Linux-Advocacy Digest #553, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 16:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I just can't help it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I just can't help it! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Martigan")
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I just can't help it! ("kiwiunixman")
Re: "Linux is no Windows killer" ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K (sfcybear)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone (sfcybear)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... ("kiwiunixman")
Re: I just can't help it! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("kiwiunixman")
Re: I just can't help it! (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Thursday 18 January 2001 UNIGROUP Meeting: Jeffrey Altman, of Kermit, on Security
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:06:20 -0600
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I just configured two systems on-line at Dell's website - one with Linux
> and one with Dell - and the Linux system came to $64 *more* than the same
> system with Win2K.
>
> Where is the logic behind that? MS flexing muscles again?
This has been gone through many times.
First, Dell provides Linux with a Red Hat service contract. So they're not
using Free versions of Linux, and that costs money.
Second, they need to use more expensive hardware, such as regular modems
versus winmodems.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:11:04 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The whole Win2K, NT, 98 MTTF study, funded my Microsoft, touted by
> > Microsoft as proof of improvement, just proves what we have been saying
> > here for years. Not only that, the MTTF hours in the test mirror very
> > closely what we have been seeing.
> >
> > So, I'm going to take this time to happily gloat.
> >
> > Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> > NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> > Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>
> I love the spin that's now being generated by the Winvocates about the
> distinction between desktop and server: how these are desktop numbers
> and don't really reflect on thew serving capabilities of W2K.
Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops *ARE* shut
down at night. This is in contradiction to people who talk about how their
servers are never shut down. DUH! Try to attribute the comments to the
right context.
Second, as with the TCO debates, until empirical studies on Linux are
available, you're just spouting hot air about Linux's average MTTF.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:17:24 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And the real kicker is the score that NT4 recieved.
>
> We've been saying this for *years*, but the blind Widows advocates
> would beat the "anectodal evidence" drum and point to all the slavish
> PC (er, I mean *E*) Week articles that trumpetted the second coming of
> Windows, the Greatest Operating System Ever.
Nobody has said that NT cannot be unreliable. What most of us have said, is
that NT can be reliable if it's properly configured (good hardware, good
drivers, managed software, etc..) We've all had very good luck with long
uptimes on NT, so our experiences tell us that NT can be quite stable.
Likewise, some of us have had very poor experiences with Linux's stability.
That doesn't mean that Linux cannot be stable, it means that it can be
unstable if incorrectly configured.
> Just the fact that Microsoft needed 50+ machines to run their website
> should have been a wakeup call.
Gee, why does Google need hundreds of servers?
MS serves up tons of dynamic content, which is a lot more intensive than
static pages.
------------------------------
From: "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:13:25 GMT
But don't forget Support!!! People will call Dell rather than RedHat!
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:23H96.502$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I just configured two systems on-line at Dell's website - one with Linux
> > and one with Dell - and the Linux system came to $64 *more* than the
same
> > system with Win2K.
> >
> > Where is the logic behind that? MS flexing muscles again?
>
> This has been gone through many times.
>
> First, Dell provides Linux with a Red Hat service contract. So they're
not
> using Free versions of Linux, and that costs money.
>
> Second, they need to use more expensive hardware, such as regular modems
> versus winmodems.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:21:04 -0600
I said service, which is support. And Dell will forward them to Red Hat.
"Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pfH96.83136$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> But don't forget Support!!! People will call Dell rather than RedHat!
>
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:23H96.502$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I just configured two systems on-line at Dell's website - one with
Linux
> > > and one with Dell - and the Linux system came to $64 *more* than the
> same
> > > system with Win2K.
> > >
> > > Where is the logic behind that? MS flexing muscles again?
> >
> > This has been gone through many times.
> >
> > First, Dell provides Linux with a Red Hat service contract. So they're
> not
> > using Free versions of Linux, and that costs money.
> >
> > Second, they need to use more expensive hardware, such as regular modems
> > versus winmodems.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:41:04 GMT
Yeap, have to agree with you there. 10 years of Microsoft proclaming that
NT is the be all and end all of OS's and it would smash UNIX (quoted back
when NT4 was first released)...10 years later, and no one in there right
mind would choose a limp wristed NT server when given the option of having a
UNIX system from Sun, Unisys, IBM, HP or SGI, to name a few UNIX
hardware-software vendors.
kiwiunixman
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The whole Win2K, NT, 98 MTTF study, funded my Microsoft, touted by
> > Microsoft as proof of improvement, just proves what we have been saying
> > here for years. Not only that, the MTTF hours in the test mirror very
> > closely what we have been seeing.
> >
> > So, I'm going to take this time to happily gloat.
