Linux-Advocacy Digest #523, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 00:13:04 EST
Contents:
Your favorite Linux apps come to AIX ("Gary Hallock")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Craig Kelley)
Re: More Linux woes ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$% ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: OS-X GUI on Linux? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Your favorite Linux apps come to AIX
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:09:30 +0500
Now you can run KDE, Gnome, and lots more on AIX
http://www-1.ibm.com/servers/aix/products/aixos/linux/
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:11:11 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:KZY86.1680$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:OZP86.2713$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:DQC86.3397$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:a9y86.159$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:Yfp86.2938$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of
> > people
> > > > > > > looking at the source code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Per my other post, there are exactly 35 developers on the
Firebird
> > > > project.
> > > > > > Some of them have joined relatively recently. SourceForge shows
> > that
> > > > no one
> > > > > > has downloaded their pre-release kits yet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your "thousands of people" are as vaprous as closed-source
security
> > is.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what about the thousands who supposedly review Linux. From
> > > > developers,
> > > > > to watchdog groups, to tinkerers, you'd think most of the obvious
> > bugs
> > > > would
> > > > > be flushed out immediately. However, every shipping Linux release
> > from
> > > > > all major distributors still comes riddled with security exploits
not
> > to
> > > > > mention all other bugs. If Open Source is so superior, and all
this
> > > > > peer review actually happens as you people say, then how are these
> > > > glaring
> > > > > bugs slipping through so frequently?
> > > >
> > > > Its' impossible for all bugs to be rooted out of a large software
> > project.
> > > > Only the most glaring and obvious show up quickly. It takes time for
> > the
> > > > more subtle ones to present themselves. With open source, the option
> > exists
> > > > to patch them as they come along as opposed to placing a bug report
> > with a
> > > > vendor and counting on them to actually heed it and provide a patch
in
> > a
> > > > timely manner (or in some cases at all).
> > >
> > > So basically you're saying that Open Source offers no advantage for
large
> > > projects? This is basically what I've been saying all along.
> >
> > No, I'm pointing out something that should be obvious - There's no
perfect
> > system. I, indeed pointed out an advantage to open source, though. You
> > neglected to quote the whole response.
>
> You may not be saying that OSS is perfect, but others are implying that.
> They are implying that OSS is superior to everything else and that there
> is NO reason why you WOULDN'T want to use OSS.
To put it in a more rational light, there are many compelling reasons for
chosing OSS over CSS. And those have been discussed, shouted, filibustered,
grunted, flamed, and what-not ad-infinitum. IMO, CSS's only advantage is
stricter control and less deviation from a set standard. The fewer cooks at
the pot thing. Again, IMO, that alone isn't enough to justify it.
Particularly when it comes to the CSS OS we oft discuss around here.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:15:28 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:56:33 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <1h496.84464$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>>> Basically, Microsoft Windows users have an expensive
>>> investment junk software which will be obsolete
>>> the following year.
>>
>>And Linux users will pay $79, every finantial quarter in purputity for any
???
Just download the free ISOs.
There's even site specifically dedicated to Linux ISO images.
>>kind of quality. How many people have RH6.0 retail, and are having problems
>>finding 7.0 updates for it? How many BUGS did RH6.0 have before 6.1 came
>>out, then 7? Sure, it's fine when a Linux company does it. What a
>>convienent double standard.
[deletia]
>>How many times has RedHat support staff just chalked a very serious problem
>>in software to "administrator incompetence", and suggest an RHCE for advice?
>>
>
>I'm not a RedHat fan. I don't think RedHat is worse than Windows.
>But RedHat and Debian are at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum sir.
They have varied objectives.
Even so, Bughat gets it right more often than Microsquish.
Even when they don't, the fixes are FREE. If Microsoft
were comparable, the would be offering free upgrades to
disastisfied users of Win 3.x, Win95 and Win98 and offering
them free copies of Windows 2000.
>
>
>
>>> Well! If I'm paying $350 for the full install for
>>> W2k then the last thing I want to hear is it will
>>> be FIXED with the next Service pack.
