Linux-Advocacy Digest #912, Volume #31 Fri, 2 Feb 01 13:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: My open-source quote (jim)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Aspects of open-source that MS will co-opt: Predictions? (Wilfred van Rooijen)
Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy! (Karel Jansens)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING (Karel Jansens)
Re: questions (windows & Mac)....? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Tread carefully when advocating Linux & OpenS (.)
Re: My open-source quote (Dan Hinojosa)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("iceman")
Re: Tread carefully when advocating Linux & OpenS (gswork)
Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My open-source quote
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:08:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Dan Hinojosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Open source is like a bicycle without a seat. Sure it works like
other
> bicycles, but the comfort using it is not there."
>
> --Dan Hinojosa, Java Developer
>
>
Yeah, the closed source bicycle has a seat, but it also comes bundled
with unremovable rear view mirrors, an un removable carriage rack, old
fashioned fenders, an irreplaceable 3 speed shift, stirrups
permanently mounted on the pedals, unremovable noisemakers stuck in the
spokes, a funny sounding horn, no chain guard, extra large training
wheels permanently mounted, a single headlight permanently mounted
between the handlebars which doesn't work, and a large pink wire basket
permanently mounted.
Lets go ridin' boys.
--
deja.com - learn what you know, share what you don't
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 15:33:52 GMT
On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 22:21:04 +0000, Nigel
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No, I had 16-bit, multitasking Amiga 10 years before Windows 95 came out,
>> and they weren't the first either.
>
>What machine was first with this feature then, Sinclair QL perhaps?
>
You need to define your terms. "Multitasking" has been around for as
long as computers have been around, depending on how you define it. I
got pretty decent multitasking capabililty out of my Commodore 64
running GEOS (especially considering the limited memory!).
If you want to move upscale a bit, the PDP-11 allowed concurrent
processes, and that was in 1968. IBM's mainframes have had that
capability since the mid-1960's.
>
>Also, the Acorn Archimedes had 32bit multitasking 8 years before win95
>came out (and had a very similar taskbar idea to the one in win95).
>
>
------------------------------
From: Wilfred van Rooijen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aspects of open-source that MS will co-opt: Predictions?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:38:33 +0100
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> Adam Warner wrote:
>
> > This is not a prediction: Microsoft desperately wants student mindshare and
> > to engender a feeling of community.
>
> As I mentioned in another thread, IBM is visiting the Department of Computer
> Sciences at UTAustin this week, and their major internship recruitment pull is
> the opportunity to work on one of their many OSS projects. (They also have a
> speaker giving a talk on Linux' SMP scalability.) I was *very* delighted to
> see this.
>
> However, I think IBM is way ahead of where most undergraduates' minds really
> are right now. Only a tiny fraction of incoming freshmen in CS run anything
> but Windows on their computers. (I base this on a couple of semesters' of
> informal show-of-hand surveys that I did.) Even among the upper-division
> students, a surprisingly large fraction isn't interested in learning anything
> other than how to use that One True Product (tm) that will get them a
> high-paying job when they graduate.
>
Mmmmm, I'm glad the situation here's different: anybody actually running Windoze
is regarded with mere disgust at my university. But, hey, we're in the Netherlands
=> Those Crazy Dutchmen are at it again.....
\author{Wilfred}
>
> Frankly, I suspect that about half of all the world's CS students are primarily
> interested in the guarantee of a high-paying job rather than in the subject
> matter, and MS can easily leverage that mindset by discounting or giving away
> products that will lock students in to a proprietary solution.
>
> Of course, as MS's image continues to grow moss, students will become less and
> less interested in marrying the company. Also, students who only want to learn
> one solution presumably aren't among the best and brightest, so it may be that
> MS is locking in the "low end" mindshare, but letting the ones most likely to
> innovate slip through their grasp.
>
> Bobby Bryant
> Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lookout! The winvocates have a new FUD strategy!
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 16:38:50 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 08:37:31 +1100, Bennetts family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >
> >"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:ZbFd6.12447$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >>
> >> > Star Office is FREELY DOWNLOADABLE FROM SUN, you MORON.
> >>
> >> He was talking about out of the box, o buffoon.
> >
> >And since when has MS Office been bundled with Windows? Never?
> >
> >Idiot.
>
> OTOH, various distributions of Linux bundle StarOffice.
>
Indeed, and some of those don't even cost money. I have here in front
of me a CD that came with issue 6 of Linux Format, which contains SuSE
7.0 + StarOffice 5.2.
Not only is the CD free, you actually get a cool-looking magazine with
it (not saying anything about the actual content here, just that it
looks cool on the bus <G>).
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:03:24 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Nigel wrote:
>
> > Also, the Acorn Archimedes had 32bit multitasking 8 years before win95
> > came out (and had a very similar taskbar idea to the one in win95).
