Linux-Advocacy Digest #847, Volume #31 Tue, 30 Jan 01 13:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Re: GODDAMNED STINKING PIECE OF SHIT THOLEN ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Andres Soolo)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
("Edward Rosten")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Linux headache (Donn Miller)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:37:01 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 13:18:39 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> There were other options - I'm willing to beleive your
>> distro is not configured for it, but from all accounts,
>> others are using USB devices with Linux and loving
>> it. Granted, these are the more technical users...
>
>I went looking for support in Linux for USB Hubs. Nada. Zip.
Hubs are bog standard devices. They work fine. You're
simply full of shit.
[deletia]
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: GODDAMNED STINKING PIECE OF SHIT THOLEN
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:40:25 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "[Bad-Knees]" wrote:
>>
>> Can't we just all get along:)
>
> Unnecessary.
Illogical.
--
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: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: 30 Jan 2001 17:44:52 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I prefer to compare the number of processes running while playing
> Diablo II
>
> Ooopps looks like Linux is out of the picture.
Apparently, the basis of comparison was chosen improperly. Try again.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Alexander Graham Bell is alive and well in New York, and still waiting
for a dial tone.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:52:43 +0000
>> > I didnt write anything in this post originally, but I would like
>> > to
>> >explain why Linux is unfeasable as a workstation platform. There are
>> >no good wordprocessing, spreadsheet or database programs for linux.
> Microsoft
>
>> DEFINE "good".
>
> Your kidding, right? "Good" is good. If it works, and well, then it
> qualifies as "good".
>
> StarOffice is bloated and unstable. It's also got a horrid user
> interface, and poor documentation.
Incorrect. Staroffice is wuite stable. The user interface is almost
identical to most Windows apps, so are you suggesting that windows apps
have a bad UI?
> OpenOffice is the above with even more bloat. (32mb instead of 27)
Debugging information?
> Need I go on? The only Linux program in "office" theming that's even
> worth mentioning is Ximian software's "evolution" collaborative
> software. That's a nice package, people should take a hint.
LyX is a good wordprocessor. One of the best (although I prefer raw
LaTeX) since the output quality is unmatched.
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:56:30 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:49:17 +1300, Tony Neville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 27 Jan 2001 04:14:35 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >. wrote:
>> >
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <94snje$ekf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> >>> ...
>> >>>
>> >>>> Wasnt there something about a government BY the people and FOR the
>> >>>> people written down somewhere?
>> >>>
>> >>> ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> The US is a republic not a democracy. Kindly read the Federalist Papers
>> >>> for the rationale behind not trusting the populace. It has a government
>> >>> of laws, and the laws in the state of Florida were fairly clear, and
>> >>> the polling stations had signs giving instructions that voters should
>> >>> make sure that their ballots were punched through and to remove hanging
>> >>> chads. And if they double-punched, they could ask for new ballot papers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Ah, you dont have a very good understanding of what happened in florida.
>> >>
>> >> You're one of those insane federalists who believes that his government
>> >> is incapable of doing any sort of wrong, arent you?
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet you believe in god too, dontcha?
>> >>
>> >> Thats very sweet.
>> >>
>> >
>> >yeah <sarcasm> what a horrid idea to actually believe in God huh? <sarcasm>
>> >
>> >Considering the US was founded on Christian beliefs I find this normal
>> >and hopeful that people might actually have a set of morals not based on
>>
>> No, the US was founded on Humanist beliefs. In the grand
>> scheme of things, Christianity is just a historical footnote. You
>> are gravely delluded.
>
>Was the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness a sentiment to
>be found in Humanism in those days? If so, Humanism then as NO
It still is. You might actually bother reading these
things for yourself rather than merely taking taking
the slander of someone with a conflict of interest as
gospel.
>resemblance to Humanism today with its embracing of Marxist theory
>swamped in political correctness in the form of muliculturalism, moral
>relativism, deconstructionism, and social engineering, its vilification of
>anything Western and its fawning praise of primitive tribal cultures,
>its cynicism and nihilism. Humanism is brain dead.
>
>But I think you're right about America not being founded on Christian
>principles. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for man *on
>earth* rather than in some supernatural never-never land, has never
>been the cry of Christianity.
Liberty or Happiness have NEVER been parts of Xian doctrine.
Infact if you want to get into comparisons to marxism, Xianity
better fits the bill. Xianity shares a very strong Platonic
tradition which it shares with Marxism.
Idealists briefly flirted with Marxism due to the simple fact
that it seems a more Humane system on the surface. This was
true for a time (in general) about 70 years ago.
You are utilitizing a common FUD tactic: pretending that grossly
out of date information is currently relevant.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 12:57:00 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux headache
Jasper wrote:
> You're quite correct. The fact that people are currently attempting
> to use a thin client system like Unix as a desktop OS is nothing short
> of bizzare. I can only assume this has come about through blind
> hatred of MS without any consideration of the nature of Linux/Unix.
Or, it could be due to the fact that people actually LIKE running
Linux/Unix on the desktop. For me, it has nothing at all to do with
hatred of Microsoft. I just simply do not like Windows as much as
Unix. I for one consider unix to be a great desktop system, since I
don't need every single application I use to have a talking parrot,
dancing paperclip, or hand-holding GUI. I lived without Windows on my
PC for well over a year. Yet, I was just as, if not more, productive.