> >
> > Win2K: MTTF 2893 Hours? (120 days)
> > NT: MTTF 919 Hours? (38 Days)
> > Win98: MTTF 216 Hours (9 days)
>
> I love the spin that's now being generated by the Winvocates about the
> distinction between desktop and server: how these are desktop numbers
> and don't really reflect on thew serving capabilities of W2K.
>
> --
> Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
> Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
> 1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
> Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:46:54 GMT
You must understand, by todays point and click generation, hes a fucking
genious, my opinion, get him to admin an NT server farm in a large
corperation for a couple of years, then he will know the horror of Windows!
kiwiunixman
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anyone who describes HTML as a "foreign language" has no business
> selling themselves as a "geek by trade", especially when their trade is
> building web pages.
>
> ZDNET should be embarrassed to publish such claptrap by a clearly
> unqualified individual.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:56:30 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
> > >
> > >My sentiments exactly.
> >
> > Use the DAMNED control panel.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:39:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I just configured two systems on-line at Dell's website - one with
Linux
> and one with Dell - and the Linux system came to $64 *more* than the
same
> system with Win2K.
>
> Where is the logic behind that? MS flexing muscles again?
>
Linux is the hot system now. They have to "discount" W2K servers to move
them!
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:42:04 GMT
In article <ekl96.134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Milton wrote:
> >
> > It is pathetic on so many levels:
> >
> > (1) Win2K can't compare for stability to any of its server
competition.
> > (2) NT, despite Microsoft's claims, sucked as bad as we said it did.
> > (3) Microsoft is "proud" of these numbers, which tells you they have
no
> > idea of what an operating system should be.
>
> No, it means that MS is being realistic. Linux fails too, and I'd bet
it's
> MTTF is about the same as Win2k's, that is if you'd bother to be
realistic.
Based on nubers from Netcraft and Uptimes I would find this claim hard
to believe. Just guessing without documentation to back it up is hardly
being realistic.
> Claiming that it's mean (remember, that's average, not extreme) is
> indefinate is a flat out lie.
>
> So, if it's not indefinite, what is Linux's MTTF?
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:49:59 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 17 Jan 2001 09:38:52 -0700, Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Linux ain't goin' anywhere guys. You might as well get used to it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You said it, not me.
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
WELL! why do they?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:51:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snippage]
> > The proof of Microsoft crap has been provided by Microsoft itself!!!
>
> And the real kicker is the score that NT4 recieved.
>
> We've been saying this for *years*, but the blind Widows advocates
> would beat the "anectodal evidence" drum and point to all the slavish
> PC (er, I mean *E*) Week articles that trumpetted the second coming of
> Windows, the Greatest Operating System Ever.
>
> We'd complain about scheduled reboots of NT4, and the response we got
> was "Get a better administrator" -- now, it turns out that we were
> correct. NT4 needs to be rebooted about every week in order to have
> it function reliably (ie, no UNPLANNED downtime). It fails every 38
> days, which means there is a good chance it will fail at shorter
> intervals; rebooting every week alleviates this problem.
>
> Just the fact that Microsoft needed 50+ machines to run their website
> should have been a wakeup call.
>
> Perhpas "Whistler" will manage to stay up for 180 days.
ROTFLMAO! Mean time to failure (MTTF) is a term that is applied to
non-repairable parts such as light bulbs. If this isn't a typographical
error, then even a reboot won't fix it; replacement is necessary.
The temptation to say this isn't a typo is strong... very strong.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:03:38 GMT
lets break down the article:
A two-page Microsoft ad in the 6 February issue of PC Magazine proudly
features the classic Win9x & NT blue screen of death bordered by a dotted
line and scissors icon, next to a boxed suggestion that one should cut the
familiar screen out and save it for old times' sake after upgrading to Win2k
Pro.
"If you find yourself missing the downtime, cut out and tape to monitor,"
the adjacent boxed text recommends.
---What sort of dick would want to have a momento of hell sitting on their
desk?
Towards the bottom of the page we find the cheerful slogan, "Goodbye blue
screen; hello reliable Microsoft." ('At last,' we're tempted to add.)
---ABOUT FUCKING TIME!
Windows 2000 Professional is "thirteen times more reliable than Windows 98",
the advert proudly boasts, and directs readers to the NSTL Web site where
independent test results supporting this claim may be evaluated.
---That must be a very conservative estimate or an over exaduration...i'd
choose the later excuse
Sure enough, mean time to failure (MTTF) tests for 98, NT and 2k show, among
other things, that the heavily-sold consumer OS is hopelessly buggy and in
fact eager to crash.
2K wins the competition hands down with a respectable MTTF of 2893 hours
(actually sounds like a professional product, doesn't it). NT showed
considerable anaemia, struggling for an MTTF of 919 hours, while the crap OS
most of you are using as you read this article, Win9x, exhibited a
predictable, consumer-schlock MTTF of only 216 hours.