>
> It was cooperative multitasking, which is not quite as good as the
> multitasking used in Linux, Windows 9x and 2000.
>
Cooperative and pre-emptive multitasking are merely two different ways
of doing the same thing. Cooperative multitasking is more dependent on
well-behaving programs (since it usually is the program that decides
when it will give up control of the cpu). This is less of a problem in
envrionments with stricter quality control, like the Apple and Acorn
architectures. The major advantage of cooperative multitasking lies in
a more economic use of system resources.
One could say that Windows and linux required pre-emptive multitasking
because more crap is written for those platforms <G>.
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: questions (windows & Mac)....?
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:30:21 +0100
cool cool wrote:
>
> hi
> sorry to interrupt
> but I've got a question (no, I meant a few questions).
>
> cuz I'm still using Win98 second edition, and cuz I was told (last year) tha
> t Win 2000 (or ME? or are these two the same things? sorry I don't know much
> about computers, like you and you do, sorry) still have lots of ah....bugs?
> or....whatever, I don'tknow.
> he just said that I should stick with Win98 unless there's a technical reaso
> n.
>
> is this true?
>
> my real question is,
> If I really want to switch my platform (OS, whatever it is, ok?)
> which should I go for? I'm thinking about Win2000 or Me.
> any different?
> or does anything in Linux that is compatible and not compatible with Words o
> r many other common programs and games?
> cuz this dominates everything I do with my computer.
> any suggestion?
>
First some questions back to you:
Do you experience problems when using Windows 98? And are those
problems of such a nature that you consider that platform difficult to
use? (the mere fact that Windows 98 has bugs should not mandate you to
change platforms if those bugs have never bothered you)
If so, are you prepared to un-learn your Windows skills and learn new
ones?
If yes, you might consider installing linux on your system. It is
suggested that you initially keep your original Windows partition
until you become more versed in linux. Nobody contests the fact that
linux is more stable and more versatile than Windows 98, but it _is_
different from Windows and, for some people at least, it _is_ more
difficult to master.
If you decide to take the step, the absolute first thing you should do
is find a friend who uses linux already or find a linux user group in
your neighbourhood. They should keep you from making the more
embarrassing mistakes.
As for the inevitable question: "Does it run Word?" No, linux does
_not_ run Word (according to some, that's one of its advantages <heh
heh>), but there are at least two wordprocessors that do a good job of
importing Word documents: StarOffice, the open-source office suite
from Sun, and WordPerfect from Corel (I would personally suggest to
look for WordPerfect 8, which is the most stable version. There is a
free version of it, albeit with some restrictions), which is less
demanding on system resources than StarOffice.
On a personal note: Although both programs above will import Word
documents, neither will do this with 100% accuracy. The most elegant
solution for a permanent switch to linux is to convert your Word
documents into a more open format (RTF, although ironically created by
Microsoft, is a good one) and suggest to people who send you documents
to do the same.
> ******important***********
> oh, I've seen this from a science magazine that they have on one page, perha
> ps it's just a commercial or an article of something else, not sure, have th
> is Mac OS but what's bizarre (sorry if I've misspelled) about it is that,
> everything on the screen is like bubbles, except the menu bar on top
> how amazing is that when, like say, pull down a menu from the menu bar, the
> drop-down menu goes like a waterdrop.
> and the "windows" (or how should I properly call it?) are like bubbles on th
> e screen.
> like, can you imagine how fantasic this thing could look like?
> is this really true? like is this what they're releasing (the new MacOS?)
> I would run to to store to buy a Mac in the first day of its release if it's
> true.
> but since that page didn't say anything about anything.
> so I would hope that anyone could answer.......?
>
> thanx (a million thanx)
>
It sounds like you're talking about Apple's "Aqua" interface, which is
just that: an interface. Personally, I prefer quick and working to
eye-candy, but I'm sure that someone in the linux community will find
Aqua the best thing since sliced bread. If that someone is also a
programmer, you can expect an Aqua lookalike real soon now.
Regards,
Karel Jansens
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Tread carefully when advocating Linux & OpenS
Date: 2 Feb 2001 17:06:19 GMT
gswork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <95eg0s$hlb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>> > However open a system is it's meaningless to the actual user for
> whom
>> > the source code is just hard drive filler. To use source you must
>> > understand it to a degree enough to change it meaningfully.
>>
>> Bullshit. All you have to do is know how to type the following:
>>
>> ./configure
>> make
>> make install
> Follow the thread. To CHANGE IT MEANINGFULLY you need to understand
> the code. You're talking about just compiling it.
You have to be able to read the comments in config.h.
The horrors.
>> Who wants support? Everything was just fine 5 years ago before any
>> of you windows people even knew what UNIX was.
