Linux-Advocacy Digest #893, Volume #31 Thu, 1 Feb 01 16:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The 130MByte text file (Mig)
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (.)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Wow, an actual survey (Linux dissatisfactions and wish-lists) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Aspects of open-source that MS will co-opt: Predictions? ("Adam Warner")
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Storm Linux & Applixware (.)
Re: The 130MByte text file (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Does Code Decay (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Michael Wieserner)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:26:26 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> > PFE=FTE??
>
> Programmers File Editor.
Dont know that one
> > Who the heck uses a GUI based editor to edit 130 MB files. Everybody
> with 3
> > braincells less than you - that makes everyone with 24 braincells or
> more -
> > would use a stream editor like sed for that kind of work or write a
> script
> > to do it.
>
> So, what should a KDE user use (other than a CLI based editor)?
To edit a 130 MB file?? Never heard of a text file that size that needs the
work of an editor or any other file that size that could/should be edited
that way. If the file is binary then forget it...or does ti work in Word
after you edited and saved it again? If its binary then use the software
that produced the file - no problem on any platform.
If its plain text... and 130 MB???? I would like to see that one.. but a
solution is to split the file in chunks that could be handled by your
favorite editor.
Your exercise sucks big time.... but i think it does serve a purpose and
that is that some editors on Linux dont have a MAXBUF value set, and that
they do not differentiate between binary and text data (like Word and
notepad). So basiccly thanks, Pete for showing weakness of kedit and kwrite
to KDE developers for free. HURRAAAAA for Pete - he does it for free ;-)
> > I agree that this is a problem. I have only experienced this on Mandrake
> > (RH users have same problem?). It seems you go into Swap-heaven when i
> > tryed to open a 1200 MB file :-)
>
> Agreed, but it's such a simple thing to try, isn't it?
Yeah... but since Linux users where considere to be geeks before you
arrived here .. nobody even imagined that users could be so silly. But i
think you have a point if you agree on "swap-heaven" and i think this is a
Mandrake only issue.. Maybe someone on Redhat , Suse or DEbian would try to
load o very big file and tell us if Swap-heaven happens.
> > Yes.... it is wonderfull stable when not deliberately trying to breadk
>
> So all the statements about Linux are, what, false?
In fact they are... The thing you try to do corresponds to deleting entrys
in the registry and then complaining it does not work. Or my example above
about loading a binary file in Word and edit (or not) and save the file...
that woldnt work off course.. but following your weird path i could claim
Windows and Windows editors sucked because i could no longer run the
program.
> > it... Actually i tryed this on Windows with wordpad and i got a
> > bluescreen..
>
> I'll try WordPad.
Goo luck.. i used Win98 SE
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Date: 1 Feb 2001 19:41:41 GMT
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 18:39:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Edward Rosten writes:
>> are you the `Dave' that Marty and Kulkis refer to?
>
>Ask them. Different people have different names for me.
... some of which border on unprintable ...
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: 1 Feb 2001 19:45:07 GMT
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 08:53:43 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>And then Linux VIM happily loaded it - but KEdit crashed and the
>Advanced Text Editor HUNG LINUX. Oh dearie dearie me. Not even Windows
>hangs with PFE. It keeps on a truckin'.
Set your user memory limits if you don't want applications eating all
your physical memory.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:55:03 GMT
I owned a Caddy, not the Chevette.
On 1 Feb 2001 05:15:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I was part of the Chevette/Caddy tranny class action suit.
>
>> You need to do more research.
>
>Its not at all ironic that a blind-fan of one of the worst operating
>systems ever written would buy one of the worst cars ever built.
>
>
>
>
>-----.*
>
>
>*who prefers linux and Ducatis
>
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: 1 Feb 2001 19:57:39 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I owned a Caddy, not the Chevette.
Like I said, you moron.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 19:59:13 GMT
Stop twisting bits around to save face.
GM put UNDERSIZED TRANSMISSIONS in their full sized cars. They were
the SAME BASIC TRANNY that was put into their small compact cars at
the time.
The result was THEY BLEW UP AT ABOUT 20k.
GM settled a CLASS ACTION SUIT at the time on behalf of owners of full
sized cars that were ripped off.
I received a settlement.
So did thousands of other people.
