>>>>>GUI+apps overlay for Solaris. It never made it to any other platform.
>>>>>
>>>>>While GNUStep may have alot in common with OpenStep, it is not the same thing
>>>>>at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>> http://www.gnustep.org/GNUOpenStep/OpenStepSpec/OpenStepSpec.html
>>>
>>>> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bvito/index.html
>>>
>>>Have you ever *used* openstep?
>
>> That's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is infact
>> a sufficiently and publically defined specification. As long
>> as it is, there's no good reason that alternate implementations
>> can't be equivalent.
>
>Oh I see. Youve never actually used OpenStep.
>
>Your summation is therefore entirely invalid.
>
>Ive both programmed and used OpenStep for its entire tenure in the computer field.
>
>GNUStep is utterly different. The only similarities are cosmetic, period. And
>"similar" is loosely used in this case. Windowmaker menus sort of act the same.
>
>Big whoop.
Cosmetic? What kind of drugs are you on?
The GNUstep project publically isn't even addressing cosmetic
issues but API compatibility.
[deletia]
You are confusing GNUstep with WindowMaker and Afterstep.
--
Having seen my prefered platform being eaten away by vendorlock and
the Lemming mentality in the past, I have a considerable motivation to
use Free Software that has nothing to do with ideology and everything
to do with pragmatism.
Free Software is the only way to level the playing field against a
market leader that has become immune to market pressures.
The other alternatives are giving up and just allowing the mediocrity
to walk all over you or to see your prefered product die slowly.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Date: 16 Jan 2001 23:37:24 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2001 22:24:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 20:36:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The
>>> Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Flatfish++ and Chad are having mounds of fun with this concept,
>>>>and it does appear to be a minor (very minor) credibility issue.
>>
>>> I wouldn't say we are having mounds of fun, but it is quite amusing.
>>
>>
>>> What "IS" more amusing is catching one of the more virulent Linux
>>> supporters in a lie when he claimed to have viewed the clips running
>>> Xmms or Netscape under Linux.
>>
>>Thats actually a lie right there, only one person claimed it. That
>>would be 'supporter', not 'supporterS', claire.
> Learn to read.
> One of, meaning solitary, meaning singular, meaning a single object
> taken from a group of.
> ONE PERSON....out of all of the Linux supporters, meaning the people
> who actually do run Linux, know you can't run QT4 under Linux.
> He lied, most likely because he doesn't run Linux, and got caught.
> He'll try and squirm out of it though...
> And personally, having watched the trailers, they are not worth the
> bandwidth.
> Now, is that the best reply you can conjure up to a fact?
Lie.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:32:45 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Obviously you aren't reading the garbage the people on COLA are posting.
> >
> >"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> The funny thing is Linux is like math, the more your tinker around with
it
> >> and solve problems the easier it becomes to configure trouble shoot and
> >> deploy applications on.
>
> Actually, Mr. Top-poster, I thought it was pretty obvious he was more
> concerned with the way Linux actually works than "the garbage the people
> on COLA" are posting. I'm not sure which 'garbage' you mean, but the
> only posts I can think of that match that concept would be Chad Myers of
> Erik Funkenbusch (and maybe Aaron Kulkis.)
I have no idea who Chad Myers, or "Erik Funkenbusch" are. As for Mr.
Kulkis, he infrequently brings up valid points about the advantages of UNIX
operating systems. He just masquerades it in a deep, anti-Microsoft
feeling, mixes it with hatrid, and takes gross advantage of post-snipping
whenver the concept of UNIX on the desktop is a failure.
A failure that Linux seesm to be able to point out, and actually ATTEMPT to
change.
> You and Ayende get close, but I still think you're both reformable.
> You're just guys with limited data and a pre-disposition. Chad and Erik
> (though certainly not Aaron!) are just sock-puppets.
When Linux functions JUST like Windows, only better, I'll convert. Promise.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: 16 Jan 2001 23:30:24 GMT
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: . wrote:
:> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> > Mark wrote:
:>
:> >> I didn't believe them, so I went ahead and ordered the service. The
:> >> company offer free installation, so a 'techie' arrived at my house
:> >> with all the equipment ready to install. I asked him if he would
:> >> connect it to the Linux server, but he refused, so I let him connect
:> >> it to one of the Windows PCs. He then proceeded to do the network
:> >> setup in Windows. 45 minutes and at least 3 reboots later the PC was
:> >> connected to the internet and I said a fond farewell to my techie.
:>
:> > I don't believe 45 minutes to configure a network on a Windows PC. What
:> > kind of network is that? TCP/IP takes all of a few minutes, if that.
:>
:> Idiot, if youd ever worked in a company that employed techies like this
:> and understood that they let them loose on the field after a maximum
:> of a couple of hours of training (with no other computer experience at
:> all), you would understand that this scenerio is quite plausable.
