Linux-Advocacy Digest #580, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Oh look! A Linux virus! (Tim Smith)
Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?) (Edward Rosten)
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux (Edward Rosten)
Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great (Edward Rosten)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Edward Rosten)
The Sins of William Gates (Houston Review)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Roberto Alsina)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Aaron Ginn)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Aaron Ginn)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Aaron Ginn)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:49:30 -0500
aflinsch wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Finally a call to support and after the initial script jockey couldn't
> > solve the bug I was switched to a "Win2k Specialist". Yea right, was
> > my initial thought. Well this lady knew her stuff down cold and fixed
> > the bug in about 3 minutes. It was my swap file which was screwed up.
> >
>
> Probably fixed it in 3 minutes because she had seen the same problem
> before.
> Just curious, but why would a screwed up swap file prevent printing?
What's the maximum number of GOTO's allowed in the explanation?
>
> hmmmm, it must be a windows thing.
--
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] (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Oh look! A Linux virus!
Date: 19 Jan 2001 12:46:52 -0800
Reply-To: Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 03:10:06 GMT, Bones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmmm... That's interesting. The Register mentioned RedHat vers 5, 6 and 7. I
>find it a little unsettling that RedHat would not apply a patch to fix a
>problem with washington u ftpd that we all knew about (for a while), and that
>they are still shipping it as the defacto ftp server with their
>distribution.
A friend of mine running Red Hat 7 (for now...he's grumbling about it now
being time to switch to Debian) got hit with this Ramen worm. My Red
Hat 6.1 was not hit. We use the same dial-up ISDN ISP, calling the same
number, and I'm probably online whenever he is, and often when he is
not.
--Tim Smith
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's not all about up-time (or: Time for some marketing?)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:00:41 +0000
Lloyd Llewellyn wrote:
>
> I was glad to hear the NSTL study results; it seems to validate a lot of what's
> been said on this group.
>
> But - I think it's a mistake to focus on something like up-time when it's clear
> that up-time is not a make-or-break criterion for most "consumers". Certainly
> not desktop users, and maybe not even a huge amount of server admins. Ease of
> use, ease of administration, and application availability are also important -
> and maybe more so.
>
> Has anyone actually studied the motivations of Linux users and Windows users
> (potential Linux users)? Who are they? What are their motivations for using
> Linux instead of Windows? Are non-Linux users aware of Linux? Have they
> thought of trying it? Why? Have they tried it? Why or why not? If they tried
> it, why did they stop using it?
Here's why I tried using Linux:
* Windows 95 was buggy. Unless you never install/uninstall apps (well,
hardly ever) then sooner or later (in the order of several months) it
grinds to a halt and eventually won't boot. And I wasn't about to shell
out for the latest Micros~1 product since its madness: if someone sells
you crap once, are you really going to trust them again?
*I'd used UNIX systems and really liked them.
*I wanted to see some example source code
Here's why I still use it:
*It proved (for me) to be way better than windows. For what I do, its
much easier to use and much more powerful.
*I get a lot more out of my PC. Hell, I'm still using a P133 and have no
performance problems what so ever. The only time I haven't managed to
burn a CD at 8x was when I was generating an ISO filesystem from an ext2
partition which resided in a large file on a fat32 partition and piping
the ISO image to the CD writer.
*It's much more configurable. My PC now behaves how I want it to behave,
not how some human interface `expert' thinks I want it to behave.
*Its much more stable then Win95. This does matter since this was the
consumer OS from Micros~1 I was using at the time and I wasn't willing
to shell out for their latest one (which isn't any better IME, anyway).
*I perfer the command line for most stuff and the command line under
Windows is poor at best. I don't know how I ever lived without sed.
*X is great.
*Most of the applications I now use under Linux perform much better than
what I was using under windows.
*Printing is easier and more consistent: just write a PS file (I know
many people will disagree
with me on this one).
*System programming under Linux is much easier.
*SVGATextMode (can you get much better than 160x64 on a 17" TFT
moniter?)
*I prefer the GUI.
*It came with lots of utils. like vi, ed sed etc etc etc. At the time I
didn't have an internet connection so I couldn't download (if I'd known
about it) cygwin.
*I can fix problems in source code (I have done so twice).