>>
>>If I'm paying RedHat ANYTHING, let alone any other commercial distro maker,
>>the last thing I want to hear is "your dumb", "go away", or "check the
>>internet for the latest information..."
Fine, then don't pay. You don't have to. You're paying for the
service not the product. Don't pay for what you're not using.
[deletia]
>>> Man, Debian has so much more than Microsoft.
>>
>>Of course, comparing your debian server to a Windows 98 system is like
>>comparing an objective person to, well, yourself.
>>
>
>You'd have to have experienced it then make your own comment.
>But experience it before you do.
Even as a Mandrake user, I can appreciate why Debian does
what they do much like I can appreciate Apple or Be Inc.
[deletia]
>>>
>>> The old saying you get what you pay for doesn't
>>> apply to GPL'd code.
>>
>>Yes it does. Your just to partial to realize it.
>>
>>
>
>
>You could say that. You could also say we live on
>different planets.
>
>I live on the planet of get something for nothing
>and that something beats the tar out of something
>else which you payed $$$ for and doesn't work right.
Then again, Microsoft's current dominance is built on it
being cheaper (yet crappier) than it's immediate rivals.
>
>I'm from planet, "I'M HOME IN BED AT 3:00AM and NOT
>DOWN AT THE DATACENTER REBUILDING ANOTHER NT SERVER
>WHICH VOMITED".
[deletia]
HELL, even when the occasional Oracle vomit occurs it is
typically something that I could handle from home in my
jammies if management were willing to allow the remote
access.
--
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:20:26 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:tR396.84229$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Way to snip the part about this being a WORKSTATION conversation genius.
(Alruight then. Fair enough. Smartass mode off)
Honest question: Do you really find crashing of even that sort
(Workstation) to be acceptable and do you find those who don't to be
unreasonable?
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:22:02 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 11:49:44 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For me, when I subscribed to cable modem, they installed the network card
>and turned on the machine.
>
>I was expecting to have to configure *something*, but Windows 2000
>automatically installed the network card, *and* detected and configured the
>network settings, in this case DHCP.
>
>I didn't have to do anything at all.
I had to DIG for my netcard drivers. Despite having a vendor CD,
there was no nice auto installer (like an ISA soundblaster pro
under DOS) and the 'driver seek' failed and tried to use a Win95
driver.
You'd think they could do better ident with those inf files.
>
>Now *that* is easy.
Alternately, under mandrake/redhat all you would have to do if the
distro autodetected your drivers is to tell the installer to use
dhcp.
Win2k is still a "luck of the draw" situation.
OTOH, Linux distros are being updated quarterly so that this
"the driver is already there" situation is more likely to
happen.
Also lets not forget that since Win2K is not the "market
leader", drivers are not even gauranteed. Even if they are
there, Win2K might decide not to use them.
Personally, I think an uncertified vidcard driver is better than NO
vidcard driver. So in this case, Redhat would actually come out on
top as it would be non-obvious to a novice that Win2K has a suitable
working driver (Trident Blade 3D). Whereas the Redhat installer
states in plain bold text ~ "hey, I found a blade 3d card in here".
As I said... crap shoot.
>
>-Todd
>
>"Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3a646c23.341957648@news...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to offer a small story to illustrate how some things are much
>> easier using Linux.
>>
>> I recently subscribed to a cable modem service. When I spoke to the
>> customer service drone on the telephone, I asked if they supported
>> Linux. They said absolutely not, the modem probably won't work with
>> Linux, and they offer no support even if it does.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> As soon as he left, I unplugged the modem from the Windows PC and
>> plugged it into the Linux PC. In Linux I simply ran dhcpcd and named,
>> et voila, it was connected. Less that a minute and no reboots.
>>
>> It took another half hour or so to configure the Windows PCs to route
>> through the Linux server to the internet (and both had to be
>> rebooted).
>>
>> It took maybe as much as 30 minutes to write a quick ipchains script
>> to firewall the system.