: This is not at all correct... You must remenber the reboot and possibly a
: remove and reinstall of componets (at least two extra reboots with win 9x)
: and especilly if there is somekind of PPP dialup involved - it is not so
: uncommon with broadband connectionsx. 45 min is quite realistic if you
: encounter problems.
And don't forget the hardware plugging itself. Depending on the
physical arrangement on the desk, it can be a pain to get to
where you can stick the card in the machine. You might have to move
a bunch of plugs around to get to the screws, or find somewhere
else to set the monitor aside if it's a flattop case. These can
all be time consuming if desk space is tight.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: 16 Jan 2001 23:40:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:942i1f$h1h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > My expierence as a home PC consultant has shown me that everyone keeps
> porno
>> > on their computers. EVERYONE.
>>
>> "PC consultant".
>>
>> Say no more.
> Except my prior experience as a PC consultant had thought me to be TOLERANT
> of other peoples knowledge classes in regard to computing. I (unlike you)
> understand that most people don't know a hills worth of beans about
> computing, and I tolerate it.
You think I dont tolerate it? I'm not running around with a sub-machine
gun waisting retards now am I?
> I also understand WHY these people clearly prefer Windows & MacOS over,
> well, anything.
Me too. Its because theyre simple minded folk who dont like to use their
brains for anything beyond whacking off and eating.
> I can also understand why Linux will never receive such standing, unless
> something dramatic happens (like the LSB enforcing MAJOR, and conservative
> standards on distro's).
Who needs it to have a major landing? Id be satisfied if people like YOU
and your CLIENTS simply fucked off and left the whole thing alone.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 23:42:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 16 Jan 2001 22:26:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 16 Jan 2001 19:46:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>> On 16 Jan 2001 13:19:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16 Jan 2001 06:42:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 22:06:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Jan 2001 21:04:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 20:18:21 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here is a question for all us Linux people.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If Apple made the OS-X GUI GPL, and worked with RedHat, S.u.S.E, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others to get it installable on various linux distributions, would you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consider it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The problem is that X is so entrenched in Linux that it would be damn
>near
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bulk of what constitues Apple NeXTstep is already
>>>>>>>>>>>>> running on top of X courtesy of GNU and has been for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> awhile now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The bulk of what constituted NeXTStep was display postscript, and is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>running on linux at all.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...DPS has been running under Linux/GNU for at least 2 years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Indeed; I was quite incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Except that its much, much better under OpenStep/OSX. :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GNUstep is OpenStep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not in anyones wildest, wildest dreams.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OpenStep is a publically documented specification.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, OpenStep started out as an operating system, and then became sort of a
>>>>>>GUI+apps overlay for Solaris. It never made it to any other platform.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While GNUStep may have alot in common with OpenStep, it is not the same thing
>>>>>>at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.gnustep.org/GNUOpenStep/OpenStepSpec/OpenStepSpec.html
>>>>
>>>>> http://people.ne.mediaone.net/bvito/index.html
>>>>
>>>>Have you ever *used* openstep?
>>
>>> That's irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it is infact
>>> a sufficiently and publically defined specification. As long
>>> as it is, there's no good reason that alternate implementations
>>> can't be equivalent.
>>
>>Oh I see. Youve never actually used OpenStep.
>>
>>Your summation is therefore entirely invalid.
>>
>>Ive both programmed and used OpenStep for its entire tenure in the computer field.
>>
>>GNUStep is utterly different. The only similarities are cosmetic, period. And
>>"similar" is loosely used in this case. Windowmaker menus sort of act the same.
>>
>>Big whoop.
> Cosmetic? What kind of drugs are you on?
>
> The GNUstep project publically isn't even addressing cosmetic
> issues but API compatibility.
> [deletia]
> You are confusing GNUstep with WindowMaker and Afterstep.
Ive seen them all, and while the GNUStep API has the same "philosophy"
as the OpenStep API, it is very, very different.
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:38:26 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >The market makes no judgement upon itself, it is the consumer who
decides.
>
> ...decides? decides what?
Decides what is popular, acceptable, "defacto", "norm". Come on, is it
really THIS hard to comprehend?
> In the case of WinDOS, the consumer merely decided to either
> use what they thought everyone else was using or use what
> was placed in front of them.
And in the case of Apple? I have no doubt that Windows 95, 98 & Me's
popularity was derived from Microsoft's MSDOS popularity, but it was popular
for a reason. More popular than IBM DOS was, and Windows 95 was WAY more
popular than OS/2 Warp was, despite the dual marketing blitz.
> >This is basic economics. The consumers have decided, BeOS has no
software,
>
> This is basic economic THEORY.
>
> This is Econ 101.
And it still seems to apply.
> >The consumer has decided. Albeit, they did it in 1994.
>
> ...try 1985.
>
> This "gotta be DOS compatible" meme was entrenched by 1988.