Here's just some of the reasons
-Ed
> I tried Linux for exactly one reason: I want to have a choice of operating
> systems and application software. Windows was kind of buggy, but not so buggy
> that it would have been worth it to learn an entirely new environment and give
> up the applications that I was familiar with. I didn't personally experience
> the "up-time pain" that the nstl study revealed. I'm just concerned about a
> monolithic future in which MS dictates what is and is not done in the computing
> world.
>
> It's good to know about Linux's stability and reliability, because it's another
> weapon in the arsenal. However, though Windows isn't "best" in these areas, it's
> "good enough" for a huge number of people. How do we convince these people?
>
> I don't want to see Linux become a consumer-targeted OS, but dammit, I want
> enough people to use it so that MS does not consume the planet.
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:03:33 +0000
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> Not as good at the SGI Origin Server I have in my living room, or the s/900z
> sitting in my basement :)
Yeah, well I've got a starfire *cluster* in my college room, just next
to my P133.
-Ed
> kiwiunixman
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:942k6n$etp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I know these stories have been popping up often, but it's hard to get too
> > blasé about 2 Teraflops of computing power.
> >
> > http://lwn.net/daily/ibm-ncsa.php3
> >
> > (No crosspost to nt.advocacy because that would just be mean :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
> >
> >
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: And this NZ "Supercomputer" story is great
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:04:03 +0000
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> I'm still waiting for Claire Lynn/steve/flatfish to reply, "there are
> people/cultures/nations outside the USA?"
People? sure, but they're savages.
-Ed
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:943eje$3r0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Hi pac4854,
> >
> > > From the country that brought you the legendary BOFH* chronicles. Would
> > > you really expect less?
> > >
> > > * http://bofh.ntk.net
> >
> > Thanks for the link. I've been following the BOFH for a while now over at
> > The Register. Took me a long while to work out what a PFY was :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
> >
> >
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:09:44 +0000
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.
> >
> >Whoa, slow down thar. First off, no one forced you to use Mandrake;
> >there's other choices in Linux distros. Secondly, what does Win 2000
> >Pro cost if you have a blank machine with no operating system on it?
> >You're going to paying at least $199. So, you only get the "lower"
> >price of $115 iff you've already been pumping money into Microsoft's
> >pocket, i.e., have an existing NT installation. So, for the upgrade,
> >what you are paying is the price of the previous version of NT PLUS the
> >special upgrade to Win 2000. So, assuming you paid $120 for NT 4.0, and
> >then "upgraded" to Win 2000, what you actually paid for Win 2000 pro is
> >$120 + $115, which adds up to $235. I hardly consider this to be a
> >bargain.
>
> Also to really compare, you would have to get Win2k Advanced Server edition
> I do believe.
With unlimited user licenses.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Houston Review <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The Sins of William Gates
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:00:38 GMT
The Sins of William Gates:
A Society Avenges its Embarassment.
By Derek Copold
Tinseltown has finally found a villain they can safely detest: Bill
Gates. Using the movie Antitrust as their encyclical, the pontiffs of
the silver screen have looked upon the CEO of Microsoft and pronounced,
"Anathema!" (More...)
http://www.houstonreview.com/articles/polichinello/P20010119.html
--
http://www.houstonreview.com
Houston's Conservative News Source
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:04:43 GMT
In article <3n1a6.46424$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Take a computer with Linux installed. Now install Windows in it,
> > preserving Linux.
> >
> > Take a computer with Windows installed. Now install Linux, preserving
> > windows.
> >
> > What do you expect to be easier?
>
> In this case, installing Linux after Windows. Doesn't surprise me as Linux
> has to fit into Windows, and the makers of Windows don't care about Linux.
So, as a general statement, "Linux installs are harder" is not
correct?
Now, let's try another one:
Install Windows 95. Then try to upgrade to Windows NT 4.0
Install Suse personal edition. Then try to upgrade to SuSE professional
edition.
What do you expect to be easier?
> > Then use only the apps whose behaviour you like. You cut yourself
> > off from a lot of software, but you get consistence. Your choice.
>
> And I cut myself off from tools to configure the system like linuxconf.
> What's the equivalent in KDE or something else?
I thought we had already covered this? The KDE equivalent of Linuxconf
is Linuxconf. There may be some packaging issues there, but there is no
technical reason why you can't use linuxconf on a GTK+ free system,
today.