>>
>> With such an incredibly simple process, why do ISPs refuse point blank
>> to support Linux? Is it a fear of the unknown? A false assumption that
>> 'it's Linux so it must be difficult'? Surely it can't be that
>> expensive to send a few techies on a basic Linux networking course?
>>
>
>
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: 16 Jan 2001 21:21:49 -0700
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ironiclly, the process of installing hardware under MS-DOS WAS less
> step intensive than under Linux today.
No way. Having to deal with HIMEM.SYS, ISA card IRQ/PORT issues,
lack of system resources, MSCDEX.EXE, drivers in CONFIG.SYS needing to
be called in AUTOEXEC.BAT (God forbid you ever upgrade a CD-ROM
drive!)... the list goes on and on.
People somehow dealt with it, just like they deal with Linux -- it's
only a few people (like yourself) that complain about how "hard" Linux
is.
> I am fully aware of how DOS was. It's quite structurally similar to how
> Linux IS. Not technicaly mind you, but from the END USER STANDPOINT.
And yet it was the most popular operating system of it's time.
(and Linux is soooo much more, of course)
> Win3.0 was an 8 bit user interface, with no ability to augment anything on
> the OS level. Win 3.1 was a 16 bit platform, with psudo 32-bit extentions
> that could augment functions of DOS, and provide SEAMLESS transparency.
Windows 3.0 was 16 bit, as was a special version of 2.x (memory
failing!) -- perhaps that is what you meant.
Win 3.x had all the ability to run 32bit programs, and even ran
Win32(s).
> The POINT is that WINDOWS PROVIDED A BETTER UI. And it did it by bypassing
> the shortfalls of DOS. And the CONSUMER LIKED IT.
...and they didn't have to throw away their old software, which was
the mistake that Apple made with the high-cost Macintosh (and,
Commodore made with the most excellent Amiga -- many C64 users
abandoned ship).
Microsoft understands this better than anyone. That is why Windows
2000 runs a good chunk of DOS software, even to this day.
> Win95 introduced the DirectX multimedia layer, which revoulitionized
> PC gaming.
<pedantic> DirextX didn't come out until well after Windows 95
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Benchmark tests - who cares?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:25:25 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 12:03:48 +0800, Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Donn Miller
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Basically, I'm wondering if some people in here are "bandwagon" Linux
>fans.
>> >You know, they like it just because it performs well on benchmarks. If
>> >FreeBSD scored 100 worse than Windows on a webbench result, I would keep
>on
>> >lovin' my OS! It's because I know that it is an open source product, my
>> >OS would have a tremendous future ahead of it.
>>
>> I think it's more of a reaction to all the benchmarks that have been used
>> against Linux here in the past by the obsessive Windows users who keep
>> posting in COLA. It's the old equivalent of rubbing their faces in it. Not
>> that it's really necessary of course, but at the very least it might shut
>some
>> of them up for a while.
>
>Well, Windows 2000 is winning against Linux in the benchmarks. *Audited*
>benchmarks, that is. Not biased benchmarks from MS or the Linux community.
Which ones.
Spec benchmarks are plenty audited & NT5 is merely treading
water when it comes to specweb99.
>
>I think it is funny that Windows 2000 is winning a lot of benchmarks, but
>Linux users keep on saying to me that Linux runs so much faster blah blah
>blah.
Fine, then quote some.
[deletia]
OTOH, you may be refering to those much abused (by lemmings)
tpc-c benchmarks which essentially allow for one to call
100 separate databases one single machine.
Feh.
At least IBM can muster single machines, that won't place
any undo constraints on your schema architecture, that can
place well in these benchmarks.
--
Unless you've got the engineering process to match a DEC,
you won't produce a VMS.
You'll just end up with the likes of NT.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux is INFERIOR to Windows
Date: 16 Jan 2001 21:28:59 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Hasler wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert writes:
> >> I've used FreeBSD and I have some comments.
> >
> >> It's license allows for corporations to steal the code and copyright it
> >> for their own purposes,...
> >
> >No it doesn't.