---If I were a OS vendor I would be very ashamed of that uptime! if the
uptime was, say, 10 months, YES, jump around and celebrate..however...most
commercial UNIX's and Linux achieve 2893 with out too much effort.
Microsoft reckons you'd better get rid of those nasty NT and '9x desktops
fast. A Win2k Pro upgrade is their solution for disgusted NT users, and can
be had for less than $200 per machine. Unlucky '9x users will have to wait
for the consumer edition of this nifty, and finally reliable, OS - called
Whistler - which is due out towards the end of this year.
---Small problem..the new OS will consum more RAM, and HDD space, hence,
will need to buy a new computer!
Unfortunately for Harry Homeowner, but fortunately for MS, nothing can be
done with '9x to make it reliable in the mean time, so he simply has to buy
Whistler if he wishes to experience the joys of a (finally) "reliable
Microsoft".
---Thats if he hasn't cracked first and either jumped out his apartment or
installed Linux/UNIX over Windows
The '9x code base was crap to begin with, and crap it remains. But no one
can accuse us of MS-bashing here; the company's own ad campaign makes
precisely that assertion.
---hmmmm, the number of people I know who find Windows 95 more stable that
98 is numorous.
And offers the test results to prove it, too. ®
kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:2m1449.fn7.ln@gd2zzx...
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I just can't help it!
Date: 18 Jan 2001 12:51:21 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nobody said that. What we're saying is that typical desktops *ARE* shut
> down at night. This is in contradiction to people who talk about
> how their
No they aren't. Typical Windows desktops maybe. Does typical mean
Windows in your world? I take it that you, like Microsoft, think
these are good results?
Here are some typical desktop numbers in _my_ organization.
SunOS coronado 5.7 Generic_106541-12 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-60
12:41pm up 106 day(s), 23:06, 9 users, load average: 0.04, 0.07, 0.07
SunOS havasu 5.7 Generic_106541-04 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10
12:42pm up 114 day(s), 2:50, 3 users, load average: 0.32, 0.17, 0.14
SunOS sonoita 5.7 Generic_106541-06 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-60
12:44pm up 115 day(s), 4:48, 4 users, load average: 0.03, 0.01, 0.02
SunOS laveen 5.5.1 Generic_103640-18 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-5_10
12:46pm up 382 day(s), 1:27, 2 users, load average: 0.28, 0.75, 0.92
These are all desktops. None have been shut down in the last three
months. The first three were shut down to upgrade the OS. Our boxes
almost _never_ are shut down.
I can give you similar numbers for our servers, but what's the point?
> Second, as with the TCO debates, until empirical studies on Linux are
> available, you're just spouting hot air about Linux's average MTTF.
Keep saying it. Maybe you'll even convince yourself of it
eventually. :)
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:11:15 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:50:15 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on 18 Jan 2001
>14:27:16 GMT;
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 01:46:17 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 14:07:41 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:04:16 GMT, Chad Myers
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> >> >wrote:
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 14:38:38 GMT, Chad Myers
>>>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> >> >> >wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 02:14:37 GMT, Chad Myers
>>>> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> >> >> >> >wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34 GMT, Chad Myers
>>>> >> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> >> >> >> >> >wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
>>>> >> >15:19:13
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>>> in
>>>> >> >message
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Chad Myers wrote:
[deletia]
>>> - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
>>> cards)
>>> - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
>>> - Save raw video file for posterity.
>>> - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
>>> - Save edits to video file
>>> - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
>>> - Save resized video
>>> - Convert video into internet video (Quicktime, RealVideo, Windows Media,
>>> yes all three)
>>> - Save converted videos.
>>
>>Oh, INTERNET video. I thought you were talking about some kind of real
>>video editing that means something. "Internet video" is something of
>>a joke, chad. Anyone can do it, and you certianly dont need a hell of
>>alot of processing power or an operating system that doesnt completely
>>suck.
>
>What 'Internet video' is going to need a file size of greater than 2
>Gigabytes?!?
Too true. That would be one monster of a download...
That would even be a nasty download if 2G is the size
of the video UNCOMPRESSED.
OTOH, something like Quicktime pro can easily deal with
cat-ing multiple smaller video files together quite
easily as a manual operation.
Doing it in an automated fashion can't be that much harder.
To do things automatically, all you really need is support
for the video equivalent of a CD or DVD playlist.
Open several files in sequence rather than a single one...
Big fat hairy deal.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:14:29 -0000
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 18:23:20 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 13:54:09 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 16:30:05 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:04:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> >> >On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:33:43 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> You are generalizing for a random large collection of
>> >> >> >> individuals.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No I am saying ANYONE who hunts around a typical Linux system and
>> >> >> >clicks on help will be more than likely be greeted with a message
>> >> >> >along the lines of "Help not Written Yet".