If you *really* want your system to be configured through a graphic
thingie that doesn't use GTK+, you could try Suse's YAST2, or Caldera's
whose name I can't recall.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:07:47 -0000
>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.
>
Some countries have consumer protection rules to stop companies selling
faulty goods.
Does this mean that everyone who has ever bought a MS operating system can
claim
refunds under their own country's consumer protection rules - if a company
sells for
example a washine macine or TV which regularly breaks down the customer is
often
entitled to compensation as well as full refund (lost time due to software
failure could
be a cause for compensation). I think all windows users should get together
and take
MS to court for knowingly selling faulty goods for the past 10 or more years
(MS versus
over 100 million users should make an interesting case).
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:24:10 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
> get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
> to believe all these claims that have been made over the last few
> years about NT staying up indefinately? How are we expected to
> believe the current claims made about W2K?
Microsoft did not conduct the study. Why do you people always distort the
truth?
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 19 Jan 2001 13:52:08 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Aaron Ginn wrote:
>
> > For someone who appears to be so concerned with the semantics of Linux
> > advocates, you sure do engage in quite a bit of hyperbole yourself.
>
> Sure why not, you do it.
Proof, please.
> > If this bothers you so much, pick an environment and stick with it.
> > Geeze, uninstall Netscape, GNOME and GTK if this bothers you so
> > much.
>
> Then half the tools leave the desktop.
Examples, please. What does KDE lack that you need from GNOME, or
vice versa?
--
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: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 19 Jan 2001 13:55:39 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ketil Z Malde wrote:
>
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy? You want people to not express their
> > satisfaction with Linux in a group specifically dedicated to this
> > purpose?
> >
> > Are you for real?
>
> If all they did was express their satisfaction about Linux then fine. But
> they don't, they disparage Windows and make some sweeping statements about
> it.
ROFLMAO!
So you somehow feel the need to come rushing to the defense of
Microsoft? You know, the second largest company in the world? You
know, that company that can't afford a good marketing department?
Windows advocacy is the biggest waste of time. What's the point of
advocating an OS that runs >90% of the desktops out there? Are you
trying to convert that other 10% or what.
--
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: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 19 Jan 2001 13:58:53 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> > Take a computer with Linux installed. Now install Windows in it,
> > preserving Linux.
> >
> > Take a computer with Windows installed. Now install Linux, preserving
> > windows.
> >
> > What do you expect to be easier?
>
> In this case, installing Linux after Windows. Doesn't surprise me as Linux
> has to fit into Windows, and the makers of Windows don't care about Linux.
>
> > Then use only the apps whose behaviour you like. You cut yourself
> > off from a lot of software, but you get consistence. Your choice.
>
> And I cut myself off from tools to configure the system like linuxconf.
> What's the equivalent in KDE or something else?
I'm beginning to wonder if you ever have used Mandrake now. Ever hear
of that thingy called DrakConf? You know, that little icon that
Mandrake put on your desktop? There's a little button in the DrakConf
called Linuxconf. Care to guess what it does?
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:25 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 19 Jan 2001
13:42:25 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
>> 14:11:00 GMT;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Indeed. That's why I usually suggest Python. It's OO, but it's not
>> >> > we-will-force-OOP-on-you-until-we-can-OOP-no-more OO.
>> >>
>> >> How about Perl's implementation of OOP? Yipe! Perl is great for a lot
>> >> of things, but IMO its idea of OO is pretty scary. I've never tried
>> >> Python, but I've heard people say it can do the same stuff Perl can do.
>> >
>> >Pretty much. It has its quirks (like using indentation to control
>> >flow) that drive some people nuts (hey, we are supposed to indent anyway! ;-)
>>
>> For clarity, though, not for syntax!
>
>Do you know any situation where it is convenient not to be clear?
>If you don't, why add the unneeded ugliness of block separators?
>
>for (x=a;x<b;x++)
>{
> do_stuff;
>}
>
>for x in range(a,b):
> do_stuff
>
>The python versions are usually simpler, clearer, with less unneeded
>punctuation.
Indeed, if you use stuff for clarity, not syntax, in the first example
(is that C?) Wouldn't
For (x=a;x<b;x++)
{do_stuff;}
be syntactically identical? I know its not the conventional way, so you
must think it is less clear, but I will, as always, point out I'm not
interested in professional-level programming, just getting stuff done.