DO SOME RESEARCH instead of trying to turn a simple concept into a
play on words.
No wonder you run Linux. It's a simple case of all the parts being
correctly spec'd out but the unit doesn't run as a whole.
Pitiful.
On Thu, 01 Feb 2001 00:59:23 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001 21:22:43 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >And, by the way, no Chevette Transmissions were put into full-sized
>> >cars...idiot. There are these things called "bolts"...which pass through
>> >"bolt holes" to connect one major component to another. This alone
>> >prevents a "chevette transmission" from being installed into a
>> >full-sized Cadillac without some serious re-tooling.
>>
>> Hydromatic 200. Made for small cars installed in full sized GM cars.
>>
>> >Second...a "chevette transmission" installed in a full-sized car
>> >(Cadillac or otherwise) would burn out VERY shortly.
>>
>> At about 20k or so, and that's exactly what happened.
>>
>> >The case was over BUICK engines installed in some Cadillacs.
>>
>> That's another issue.
>>
>> >Both engines were produced at the Livonia Engine plant, and are,
>> >essentially interchangeable. (Some might even argue that, because
>> >maintenance costs on Buick engines were lower at that time, that
>> >anybody getting a non-Cadillac engine actually benefitted).
>>
>> Another GM issue.
>>
>> I was part of the Chevette/Caddy tranny class action suit.
>
>Really.
>
>If your basis for suit was the existance of a "Cadillac" transmission
>as opposed to a "Chevette" transmission, you're full of shit.
>
>Hydromatic transmissions are HYDROMATIC...not Chevy, nor Cadillac.
>*ANY* Hydromatic transmission is available for use by ANY GM
>Powertrain design team, regardless of brand name."
>
>Similarly, ALL GM engine castings come from GM Central Foundary
>near Saginaw, and ALL GM tilt-wheel steering systems are provided
>by the Saginaw Tilt-Wheel...REGARDLESS of nameplate.
>
>no fraud involved, unless you're an ignorant clutz who doesn't
>understand the meaning of "conglomerate", and bitterly resents the
>methods used to bring an affordable product to the market place.
>
>Now...if you want to argue that it was the wrong Hydromatic MODEL,
>then you're ok....but don't give me this "Chevy tranny in a Cadillac"
>bullshit...because that's all it is...BULLSHIT
>
>There are no "Cadillac" transmissions, nor "Chevy" transmissions.
>All of the different GM automotive Divisions work with whatever
>transmissions the Hydromatics provides (although they *can* submit
>their own design...once Hydramatic is making it, then the engineers
>are free to specify whatever flywheels are needed to match it up.)
>
>
>
>IF I were the judge, I would have thrown the case out of court,
>as long as the model number matched.
>
>
>>
>> You need to do more research.
>>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> AIXes problem is with licensing, IMHO.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Of course, Born-with-a-golden-spoon-in-his-mouth Gates neglected to
>> >> >> > notice that IBM's customer-lock-in strategy also had IBM in Federal
>> >> >> > court so frequently that they were almost a permanent fixture on
>> >> >> > the dockets.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Heh. I'm glad they found a way to make money without doing that.
>> >> >
>> >> >Their current CEO basically said,
>> >> >"Look, shit-heads...even non-technical management can figure out the
>> >> >customer-lock-in trap. You had BETTER start providing cross-platform
>> >> >compatability, because nobody is buying your incompatible-with-the-world
>> >> >crap (like, for instance...IBM's EBCDIC-based everything vs ASCII
>> >> >everywhere else).
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> -----.
>> >>
>> >> Flatfish
>> >> Why do they call it a flatfish?
>> >> Remove the ++++ to reply.
>>
>> Flatfish
>> Why do they call it a flatfish?
>> Remove the ++++ to reply.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
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
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KULKIS IS A MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:03:20 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi writes:
>> Edward Rosten writes:
>>> are you the `Dave' that Marty and Kulkis refer to?
>> Ask them. Different people have different names for me.
> .... some of which border on unprintable ...
That's their problem.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wow, an actual survey (Linux dissatisfactions and wish-lists)
Date: 1 Feb 2001 20:06:47 GMT
Flacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> The ability to type
:>
:> ./configure
:> make
:> make install
:>
:> does not constitute programming skill.
: I agree with you, but how much programming skill is required to simply
: attach this script to a button somewhere?