I don't agree with this point. In 1988, the average PC user knew way more
about their PC's then they do today. Windows has made this possible.
MS-DOS & Windows 1, & 2still did not. Windows 3 didn't either, but 3.1
began to make headway. Some might argue this is because more people were
interested in PC's, and the idea that it's not as diffucult as "C:\>"
anymore.
> 1994 is just a side effect of legacy marketshare.
See above.
> >> >Linux has no quality software.
> >> You have yet to demonstrate that in even the vaguest manner.
> >Haven't I? Aside from you people in COLA, who the hell is running Linux
on
>
> Not in the slightest.
Ok, fine. Never mind then.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:47:41 -0000
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:14:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 19:44:19 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 18:00:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 06:41:11 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What exactly about a few menus and some icons did you need
>>>> help with? Unless it's Calamus or Maya, a help system for
>>>> a GUI application should be quite moot.
>>>
>>>How to turn off DAE would be nice.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Both have browsers that tie into all of the legacy
>>>> help systems as well as whatever *hlp files may be
>>>> present for the applications.
>>>
>>>Having a browser that CAN use the *hlp files is of no use if the *hlp
>>>files typically seem to say "not written yet".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> The best you can do is whine about missing *hlp files.
>>>
>>>No. I am talking about a terrible help system and the reason why is
>>>not important to me.
>>
>> ...except the help system isn't the problem.
>
>So it's the help files themselves, to the end user it doesn't matter a
>hill of beans what the technical details are, help sucks and that is
>all he is interested in.
Then they could quite easily come to the same conclusion
for WinDOS should they be exposed to the wrong applications.
It works equally well for either enviroment.
>
>
>>[deletia]
>>
>> As usual, you are simply full of hot air.
>
>And you STILL have not answered my question, as usual.
>
>So HOW DO I DISABLE DAE so ALL of my CDPlayer programs don't hog my
>IDE BUS?
You are simply full of shit.
As others have demonstrated, DAE is not used by the vast majority
of Linux CDplayers.
>
>
>> If the authors of winamp decide to ignore the standard widgets
>> under Win32, that says nothing about the quality of the standard
>> widgets under Win32 when you decide that winamp is a user interface
>> train wreck.
>
>One minor detail you omitted:
>
>winamp WORKS fine on my system. So does WIn2k where I can check a box
It still violates the style guide.
[deletia]
You are a liar. You've been caught in your lie. Except for
a few of your fellow shills, this conclusion is pretty
much unanimous.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Show!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:47:56 GMT
On 16 Jan 2001 23:22:29 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
Steinberg) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: Learn to read.
>
>Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>Here's what the one Linux supporter to which you are referring said:
>
>> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 08:23:28 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> BTW I just went there with Netscape and its all good....
>> The show link works with either mpg123 or xmms -
>
>"The show"...as in "The Linux Show." Take a look at the subject of this
>thread.
>
>The poster never lied because he was not talking about the "Antitrust"
>trailer. That was your off-topic tangent. He was talking about "The
>Linux Show," the topic of the thread.
>
>That's why he had no idea what you're talking about. Your posts are past
>ridiculous.
I stand corrected, you are right. I din't realize there was a Linux
Show, I thought he meant the movie Anti-Trust.
Evidently I wasn't the only one who got confused though because Mr.
"period" was off target as well.
I apologize for the error, especially to the original poster jjs.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 16 Jan 2001 23:47:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:93grad$1im$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Ok, this certifies you have never had to work with REAL people during
> your
>> > tenor as an administrator.
>>
>> Nor would I ever want to. As anyone in the field will tell you, people
>> are the enemy.
> People aren't the enemy moron, they are your co-workers, your BOSS, your
> subordinates,
But not my collegues. My collegues are cut from the same praeter-human
flesh that I am; we are divine and deserve to be treated as such.
> your friends (although judging from YOUR posting history, I'd
> have to question this value).
Oh thats right, judge me for what I write will you. By that logic, stephen
king is a mad homocidal bloodlustful maniac.
Except that he isnt.
> Fine, someone screwes up a workstation, and
> god forbid I should have to get up, off my ass and DO MY JOB.
You're one of those people who tolerates stupidity. You are either a
"consultant" or an "IT Professional". You are on the bottom of the tech
scale, right below first level tech support.
> What a horrible concept, doing what your paid to do.
I'm not paid to teach people, im not paid to hold people's hands, and im not
paid to be nice. I'm paid to keep a bunch of very large computers running
smoothley and to fix them when they break. I'm also paid to smack down idiots
when they break stuff because they didnt follow instructions or because they
got 'curious'.
>> > Says a lot about why you use Linux then.
>>
>> You have no idea why I use linux, or what exactly I use it for.
> Nor do I really care. It's what Linux is BEING used for, and advocated for.
> That's where I have the problem.