However, I will admit that the comments I've seen do belay some of my
concerns about using indents for syntax, not clarity. Perhaps I just
need to get used to the idea; we all know I don't actually use either
one. The last language I used was BASIC, unless you count a couple odd
(brain-dead) shell scripts and a modification of a perl script or two.
I never quite understood the point of the bracketing convention to begin
with.
>> I was started to get a bit
>> intrigued by Python until you mentioned that. Indents to control flow?
>> What a nightmare. (For the novice, even more than the programmer.)
>
>Actually, I have explained it to people who had never programmed before
>and they had no problem at all. Experienced programmers, OTOH, often
>have a grudge with it.
Perhaps I'm just stuck in the middle then. I've programmed before, but
I am not an experienced programmer. :-)
>And anyway, it's not like it's hard to write a preprocessor to make
>python use "#{" as block delimiters.
>
>Heck, this is still legal python!
>
>for x in range(a,b):
>#{
> do_stuff
>#}
Again, I've never quite understood the point of doing brackets that way.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:27 GMT
Said KLH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 19 Jan 2001 02:35:04 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> 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.
But you were saying that without the details, you can't give an adequate
recommendation. Now, you're just assuming that "the company needs
Windows", without any detailed understanding of why. Just about EVERY
company currently uses Win32, and so is locked in to the monopoly; we
already know that. But to throw up your hands and say "you might need
Windows for something, so you can't migrate" is just stupid.
>> 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.
Yes, monopolies are illegal. Particularly the Windows monopoly. You
haven't been keeping up with the law and the trial. The Sherman act
outlaws all monopolization *and attempted monopolization*. The legal
decisions (if you know how to understand them correctly) clearly point
out that maintaining a dominant market position by any means other than
competitive (which guarantees you will only be able to compete, not
monopolize) is breaking the law.
>And saying a statement like "which Windows would be better than Linux" is
>hard to back up. Perhaps impossible.
But it is trivial to falsify (prove wrong). Or it would be, that is, if
it were wrong. That's how we know it is right: if a fact could be
proven wrong, but has not yet been, then it is right. If a fact (for
instance, "Windows is better than Linux") cannot be proven wrong, then
it is unfalsifiable, and is considered unsupportedly wrong.
The difference, BTW, is predicated on the fact that Windows is a
proprietary product, and Linux is an open code-base used in many
products. Windows can only be 'better' as an arbitrary and subjective
justification for using it, while Linux can be demonstrated as better or
worse across multiple implementations.
>There are still applications that require the Windows platform to run.
Indeed, they'll need to be replaced with applications that run on Linux.
But we're talking about Linux's relative fitness in comparison to
Windows, not Linux's fitness in comparison to the Windows application
barrier which has illegally been erected to prevent competition.
>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.
Thus the importance of OEMs and others who would spend time and effort
improving these things in order to compete. And as for Windows making
'oddball hardware' "less" difficult, you better put down that
crack-pipe; your brain is obviously shutting down.
[...]
>> 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.
What is that supposed to mean? Who is coming up with this "should"
stuff? I think maybe you're just saying you don't have enough balls to
guess, because you might turn out to be mistaken. Personally, I'm not
afraid of being mistaken; that's part of being human.
>> [...]
>> >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.
I suppose that's possible, though I can't see any reason that it would
be the case. Anyway, the 'progress', or lack thereof, in Linux is
obviously a direct result of the lack of ability to compete in the OS
market, due to Microsoft's monopolization, especially their construction
and maintenance of an application barrier. Commercial incentive, known
as 'profit', is what sets the pace of technical progress in this regard.
>> 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.
No, it will stop being a monopoly because the market will reject it, at
least in part, removing the ability to control prices or exclude
competition. Monopoly is over a *market*; the product itself can
change, over time, as Microsoft is happily demonstrating. It went from
the OS, to the GUI environment, to the Office applications, to the
middleware. If MS's plans work out (which is doubtful at this point),
Bill Gates will soon move the monopoly to .NET, unlinking it entirely
from the OS product it started with, while still maintaining "the same"
monopoly.
>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.
I do. A problem on Linux you can find and fix. A problem on Windows is
just "reboot, and wait for the next version, where if you're really
lucky and one of our biggest customers, we *might* fix your problem."
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