Very little, which is why there are numerous GUI tools to do the job.
What the GUI tools won't necessarily do is to su to root, read the
README file, make sure your system has the necessary prerequisites
(RPM takes a tiny step toward doing so but .DEB and the *BSD ports
systems IMO are better), and possibly tweak the build options to
better suit a user's individual needs or wants. Those are the kinds
of things that don't lend themselves readily to a one-size-fits-all
solution.
: Why put off those who are uncomfortable with the command-line?
: Do we want to *repel* converts on the desktop?
No.
But I agree with the tendency of most free software developers to
focus most of their time and attention on the quality of the
underlying tools.
Putting a friendlier face onto something that is robust and powerful
to begin with is usually not difficult. But there is much more to
installing software than simply building a GUI around configure and
make. Linux and *BSD systems are extremely flexible, but that
flexibility means that a developer can take extremely little for
granted in terms of knowing what software already exists on a system,
where it is located, whether header files are present and are the
right versions for the corresponding binaries, and so forth. Any
problem in any of those areas means a less than straightforward
install.
I don't think we're where we need to be yet, but I think we're much
further along than we were a year or two ago, and that we're making
pretty decent progress toward the goal.
Joe
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aspects of open-source that MS will co-opt: Predictions?
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:10:17 GMT
You will really want to take a look at this:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-201-4678406-0.html?tag=mn_hd
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:13:38 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> I've tried AbiWord, and I'll have to agree with you. It's not ready
> for prime time.
In the thread "Lookout! The Winvocates have a new FUD strategy" someone
made some bold claims about AbiWord.
> How many KDE users are going to be editing 130MB files? Not many
> newbies. What exactly is this 130MB file anyway? That's _huge_ for a
> text file. The largest ascii file I can think of that's on our system
> is 284MB:
It's actually my registry dump to a text file, then reloaded about 13
times. It was 10MBytes to start with, but I kept on reloading it until I
went beyond 100MBytes that a certain person claimed PFE would barf on.
Imagine my surprise when it didn't, and then a few editors on Linux barf
big time.
> If people want to edit files of that size, they need to learn how to
> use the tools for the job, (i.e. sed, perl, awk, etc.) not some GUI
> tool that will collapse under the load. I seriously doubt that Word
> would do anything other than hang trying to open that. Of course if
> it did open it, it would try to save it as a .doc file as well and
> would probably double the size.
ED/EDT on OpenVMS could open big files, by only opening the first block
then pulling in (and writing out) the rest. I seem to remember TECO had
something similar.
Why not GUI editors?
> Did you use a Ctrl-Alt-F[2-6] key to login to another console? You
> can then kill the process using top.
Yep, tried that. It was well and truly hung.
> No. Linux is very stable, but you're using the wrong tools for the
> job. And you're problems are not with Linux, they're with X windows
> and the application you're using.
If an application like X etc. can do this to Linux... does that not reflect
badly on Linux?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:17:09 +0000
Mig wrote:
> To edit a 130 MB file?? Never heard of a text file that size that needs
> the work of an editor or any other file that size that could/should be
> edited that way. If the file is binary then forget it...or does ti work in
> Word after you edited and saved it again? If its binary then use the
> software that produced the file - no problem on any platform.
> If its plain text... and 130 MB???? I would like to see that one.. but a
> solution is to split the file in chunks that could be handled by your
> favorite editor.
It's actually my registry repeated 13 times. Someone claimed PFE would barf
long before 100MBytes. I decided to find out if it would. Imagine my
surprise when it worked fine, then similar GUI tools on Linux had problems.
> Your exercise sucks big time.... but i think it does serve a purpose and
> that is that some editors on Linux dont have a MAXBUF value set, and that
> they do not differentiate between binary and text data (like Word and
> notepad). So basiccly thanks, Pete for showing weakness of kedit and
> kwrite to KDE developers for free. HURRAAAAA for Pete - he does it for
> free ;-)
It is a pretty naff excercise but I did it in response to a fake claim.
> Yeah... but since Linux users where considere to be geeks before you
> arrived here .. nobody even imagined that users could be so silly. But i
> think you have a point if you agree on "swap-heaven" and i think this is a
> Mandrake only issue.. Maybe someone on Redhat , Suse or DEbian would try
> to load o very big file and tell us if Swap-heaven happens.