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> This is assinine and trivially absurd.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It sure is considering how long kde and Gnome have been in
>> >> >> >development.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ...compared to what? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Compared to what Windows was like 2 years after it's
>> >> >> inception, GNOME is a bloody masterpiece.
>> >> >
>> >> >That comparison makes no sense.
>> >> >
>> >> >GNOME uses Linux or some other Unix, that have been around for years.
>> >>
>> >> However, the various GUI's haven't.
>> >
>> >Well, windows is its own OS, so this is a muddy area. If you just
>> >intend to compare GUIs, then you must compare to only the GUI.
>> >
>> >Then you could say that Windows (the GUI) in its current incarnation
>> >exists since about 1995. Windows 3.x was too different to consider it
>> >the same thing. Or you'd have to say that the linux GUIs date back to
>> >twm.
>>
>> The 'versions' may have changed, however the company
>> remained the same. To be comparable, Miguel would have
>> had to have been the driving force behind twm or CDE.
>>
>> Infact, someone else was.
>
>Then you might consider thinking GNOME started in the early 80s. At that
>time, some of the guys currently doing some important chunks of GNOME worked
>at Apple on MacOS.
That's not GNOME, that's a higher level application.
You're trying to basically claim that the people at Norton
are Microsoft employees.
...or better yet that DEC and Microsoft are some sort of
unified whole.
[deletia]
Similarly, the differences in winfile, progman and explorer
don't constitute enough difference by themselves to call
Win3.x and Win95 discrete products.
--
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.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:21:25 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> Why should we do that? Linux _is_ better than Windows: for _me_. How
> many times do we have to go over this? Linux _is_ great, BTW. Just
> because you can't seem to figure it out doesn't mean everyone else is
> in the same boat.
But nobody actually says "Linux is great for me". They say "Linux is great"
or "Linux is easier to install than Windows". There's no "for me
qualification".
> > I'll disparage ANY effort that I find to be inferior compared to a
> > product that it claims to be better than.
>
> Better in what way? Linux _is_ better than Windows for many. Now
> you're the one that seems to think that your needs are more important
> than mine.
My needs are always more important to anyone else - to me!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Thursday 18 January 2001 UNIGROUP Meeting: Jeffrey Altman, of Kermit, on
Security
Date: 18 Jan 2001 15:21:59 -0500
UNIGROUP is the senior *n*x Froup in New York City. The sandwiches and
salads at their meetings are just fine, and there's a lot of 'em.
If you are neither a Chase employee nor a member of UNIGROUP there is a fee
to attend.
Jay Sulzberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Corresponding Secretary LXNY
LXNY is New York's Free Computing Organization.
http://www.lxny.org
====================================================
UNIGROUP'S JANUARY 2001 GENERAL MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT
====================================================
When: Thursday, January 18, 2001
Where: The Chase Manhattan Bank
55 Water Street (enter at Old Slip)
South Tower
13th Floor, Conference Room C
Time: 6:15 PM - 6:30 PM Registration
6:30 PM - 6:40 PM Ask the Wizard
6:40 PM - 6:50 PM Unigroup Business
6:50 PM - 9:30 PM Main Presentation
-----------------------------------
Topic: Security Protocols and Technologies
-----------------------------------
Speaker: Jeffrey Altman,
Sr. Software Designer,
The Kermit Project at Columbia University
Quick Summary:
Will discuss implementation of Secure Telnet and FTP using
Internet standard protocols for Authentication and Encryption:
Kerberos, SRP, and SSL/TLS.
See http://www.unigroup.org for the full announcement and directions.
-Rob Weiner
Unigroup Executive Director
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.unigroup.org
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:24:20 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> What do you expect when you barge into a Linux advocacy
> forum and say "linux sucks" - of course people are going to
> counter that it doesn't, since if it sucked, they'd obviously be
> using something else.
I never said "Linux sucks". I did say "Linux lags behind Windows (desktop)".
> Linux doesn't "claim" anything, it simply is.
Is what?
Is greater than Windows? No it isn't!
Is more stable than Windows - yes, I'll grant you that?
Is easier to install than Windows? No it isn't!
> In the server market, there's no doubt whatsoever that Linux
> is better than wiindows - will you concede that?
Yes, I'll concede that.
> OTOH the desktop is a complicated subject, and it all boils
> down to personal taste. One man's paradise is another man's
> purgatory -
Yes, but the multiple mess of different toolkits on Linux + whatever mean
you end up with differing standards for different products instead of an
orthogonal whole. A bit like the 8086 instruction set compared to the ARM.
> How can you argue with personal taste?
If it were only personal taste.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:26:14 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> I'll take that as a 'No, I didn't submit a bug report.'
>
> You have no right to complain, then.
I'll complain so long as I see Linux advocates portray sweeping
generalisations and inaccuracies as the truth.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
