Linux-Advocacy Digest #561, Volume #31 Thu, 18 Jan 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (sfcybear)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Hatred? ("KLH")
NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? (mlw)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Lewis Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:07:17 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "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.
Why would anybody WANT the cheap piece of crap known as a "winmodem"
Saving $3 so that you can burden the CPU with Digital Signal Processing
work (which the CPU is *NOT* designed for, but DSP chips aare) is
NOT a winning solution.
using a real modem with a real, built-in DSP is well worth the
investment, as it gives much better overall system performance.
Thus, it is in Dell's best interest to use proper hardware, not
dain-bramaged crap like LoseModems
--
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: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:08:23 -0500
Flacco 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?
It's called supply and demand.
Purchasers are WILLING TO PAY $64 more for Linux than Windows.
He heh heheheheh
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:12:49 GMT
In article <LtK96.183235$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>sfcybear wrote:
>
>> Oh, look. Pete shows, again, that when it comes to computers he does not
>> know what he is talking about. The first sentance of the artical say
>> that this is a worm, not a virus. It also only affects the Redhat
>> version of Linux. It would not be able to use the same methods on
>> Mandrake if it were installed with security level set at "high". Thus it
>> is a Redhat issue and not a Linux issue.
>
>A worm, a virus, either way damage is down to a system.
>
>BTW, can you spell "article"?
>
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
The article said no damage was done to the system.
The only thing which was reported was the root page of
the web server was changed to a noodle page.
The security flaws which let the worm IN in the first
place were actually FIXED by the worm as it moved thru.
The worm was most likely written by a person who was
freindly to Linux and wanting to point out an obvious
security flaw. Somebody from an OS which has a high
trackrecord of FIXING security defects in free os's.
That and releasing fine SSH products also.
I thought this worm thing was interesting as it seemed
to only attack RedHat servers 6.2 and 7.0.
So, aside from releasing an alpha compiler they
appearently were asleep during the OPENBSD buffer
overrun security alerts last year.
I almost laughed when I read what it was doing.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:15:44 GMT
In article <vCK96.183241$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >I never said "Linux sucks". I did say "Linux lags behind Windows
>> >(desktop)".
>>
>> You don't even know what that is.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>> You're just an ignorant liar.
>
>This is getting silly. You're another one of the Linux advocates who
>doesn't like it when someone threatens their precious little domain so you
>fall to meaningless quips.
>
>I shall ignore you from now on. Of course, I'd killfile you, but KNode
>doesn't have that feature.
>
If given the choice, would it be KILL FILE or YELLOW FUNNEL AT DAWN!
>--
>Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: 19 Jan 2001 02:18:52 GMT
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.
: 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?
All available evidence suggests that on good hardware, MTBF is longer
than the interval between *major* kernel releases (i.e., > 2 years).
And thus for most practical purposes not even an issue.
Read _The Art of War_ sometime. You will learn that it's always wise
to attack an enemy at the place where it is the weakest, not the
strongest. Linux is among the most reliable OSen available, and W2K
is among the least (it is worsted *only* by earlier versions of
'Doze). That is not a debatable point, and anyone who's made
nontrivial use of both kinds of OS knows that. Mafia$oft has never
made an OS that's comparable to Linux, and almost certainly never
will. Your constant attempts to insinuate otherwise damage your
credibility greatly, and detract from most people's willingness to
consider whatever valid points you might occasionally make.
Joe
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:14:52 GMT
In article <LtK96.183235$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> sfcybear wrote:
>
> > Oh, look. Pete shows, again, that when it comes to computers he does
not
> > know what he is talking about. The first sentance of the artical say
> > that this is a worm, not a virus. It also only affects the Redhat
> > version of Linux. It would not be able to use the same methods on
> > Mandrake if it were installed with security level set at "high".
Thus it
> > is a Redhat issue and not a Linux issue.
>
> A worm, a virus, either way damage is down to a system.
>
> BTW, can you spell "article"?