It's interesting that whilst Windows struggled, it didn't hang up like
Linux + X etc. did.
> In fact they are... The thing you try to do corresponds to deleting entrys
> in the registry and then complaining it does not work. Or my example above
> about loading a binary file in Word and edit (or not) and save the file...
> that woldnt work off course.. but following your weird path i could claim
> Windows and Windows editors sucked because i could no longer run the
> program.
Ah but deleting entries in the registry is deliberately damaging. Linux
ought to have been able to handle a huge file. I mean, if Windows can do
it, why not Linux? Isn't Linux supposed to be better?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Storm Linux & Applixware
Date: 1 Feb 2001 20:14:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Stop twisting bits around to save face.
> GM put UNDERSIZED TRANSMISSIONS in their full sized cars. They were
> the SAME BASIC TRANNY that was put into their small compact cars at
> the time.
But not chevette transmissions. You cant even admit that you were
completely wrong, even in the face of fact, even when you now change
your story.
Which comes as no surprise. That cousin in the hamptons seems to think
that you and he have mutual friends or something, and if thats the case
and you are who he thinks you are, he has confirmed your absolute
idiocy in real life as well.
But all of that is neither here nor there. All you really need to do
now is go away and enjoy what few things in life you CAN understand.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The 130MByte text file
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:18:30 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> One word: EMACS. 'Nuff said. Nothing else even comes close. For
> really big text files, EMACS outshines all others. (Back in the old
> days, Borland's BRIEF was pretty good, but I think they discontinued
> it.)
I'll try EMACS, then to be perverse, I'll try XEMACS. I don't expect either
will have much problem.
> Most editors on both Windows and Linux are lame when confronted with
> really big files. vi and EMACS are still being used for a good
> reason: they work and they work well.
EMACS is just to quirky for me. All those ghastly keystrokes - yes, I know
it can be customised.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:16:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, CR Lyttle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:22:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> Russ Lyttle wrote:
>>>SNIP<<
>> > I agree if you mean that MS is distorting real effects to create a myth.
>> > It seems that MS operating systems do decay. But that is due solely to
>> > MS I just hope the Linux community takes heed and avoids the problem.
>> >
>>
>> 20-year old code runs just fine on Unix/Linux.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> 1) 100% OPENLY DEFINED DATA DEFINITIONS and
>> 2) 100% BACKWARDS COMPATIBLE API's
>>
> 3) Consistent design
> 4) Architecture designed for the application
> 5) No rush to publish (take time to get each release correct)
> 6) Minimum code base size
7) Simpler, better-defined, more limited APIs -- fork()
versus CreateProcess(10 arguments).
>
>As long as Linux keeps to this philosophy, it won't decay, but grow. But
>we need to keep an eye out for the dread disease "featureitus"
Indeed.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 4d:04h:37m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:20:09 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> That's funny, it seems that pete has no end of problems
> with his poor abused little box.
>
> I think he enjoys the misery, and tries to find problems...
I only did it in response to someone's claim that PFE couldn't handle a <
100MByte file without barfing.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:26:33 -0600
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95bv3o$3ga$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote in message
<0Wde6.602$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >No, quotas have been around for NT for years.
> >Save the lies.
>
> I am curious about the disk quotas on NT - we have NT 4.0 Server at the
> office, and I can find no mention of disk quotas anywhere in the help
files,
> or in any of the administrative tools. In fact, the only mention I find
of
> the word "quota" is that in order to use the SU program (a utility to let
> you change to another user in a command box - it is very limited, but
> nonetheless essential for administrating NT - why you have to buy it as
part
> of the NT Resource kit is beyond me), a user has to have the "Increase
> Quotas" account priviledge.
>
> At the moment, my method of enforcing disk quotas is shouting at people
when
> the server complains about lack of free disk space. I would be interested
> in using NT's long-established disk quota system, if someone can tell me
> where to find it.
MS has quota management code in NT4, but they don't have a quota manager.