You dont even have a grasp of THAT.
>> > Those of us who deal with real people, people who aren't as FORTUNATE as
> I
>> > am to know what I know about computing, know why Linux is totally
>> > unfeasible.
>>
>> Its actually quite feasable in many instances, and anyone who doesnt
>> understand that needs to stop using computers at once.
> Fire Me :)
Pffft. I have even more satisfaction:
You are a "PC Consultant".
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:46:13 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:c2k149.i32.ln@gd2zzx...
> "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Except the problems found commonly in Mandrake are common (or relitively
so)
> > in OTHER distro's as well. It's a LINUX wide problem being so damn hard
to
> > configure, install software with, and just generally manage. Software
> > companies ARE working on the problem, but damnit, what's the point in
> > releasing version after version of nothing but minor bugfixes (or even
major
> > security holes) when the UNDERLYING problem still exists? Isn't this
what
> > you keep lambasting Microsoft for?
>
> Yet more FUD and lies. Do you have no conscience at all?
Are you even reading the post? Or are you just running a script that
auto-replies that line to all of my posts?
> > Really? Last I checked, Adobe still owned the rights to Photoshop.
They
> > COULD port Photoshop to the Linux/UNIX platform (and send The GIMP into
The
> > TOILET) in a heartbeat. But they don't want to. Hmm, it is that little
> > liscense snafu involving opening up the source code to do so?
>
> Once again FUD and downright lies as you know full well this is
> not so. Is the source code for applixware, db2, wordperfect open?
> You are really pathetic.
As near as I can recall, the Source code to Applixware is available, I think
it's available for Db2, and WordPerfect is available for anyone who wants to
buy a controlling share in Corel software.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:44:13 GMT
"Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh? I interpreted your paragraph as "I get flamed for tons of
> malicious whining in an advocacy group, therefore newbies won't get
> any help from the net".
And how many of these people are routine posters in AOS? How many OTHER
Linux NG's are these people posting their "your too dumb to use Linux"
garbage in?
And what about the like minded Lin-nuts in the legit groups? I can't even
begin think how many times my Linux questions were answered by "your just
too dumb" from people who just assume that the newbie user already KNOWS how
to:
1.Write a shell script
2.Perform recompilation tasks in general
3.Track dependencies, period.
This assumption is what gets these people into trouble, they are the type
who invite new Linux users, and do nothing but insult them when they need
support and assistance.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:51:35 GMT
MH wrote:
>
> > pornography:
> > GUI all the way.
> > This is where I flip the Bozo bit.
>
> I knew the 'pup tent' thing wasn't a stretch. Ever thought about changing
> your on-line name to UberWanker?
> (-:
Obviously you don't know what the Bozo bit is.
Nor, obviously, have you read Robin Baker's
"Sperm Wars"
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Cognition.Sociobiology.98/0058.html
Otherwise, you would understand that a man must
ready his fighting sperm for conflict!
By the way, Baker's book is about the most stimulating
science book I've ever read. Ahem. Now back to
oiling the old baseball glove.
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:53:09 GMT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:22:57 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs" <
>Except my prior experience as a PC consultant had thought me to be TOLERANT
>of other peoples knowledge classes in regard to computing. I (unlike you)
>understand that most people don't know a hills worth of beans about
>computing, and I tolerate it.
>
>I also understand WHY these people clearly prefer Windows & MacOS over,
>well, anything.
>
>I can also understand why Linux will never receive such standing, unless
>something dramatic happens (like the LSB enforcing MAJOR, and conservative
>standards on distro's).
>
It is known as experience in the field, something that many, not all,
but many, of the Penguinista's haven't a clue about.
It is so easy to discern the difference between the pimple faced
wannabes (like ".") and the people who have lived through the early
years, and that has nothing to do with choice of OS.
Clearly, home users have absolutely no interest in Linux. No interest
whatsoever.
Stand on the corner of any major intersection in any major city in the
USA and ask 1000 people about Linux and see what they say.
Broadway and Wall Street in NYC will do, and I would say that would
stack the deck in Linux's favor due to the traders who might actually
know the symbol for Redhat, and even still you will be greeted by 995
blank stares.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:54:48 GMT
ono wrote:
>
> > You can get open source versions of C/C++ with Win32 support, Perl,
> > etc. Just one way that Windows users benefit from Linux and the
> > open-source movement.
> >
> > Chris
> I will stick with VC++. It's worth the money! (gnu stinks)
> btw: js and vbs are free too! (any you don't have to have a twisted mind to
> write programs)
VC++ 6 is pretty good, though I worry about this .NET crap ruining it.
However, VC++ is not too ANSI compliant.
gcc is good if you download and build gcc-2.95.2 and do the same
with STLport. Seems to be about as good as Borland C++ (the C++ compiler,
not the IDE and Delphi compiler.)
Chris
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