Can you read and tell the difference between a virus and a worm? Can you
tell the difference between Redhat and Linux? Are you smart enough for
that? I may not be able to spell but at least I can read the first line
of the article, something it seem your are unable to do. The WORM (not a
virus) attacks ONLY redhat and only systems that have not kept up on
patches. Sh*t, we sat around and listened to the wintrolls try to excuse
the lack of patching at MS after MS got hacked. Now thy turn around and
scream bloody murder. Pathetic 2 faced trolling. The problem as I see it
is that W2K and SOME linux distributions install with ports that should
no be opened, open. That is why I choose Mandrake, I have controll over
what level of security I want at the time of install. That is one up in
what MS can do.
>
> --
> Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: Charliebert @my.isp
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:20:23 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 01:36:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>Sad life you have then.
Actually it's quite comical.
>
>>Linux could be an applications launcher, if it had applications worth
>>launching.
>>
>
>It does.
Applications yes.
Worth launching? err.... no..
>As with most things, 1/2 like it, 1/2 hate it.
1/2 of what?
1/100th of computer users out there?
>Windows is dead.
You better let the 90 percent + of people using it on their desktop's
know that because this is serious news.
>Windows is the OS for the geritol generation.
Yep. The people with all the money :)
>It's quicker.
Until you try and actually use it.
>
>Oh yeah. Linux runs okay on even 486's.
>W2k on the other hand is just like every other
>Windows OS. It requires a brand new computer to
>go with it.
But you just said it was for the Geritol generation?
Which one is it?
>I run Debian. You push the buttons.
And nothing happens. Just like those "Walk buttons" that traffic
lights use. They aren't hooked up to anything. Just a stress relief
technique.
>Well then I guess we won't be seeing you back here again
>then.
I like disproving you Penguinista's.
>You must use it for a night light.
Even a night light is more useful than Linux.
So is a toilet brush and a muffler bearing for that matter.
>Oh really. I've never heard of a Windows which
>was intuitive enought to setup up your internet
>service for you. How is that accomplished anyway
>without touching the keyboard?
I've never seen a message in the WIndows groups along the lines of "I
finally set up my dial up after 6 months of trying".
>Do you have some kind of helmet?
Great band.
Ask Mattius....
>Actually the ladies like my XMMS and SBLive module
>better than their 98 or ME boxes.
Somehow I doubt that.
If you're discussing PC's with ladies you need more help than I
originally thought.
>>Read the "Font De-Uglification" How-To for details.
>>
>
>Yes we have fonts. Even the ability to use Windows Fonts.
Not anti-aliased you don't. Even if you do STEAL the fonts.
Why don't you have decent ones of your own.
I'm calling Gates and telling him how you steal his fonts :)
>
>Yes it does. The Windows player is about as attractive
>as a pay toilet or a Ford Pinto.
Xmms looks like shit....
Next time you're in NYC I'll be glad to give you a demo.
>Yes. digital pictures you know.
>Like your comment earlier about digital sounds.
No... The Soundblaster Live Can't create Digital Sounds under Linsux
because the digital ports don't work.
Titanic was pure numbers....
>Ladies don't think so.
You're a dreamer.
>Nope. The Ladies love it.
You're watching too much Jerry Springer.
>Microsoft office absolutely wins the bloat battle.
>It's 4 times the size.
And does 48 times as much.
>Debian leaves it's users with a better taste in their mouths.
I won't go there but you can imagine........
>It installs so automatically using Dselect.
Good name for an install program Dselect.
Now that's intuitive.
>BTW, a large chunk of the WINDOWS BLOAT is you have NO CONTROL
>over what you are installing. Debian is the BEST at eliminating
>BLOAT!
You have no choice. You HAVE to or else God knows what you will end up
with.
>
>HA! Your crazy. I do this interactively on the screen.
>You SHOULD at least use it before you comment.
You're a liar.
Tell me one News reader that does that as well as reads offline and
actually works, unlike Pan.
I'll save you the time.
In fact I'll even demonstrate it for you:
This message comes courtesy of Charlie to himself.
No closing the program, just changing the properties on the fly as I
read your drival..
Enjoy....
>
>>
>>Flatfish
>>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>>Remove the ++++ to reply.
>
>It's appearent from reading your comments that your a
>mis-informed investor.
>
>I think you should USE something then ask yourself the
>question what would OTHER people find wrong with this.