You have to buy a third party product to emable it (one of those features
that NT provides natively but the Win32 subsystem doesn't expose).
http://www.tools4nt.com/Products/SpaceGuard/SpaceGuard.htm
Win2k provides a quota manager built-in.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:22:35 +0000
Nick Condon wrote:
> Telnet is served by inetd, the Internet daemon, which handles all your
> basic TCP/IP services. I believe you that it doesn't work. That is a
> configuration issue, your /etc/inetd.conf needs a line like this:
>
> telnet stream tcp nowait root /usr/sbin/in.telnetd in.telnetd
>
> Some distributions disable it by default. So you see, when you say you
> tried to install a telnet server and failed, you are clearly full of shit
> because that's not how it works.
Please don't try to tell me what was or wasn't installed on my system, o
pillock. I installed it because _it was not there_.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:27:50 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >And it was *bad*.
>
> Demonstrate it.
>
> [deletia]
>
> Bear in mind that C't contradicted the findings of Mindcraft.
That's interesting, considering that Linus himself *ACKNOWLEDGED* the
findings.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:23:48 +0000
Craig Kelley wrote:
> Would this be the same system that you tried to compile a kernel on
> and failed?
Not me, I've not tried building a kernel anytime recently.
> I wouldn't call it out-of-the-box after some clueless person (no
> offense) tried to use advanced features and destroyed the system in
> the process.
Sorry, it is the out of the box installation.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:25:45 +0000
. wrote:
> Xemacs works just fine.
That's not surprising.
I've yet to try any GNOME text editors 8).
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Michael Wieserner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sucks
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2001 20:23:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
>the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
Sure they tried and did some things, but macintoshes exist longer and are
easier to use...
>Linux on the other hand seems to want to turn the clock back on
>computing and put us back in the early 1990's again.
I don't know why but i think the latest releases of suse, etc. seem really
easy to use to me but i prefer debian.
>As an example, take the latest Windows Media Player which is V7.x.
>After delaying my upgrade til MS got the bugs out, which have all been
>fixed, I finally got around to downloading and using it.
>
>Of course it was so simple to download and install because the link is
>right there on the MS home page. Upon starting up the Media Player it
>was obvious that a lot of effort went into the graphics and ergonomics
>of this piece of software. Even with the default skin, it looks smooth
>and crisp and it is very pleasing on the eyes. The visualizations are
>particularly nice, with the kid drawing solo dance being my favorite.
>My kids love this thing and have been trying out the various skins and
>so forth and just plain having a fun time with it.
Nice for your kids. But I need the WMP for viewing ASF files. I have to admit
that - it sounds strange but it is reality - wmp7 is able to load those files
faster than wmp6 but the common user - like me - wants to view videos with
the wmp. The design only bothers me if i do not look in full screen! (Well,
it is not really bad, but it simply distracts me when looking a movie) And if
i look in full screen i simply cannot pause the movie by clicking anywhere as
i was able to do in wmp6! Visualisations? I have better things to do than to
look at visualisations!
>Now contrast this with Linux XMMS, about the best player (and that's
>all it does) that Linux has to offer.
>Take a good look at how boxy and shitty it looks.
>Look at the skins, most of which are too dark to even read the
>lettering.
if i hear music i do not examine a skin or visualisation because i usually
work or do something else. and if i would want to enjoy hearing the music i
also do not look at visualisations because i would not be concentrated on the
music anymore. and xmms is a winamp clone. there are really many people using
winamp. some people i know also have the wmp7 but they are not using it for
playing audio files.
>Boring, not to mention the help system, which you will need because
>this piece of junk is a jumble of controls scattered all over the
>place.
what are you talking about? xmms is no jumble of controls, winamp looks the
same. it is very usable if you are used to it
>That's of course assuming you can traverse some ftp site and figure
>out what you need to install and run it.
>
>Nope sorry.
>
>This is but a small example, but it clearly shows that Microsoft cares
>about the user and putting some fun in computers.
>Linux cares about.......? Well who even knows....
A small example that MS fills its software full with unnecessary shit. Or is
there a wmp version without all the crap i do not need?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2001 20:26:42 +0000
Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Also he stated a few days ago that he can't install several things
> because of dependency-problems.
Telnet.
> Sounds very fishy.
What, I'm lying?
> If he had used really that Mandrake, he shouldn't have any.
> But naturally you con "configure" your system into a state
> where there's no more way out short of reinstall, espacially
> when you have to "prove" a point
It's a bog standard Linux Mandrake.
--
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
******************************