> >
>
> How would you know what Microsoft has already copyrighted under
> their own from BSD? The license clearly allows that now that
> they've dropped the disclaimer that Berkley get's credit for
> the work.
Because nmap thought that early builds of NT5 were BSD boxes, using
TCP sigs.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 21:32:27 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> 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.
GNUStep is source-compatible with OpenStep (aka NextStep 3.x), so I
don't see this as entirely accurate. It may not be binary-compatible
with x86 Open/NeXTStep software -- but it is API-compatible.
(and *yes*, I have used NextStep -- my first personal UNIX box was a
NeXT Station/Turbo [25mhz wooo-hooo!])
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Linux woes
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:31:33 +0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would have loved to have spoken to him
>
> I hope you asked him why "he" has a contract and you don't? I hope you
> asked him why your benefits got changed to a "Cash Balance Plan" and why
> there is a class action suit against IBM for age discrimination doing
> such. I hope you asked him about being investigated in Europe for fraud
> relating to employee benefits "creative accounting" practices.
>
Nope, sorry, didn't have the time. And my benefits are no longer a cash
balance plan. That only lasted a couple of months. Keep up with the times.
> But I doubt you did, because despite the probability you are a fine
> engineer, you are unfortunately, one of the sheep heading to the
> slaughter and just by making a statement like "I met Lou" solidifies the
> point. I thought that type of IBM 'er was long since gone in one of the
> annual company purges? http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/ibmunion
> http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/ibmpension
>
ROTFLMAO!!!!!!! If you knew anything about me, the word sheep would
never come to mind. I mentioned Lou because of you insane comment above his
wet dreams. You are such an idiot. You know, Linux was not some crazy
idea thought up by Gerstner and them forced from the top down. Linux at
IBM started from the bottom and worked it's way to the top. By the time
Gerstner got into it Linux was already in heavy use within IBM. I headed
the effort to migrate my area to Linux long before Gerstner heard of Linux.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel space? Who gives a @#$%
Date: 16 Jan 2001 22:33:56 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> >
> > You have never used terminal services and have no idea of what it is.
> >
> > I am talking the complete full totally just like you're sitting in front
of
> > it administer. You are looking at the desktop and have access to
everything.
> > Everything. Get it? It's like being there.
>
> Oh yea, right, sure, I'll run terminal services on a web server box.
why not?
> Cold day in hell, are you insane? The whole terminal services
> infrastructure is a disaster, it requires at least 32M for the service,
> and 4M-8M per connection. That's 40M ram (minimum requirements and you
> know what that really means!) just for for the server!!!! Under UNIX
> remote access / configuration requires 0 additional resources, just
> what it takes to connect.
I dispute the 32M claim, that's just not so. I've run a W2K server without
and then with and don't see a 32M difference. Otherwise, simply run the
telnet service of W2K....
>
> Terminal Services required an extensive rewrite of low level components
> of NT 4.0 just to shoe horn it in. It is a "service" not a tool. It is
> not designed to be an administration portal, it is designed to be an
> application service. It is very heavy and a very poor choice when all
> you want to do is administer a system.
It did require a heft rewrite - but it was done for NT4. Now in W2K it was
in there from the word go. Again, if ALL you want to do is administer the
system, use the telnet client or any of a dozen other RPC tools.
>
> Lets talk about bandwidth, shall we? try using terminal services over a
> 28K modem, or even 128~384 DSL!! There is no way you can claim that this
> is a workable setup. It isn't even worth discussing.
OH PLEASE - get real. RDP was designed for low speeds, ICA equally. You
cannot saturate a DSL connection with RDP. You have obviously NEVER used
this product otheriwse you'd never make such obvious mistakes in your FUD. I
have not used TS over 28.8k, true, but I've used it over 56K and it's ok,
not speedy but ok. Over 128K ISDN? Just like being there. You really should
try something before trying to put it down. I mean, I've run a bandwidth
monitor while TS was connected and have never seen more than about 50 kb/s
used while the screen was updating with non-repeating (read: poorly
compressed) data. If you use the data compression and bitmap caching,
performance with TS is like being there. On my laptop I use a "56K" cellular
modem to remote admin W2K boxes, I connect to the ISP, then use the terminal
service web client (so I don't even need client software loaded) to open 2
windows one over the other into two different server's simultaneously. Like
I said, over a cellular modem, not speedy but doable. But, bump the speed a
single notch into ISDN minimum and you're fine.