>Don't ask yourself as YOUR the trapped investor.
>
>
>Charlie
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dell system with Linux costs *more* than with Win2K
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:26:54 GMT
On Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:08:23 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fl
>It's called supply and demand.
Yep.
Some asshole at Dell decided to build 1000 of these Linux boxes
because he figured Linux is big and people will want these boxes.
>Purchasers are WILLING TO PAY $64 more for Linux than Windows.
They couldn't find 50 people willing to purchase one, so they had to
raise the price to make up the loss.
>He heh heheheheh
Joke is on thepoor sucker who buys one....
Especially when he calls support, which he paid for, and hears dead
silence at the end of the phone.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:35:04 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said KLH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan 2001 05:38:19 GMT;
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> [...]
> >> There is the possibility that a company might be able to replace
> >> NT SMB providers with SAMBA servers [*], though; NT webservers would
> >> then be replaced by Apache units, and the users switch from
> >> Microsoft Outlook to a POP-based Netscape setup. Or perhaps
> >> they use StarOffice.
> >
> >Here you are generalizing too much. What the company actually does is a
very
> >pertanent question. Maybe they are outsourcing their web page. Maybe they
> >just use an external mail server. Maybe they use their software just for
> >accounting and email?
>
> Actually, it doesn't matter. Whether they are outsourcing their web
> page, they can use Linux to access it (unless they're locked in to
> FrontPage, in which case they should immediately get rid of it as soon
> as feasible, regardless of anything else). If they use an internal mail
> server, either the server or clients can be changed and it will still
> work (unless they're locked in to Exchange, in which case they should
> immediately get rid of it as soon as feasible, regardless of almost
> anything else). If they use an external mail server, then their clients
> can be reliable Linux, or legacy Windows, and it won't make any
> difference to the Linux server. If they use their software for just
> accounting and email, they can replace either clients or servers with
> Linux; if they are not, they can replace either clients or servers with
> Linux.
It does matter. Because there may be needs of the company that make them
dependent on the Windows platform.
>
> There really doesn't seem to be any 'circumstance', besides either being
> locked in to an illegal monopoly, or not having enough information, in
> which Windows would be better than Linux.
Firstly, monopolies are not illegal. Niether is the Windows monopoly.
And saying a statement like "which Windows would be better than Linux" is
hard to back up. Perhaps impossible.
There are still applications that require the Windows platform to run. Also,
GNU/Linux gives the user greater difficulty in the installation of some
oddball hardware. Indeed, the same can be said of Windows, only less so.
>
> >In order to make any sort of statement, you need to be more specific in
your
> >examples in order to play the "if *I* was in charge of transision..."
game.
>
> I think you mean to say that regardless of our imaginary desires, there
> are going to be remnants of the application barrier preventing
> migration, at least for the next couple years.
Right, however I would not qualify a time. Predicting the future is not a
game we should play.
>
> [...]
> >There certainly is a form of rivalry between GNU/Linux and Windows. As
> >Windows improves, so does GNU/Linux. There is no doubt about it, we're in
it
> >for the long haul.
>
> I think what you mean to say is that its very easy to mistake Window's
> churn, and its encompassing of additional functionality to deter threats
> to its monopoly, with actual technological development as epitomized by
Almost, but I am not talking about the Windows monopoly. You are right in
saying that I meant that GNU/Linux does progress at a pace comparable to the
Windows platform. But whether this progress is having an averse affect on
the Windows monopoly is debatable. There are perhaps some niche's where
Windows may always have a monopoly over.
> Linux. But Microsoft is going to be split up, soon, so I don't think
> we'll have to wait long for the return of the free market to point out
> the flaw in your thinking.
The monopoly is over the product, not the company. Windows will not stop
becoming a monopoly because a portion of the company advances it.
And Microsoft's .NET strategy, while it might make GNU/Linux more viable,
will simply pollute the native GNU/Linux applications with applications that
are neither free nor configurable or componetized to the degree we expect on
the GNU/Linux platform.
I do not think people will benefit by having users have the same problems on
GNU/Linux instead of Windows.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Best Regards,
Kevin Holmes
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:40:54 -0500
The nstl uptime study is an important document. Probably more important
than the halloween documents.