I used Window Maker almost exclusively, so it's not as if I had a lot of
GUI apps. One does not have to be a Microsoft hater to appreciate the
power of a CLI-based OS. Besides, you must've been in a cave while KDE
and GNOME were being developed and matured into the great desktop GUIs
that they are today. Hint to idiotioc wintrolls: Motif is also a GUI,
and has been available since 1991 or before. So, unix systems have had
capable GUIs for years. Also, Open Look/XView/Open Windows was also a
decent desktop at the time, which was what, 1986?
> Not only is Unix thin client it also has it base firmly rooted as a
> CLI driven OS. Each time I attend to a Windows PC and open a DOS
> prompt the immediate (and somtimes hostile response) from the user is
> "You don't expect me to do this do you?"
What do you expect? You take a user which is accustomed to a GUI-only
system, and give him a command prompt. Of course, take into
consideration what a great command shell command.com is (*snicker*)
compared to much much better and more powerful unix shells with a
plethora of tab-completion features.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 17:59:18 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:08:04 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Johan Kullstam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Curtis wrote:
>> >
>> > > >J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>> > >
>> > > > | Penguinistas have a clearer idea than most about OSes.
>> > >
>> > > No. They seem to have a clear idea only of their favoured OS which
>> > > they really USE and not simply SEE running around the office or give
>> > > the light of day only when they need to read file format not supported
>> > > by their favoured OS. This is perfectly reasonable.
>> >
>> > Actually, most Linux users are more technical than
>> > the average windows user, and furthermore, most
>> > Linux users were windows users at one time. So the
>> > idea that a Linux user can't tell the difference between
>> > 95 and nt is just plain silly.
>>
>> also many linux users were unix users at university and now have
>> become all too familiar with ms-windows in all its incarnations at
>> work.
>
>Or, as it seems more often than not, never touched Windows, or only
>saw Windows95 and believe that ALL Windows are as bad as
>that and therefore speak from their ass on such topics.
Considering the degree to which Microsoft has dominated the
market and actively sought out competition to destroy it,
just HOW do you think that is even possible?
Your assertion is simply absurd on it's face.
OTOH, it's quite a bit easier for a WinDOS user to never had
any exposure to MacOS, Unix or the older 68K based micros.
--
Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
"reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
Bobby Bryant - COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:03:06 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:14:34 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:apvd6.53305$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > The ISP considers NT more important to support than W2K. I ask why they
>> > don't have more Linux support. The answer was "Linux users don't need
>> > our support. They usually support us."
>> > I know MS is trying to obsolete NT, but the market doesn't seem to be
>> > going along.
>>
>> We (meaning @Home) support both equally. Other ISPs may "skew" things
>> toward one OS or another. The ONLY 32-bit OS we don't officially support is
>> Linux (it does NOT mean that Linux won't work, however).
>
>But it's too costly to support Linux because of it's overcomplicated, under-
>featured design. The TCO really is outrageous.
Except for the lack of netbios and IPX options, network configuration
is pretty much identical to the way things are on WinDOS. Infact with
less legacy options, Linux ends up being less complex.
[deletia]
--
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: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:06:11 +0000
> Out of the Box:
>
> Word processing: AbiWord Word Pad - edge, AbiWord
>
> Browser: Konqueror IE - edge IE News:
>
> knode Outlook - edge knode Text editor:
>
> Advanced text Editor NotePad - edge ATE Binary editor:
> Binary editor none terminal: rxvt
>
> dosterm - edge rxvt editor: gimp MS
> Paint - edge Gimp ftp: gftp none
> html/xml ed: quanta, bluefish none net
> games: freeciv none general games:
> KDE, Gnome, et al ms games - edge linux games IRC:
>
> kirc none
Word Processing: vi Wordpad edge: vi
Text editor: vi notepad edge:vi
html/xml ed: vi none edge: vi
games: vi none ...
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:07:44 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:07:41 GMT, Christopher L. Estep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >It should go like this:
>> >A> Log on as administrator
>> >B> Go to Start>Settings>Network & Dial Up Connection
>> >C> double click Make New Connection
>>
>> ...wait for Win2K to dial the phone and waste quite a bit
>> of time fetching the local "approved" ISP list for your
>> area.
>
>Bologna. Most local ISPs can easily be used with Windows 2000. Configure
So? NT5 still makes you wait.
THAT is annoying.
>DUN as you would for 9x. For LAN or broadband connections (unless you use
>xDSL and PPPoE) it's even easier; use ICW, configure for a LAN connection,
>plug in your settings. That's it, go play on the Internet. Configuring
>@Home from scratch on Windows 2000 is EASIER (not harder) than doing the
>same on 9x (or Windows ME).
OTOH, cox express was always more reliable with DHCP with my
Linux clients than my WinDOS clients. Just run the control
panel as root, select the network config and tell it to use
DHCP. Current distros will even autoconfigure NIC hardware for
you.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So much for Linux being more Difficult than Windows
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 18:09:02 -0000
On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 09:10:09 GMT, Christopher L. Estep <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 05:34:50 +0200, Ayende Rahien <Please@don't.spam>
>wrote:
>>
>> Win2K pretty much wizards you to death.
>>
>I used the ICW, but that simply made it *duck soup* to configure my @Home
>connection (based on Windows 2000 LAN settings).
There's really nothing to turn into _duck soup_ to begin with.
WinDOS already defaults to DHCP for LANs and has for ages.
Setting this up manually (Linux or WinDOS) is simply a matter
of clicking a checkbox.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