So, want me to admit TS uses more bandwidth than telnet? Doh! Sure. Want me
to say TS is "not a workable setup" - I would not lie like this - it's too
easy to disprove.
>
> >
> > >
> > > Don't trifle me with your NT crap. It ain't even close.
> >
> > Do a little reading and researching, after you see what can be done
through
> > the built-in terminal services you'll be back to apologize if you have
any
> > decency. W2K can have EVERY administration task performed remotely.
>
> Please, I know NT and 2K very well, thank you. I am, after all, an
> NT/Windows developer when the money is right. I get my stupid MSDN email
> updates regularly.
I find that hard to believe - and if it's true then you are a very poor
"nt/windows developer" - if you don't even know the basic specs and
capabilties of Terminal Services.
>
> Just tell me, you can dial up AOL, log in to your office system and
> administer it easily using terminal services.
ABSOLUTELY - have done this many times when a local ISP wasn't available!!
>Tell me you can add
> terminal services to heavily loaded web server without affecting it
> performance.
don't be silly, TS to a "heavily" loaded web server without affecting
performance? Tell me what service you can add to any heavily loaded server
and not affect performance. The answer is no. BUT - why TS into a web
server? You can remote admin the entire webserver using HTML tools from any
web browser without taxing the system in the least. You can telnet in and do
it. You can use RPC tools of various kinds. Dude - have you never even used
IIS? Come on!
bloody silly...
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS-X GUI on Linux?
Date: 16 Jan 2001 21:33:08 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> Ive seen them all, and while the GNUStep API has the same "philosophy"
> as the OpenStep API, it is very, very different.
In what way, exactly?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 17:35:49 +1200
Dear flatfish, Steve, Claire, etc.
Since you have now admitted that you at the latest in one of your many
trolling personalities I'm not even going to read what you just wrote and I
hope others will do the same.
You should learn not to crosspost to alt.linux.sux. My news server doesn't
even carry it.
I remember how you roped me in about how great you were finding Linux before
your earlier personality vanished.
You have no credibility and the most you can now hope for is to start a
flame war. Good luck.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:33:51 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:06:40 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <xS496.84740$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>
>If I may.
>
>
>>When Linux functions JUST like Windows, only better, I'll convert. Promise.
>>
>
>Allow me to drop my shields for a moment and have a heart to heart
>with you Kyle.
[deletia]
The sad truth is that few end users exploit the full potential
of many of the applications that they use. Unless you're someone
that really depends on some obscure vertical app or some power
user app (maya, autocadd) you're simply not going to need that
much application grunt.
A little interoperability is all you really need. This is where
Microsoft gets people. They got people that way in 1985, and in
1988, and in 1992, and in 1996.
People don't give a damn about Windows versus Linux, they want
to run Quicken or Starcraft. If they can run Quicken or Starcraft
or some suitable equivalent then they can, end of story.
Whether or not they can is a complex and individual question.
OTOH, most people are real cheapskates. Much of the software
they use is 'bundled for free' or pirated. They like costly
upgrades even less than Linux users. As the upgrade treadmill
continues to sack their pocketbooks, they will continue to be
subseptable to web based online banking or the likes of
Star Office.
Infact, it seems like Windows users like StarOffice (on Win32
or Linux) better than many Linux users do.
Meanwhile, the rest of the planet is even less inclined to
pay good money for something with a marginal production
cost of ZERO.
What saved DOS will eventually doom DOS.
That doom might not be ready today, but it will come. There
is very little that can be done to stop it now. Even if the
'pope' lashes out, there are still plenty of northern princes
willing to give sanctuary to the reforming heretics.
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