It proves EVERYTHING that has been said on this forum for the past few
years about the inherent unreliability of NT. As much as we have said
how unstable NT was, the winvocates whined and yelped that we were wrong
and/or biased. Well, guess what, a study funded by Microsoft confirms
every word of it.
And all the winvocates that insist that Windows NT was as stable as
Linux? No credibility what so ever, every thing they said about
stability, proven false by Microsoft.
What does all this mean for Linux advocacy? It means we have documented
proof about how bad NT and Win2k are, and it is just one more in a
growing list of very good reasons why Linux is the better choice.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: 19 Jan 2001 02:37:42 GMT
was heard ranting about <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in
alt.linux.sux on 18 Jan 2001
>On 19 Jan 2001 01:13:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lewis Miller)
>wrote:
>>>Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
>>>version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
>>>
>>>Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
>>>Full support is included.
>>
>>or better yet sign up for a class at a local college with a site
>>license. With the proper MS site licence for a school, they get a
>>licence for every workstation and server, and one for each employee to
>>take home, and all students get one. this equals Win2k for pretty
>>much free if you're a college student. And if you're in college you
>>usually have something like a T3 connection so downloading the 2 640
>>meg images files for the Red Hat discs, is just a couple hour download
>>while you sleep. So I can get both, and Have gotten both for free.
>>Don't pay what you don't have to.
>
>I saw Win2k Pro upgrade for $99.00 at Staples in NY today.
ok, that's still a LOT more than Linux, and that's also comparing an upgrade to
a full blown from scratch OS.
>>ok, first you are using Mandrake. Sucks, and if you don't know how to
>>close down ports you shouldn't be using linux, in fact I would debate
>>if you should even be using a computer. Second, of course Win2k is
>>closed down, unless you get advanced server ed. it's a workstation, it
>>doesn't need ports open. That's kinda like saying WFWG is secure
>>because it doesn't have a bunch of open ports.
>
>Wrong.. You have obviously never used Win2k.
Wait one sec. <clicks on the Start button> um.. yeah that says Windows 2000 on
the side of the start button...
>All the nasty ports (ftp etc) are closed down by default yet with the click of
>a mouse you can open whatever you please, individually on each connection I
>might add.
Nasty ports? FTP? Windows built in FTP sucks. Wouldn't touch the thing. also
Linux does not be default have the FTP port open.
>Point is, if Linux is trying to appeal to desktop, they should shut
>them all down.
>SuSE is even worse in that regard.
NO! Linux is NOT trying to appeal to the dekstop. First off Linux does not
have an aggenda, or thought, or opinion, it is an idea. If Linux were to have
any opinions they would be those of Linus T. himself.
Just because Caldera is making an appeal does not make Linux do shit. Besides
it's for those same reasons that Caldera sucks.
>>Win2k never did detect my SGI/Sony monitor, keeps telling me I can't
>>use the settings it supports. Linux, I don't remember if it detected it
>>or not, I'd just as soon put in the settings myself. For my Digital
>>camera I had to install the software on Win2k, linux had software
>>already installed for it.
>
>I didn't install any software for my camera. It just worked under
>Win2k. I couldn't even get USB working under Linux (Mandrake 7.2) so
>the camera was a non-issue.
Ok so it didn't work under Mandrake, which does not use the latest version of
Linux (Linux being the Kernel and that is all).
>>ok, well I don't play CD's on my Linux machine, that's what my stereo
>>is for. The CD drive on my Linux machine, is for putting data into the
>>machine. tho most of that comes from over the network. I don't think
>>I've even opened the CD drive more than a dozen times, not counting
>>bumping the button.
>
>Same for me, but I was making a point.
The point is moot.
>>Um, I like netscape. The text? I can configure the size so it looks
>>fine, in IE I can only change the font, I can'r directly configure the
>>defualt pitch sizes. Hell I run Netscape even on my Windows machine,
>>usually handles JAVA better.
>
>Many will disagree with you, but whatever floats your boat.
>BTW View->Text Size will allow you to change the size of the text in
>IE 5.x on the fly.
>
>It appears you haven't used Windows in a while?
Only everyday. Now your little view text size changes all your text up and
down, I can't change the size of the Fixed width font and the Web font
independantly like I can in Netscape. So when I hit Veiw text size in IE now
the Fixed width is a good size, but the other is too big. That's useless.
>>Pleasing to the eyes is pretty much meaningless.You want pretty
>>graphics go use a Mac lord knows they're usless for anything but
>>looking 'pleasing'. blah. Besides again I don't play much audio CD on
>>my computers, unless I'm doing extraction, and even then I usually port
>>it in from my stereo. And I never use the CD player that comes with
>>Windows, I use WinAmp when I need to. How can you use a sound program
>>with no graphics equalizer?
>
>
>It looks like a mess.
> You can barely tell what song it is playing.
>I run a recording studio and the term "Graphic Equalizer", makes me
>shudder with all kinds of phase distortions.
Why? All the amps and speakers you use have the same sound balance on them? and
of course every sound recording comes in with the same sound balance. Besides,
I'm pretty sure everytime I've done recording, or seen ppl do recording they
run through an equalizer, ie so you're only picking up the bass kick off of the
bass drum mic.
>>Well I tried StarOffice on both Windows and Linux, it's not bad, esp
>>for being completely free of charge. Tho there's not a whole lot of
>>need for an Office package on Linux. Do your self a favor and grab
>>Lotus Suite, or better yet, make your own. Word Perfect or WordStar,
>>Lotus 1-2-3, and say DBase or Alpha 4/5. :)
>
>I didn't know Lotus made a suite for Linux?
>
>I use Lotus under Windows and like it a lot.
>
>I'm no fan of MSOffice at all.
I don't know, I don't use an office package under linux so I never really
looked. The notes package runs on Linux and IBM had a version of Suites that
run on the AS/400 at one point, I figure it's possible.
>>Yuck? No I'm a windows user, and the last time I used off-line news,
>>was Blue Wave packets off BBSs about 6-8 years ago. Launching
>>attachments? I download attachments, then decide what to do with them.
>>I hate when shit like Outlook Express tries to open images inline. and
>>HTML in a news group??! Fuck no, that's just a sin. News Groups are
>>text only, unless you're in a bianary group.
>
>Agree on the Outlook part, but that is why I don't use it. I use Agent
>instead.
>
>You are missing a lot not reading news offline though.
How? I hate to disconnect unless I have to.
>>Again this comes back to the server workstation point. Linux is a
>>better OS, because it's better server. A workstation is just an
>>appendage. But anyways the News Readers aren't bad for Linux. Try
>>finding a good one for Windows, Xnews is the best I can find. Simple,
>>fast, and configurable.
>
>Newsreaders suck for offline reading under Linux.
>Xnews is nice, so is Agent.
ok, and I do my news reading from windows. Linux is still my news server
so Xnews to me is just a client to access Linux.
>>I would hope I'd notice it dialing out, since I have the speaker on,
>>but then that can be turned off with an AT command. But then I would
>>notice the lights flashing on my Modem. And besides most of the linux
>>boxes I've used don't have modems, they only have NIC cards.
>
>Same thing...A trojan planted on your system can send out anything to
>anyone whenever it feels like it.
>Windows is having major problems with this now (ie "QAZ trojan), but
>Linux will have it's turn when it becomes popular enough.
>I suspect the monitoring programs will come along as well.
Ok so if the monitoring tools come when they're needed what's the problem?
Besides think about the kids that write most of this crap. They're script
kiddies or useing VB, not much of a threat against linux.
>>Why not use a 'hardcore' distro?
>>Hmm I've got SuSE sitting on my desk, haven't tried it yet. But first I
>>want to try this copy of BSD/OS... hmm.
>
>It will just further discourage an already frustrated newbie.
So? Screw the unmotivated newbie. Someone who gives up without a fight
shouldn't be using Linux anyways. They can keep using Windoze, they won't be
missing anything, because they don't know what there is to miss. Ignorance is
bliss.
--
l8r
-LJM
a.k.a. Jaster Mereel
a.k.a. MrBobaFett
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly. I used to think
they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing's trivial. "
-- Eric Draven, The Crow
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