> First, it was never 'just fine'. Ever since 1980-ish when PCs first
> started appearing on desks sofware users wanted support.
Actually, it was you bunghole. Linux ran just fine 5 years ago. So
did BSDi, Solaris and all the other unices I had the pleasure of
using. That was before windows users decided that they wanted to
know what all the hubub was about.
Its just like when AOL first opened up their usenet gateway. It was a
day that will live in infamy; the distributed IQ of usenet went down
60% that day.
> Second - whats with all this 'you windows people'. Did you read the
> post? I'm not a windows advocate. What a knee *jerk* reaction you've
> suffered.
What are you then?
>> No, but the dumbing down of the masses by software companies which
>> refuse to believe that theyve got a brain among them is evil.
> Hence the point I made following this. We could have had an
> interesting exchange here. You sound paranoid. I take it anti-linux
> flame bait lands here regularly, so some posters pre-empt it.
No its actually that I dont care to argue the point on either side,
this is all sheer entertainment for me.
> This wasn't such a post however.
Well, then I guess im missing something.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Dan Hinojosa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: My open-source quote
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:18:12 -0700
I am being mocked more! The wiser I am becoming! Weeeeeeee!
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Dan Hinojosa wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > ignoramus.
> > >
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" also had in his sig:
> > > A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
> > >
> >
> > I must be wise.
>
> You seem to have mis-edentified yourself.
> In this case.....you're the fool.
>
> --
> 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: "iceman" <[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: Fri, 2 Feb 2001 18:56:02 +0100
just my 2 cents after following the rest of the thread I could find on the
server.
To exploit that "vulnerability" you first would have to break into the
Datacenter to get PHYSICAL Access to the Server in question.
If I have physical Access to a Box and can Boot it form another Media all
the Data is mine no matter what kind of High security OS you are running.
One Downside though wold be if all usefull Data you want to get is encrypted
by using correctly configured EFS or any other means of encrypting Data that
can not be reversed without the proper keys :-)
as I said in the beginning these are my 2 cts and thinking about it closely
the question breaking into a well secured DC is only academic.
Rgds
Iceman
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, I'm an enterprise. I have millions of dollars resting on the
stability
> > > > of my XYZ software server. I have to be absolutely certain that it
won't
> > > > go down because I lose thousands of dollars a minute on downtime.
> > > > I need, among other things, a rock-sold filesystem that I can depend
on.
> > > > I can:
> > > >
> > > > a.) Go with MS and have a filesystem that is true tested and has
been
> > > > around for years
> > >
> > > bzzt - wrong answer - if you look at the track record
> > > of windows nt, the all too frequent crashes and the
> > > need for therapeutic reboots make it a poor choice for
> > > the data center.
> >
> > Windows 2000. Still living in the past, huh? Unfortunate
> > side effect of working with Linux.
> > Yes, Win2K is better than NT, and yes, Win2K is enterprise
> > ready. See tpc.org.
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Chad means the Win2K DataCenter server is enterprise ready.
> The other versions of Win2K aren't quite so ready.
>
> Chris
>
> --
> Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: gswork <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tread carefully when advocating Linux & OpenS
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 17:41:22 GMT
In article <95epeb$4uf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> > Follow the thread. To CHANGE IT MEANINGFULLY you need to understand
> > the code. You're talking about just compiling it.
>
> You have to be able to read the comments in config.h.
>
> The horrors.
I meant to change the code of the software itself.
Let's call that a misunderstanding. That's what is implied in the
original post.
> > First, it was never 'just fine'. Ever since 1980-ish when PCs first
> > started appearing on desks sofware users wanted support.
>
> Actually, it was you bunghole. Linux ran just fine 5 years ago. So
> did BSDi, Solaris and all the other unices I had the pleasure of
> using. That was before windows users decided that they wanted to
> know what all the hubub was about.
>
> Its just like when AOL first opened up their usenet gateway. It was a
> day that will live in infamy; the distributed IQ of usenet went down
> 60% that day.
Again, I'm referring to software users who like support for the
software they use and have done for a couple of decades. We're not
talking 5 years ago, we're talking since the late 70's.
> What are you then?
Someone who *likes* Linux and Open Source.
> No its actually that I dont care to argue the point on either side,
> this is all sheer entertainment for me.
Splendid.
> Well, then I guess im missing something.
If, as you say, it's "all sheer entertainment" then it doesn't really
matter that you took the original post (or a couple od paragraphs of
it) as a winvocate does it?
ho hum.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is FUN and Linux is BORING
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 18:08:25 -0000
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001 16:39:40 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "." wrote:
>> >
>> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > > Microsoft has done more than any other company to put computers into
>> > > the home and to make them friendly and fun to use.
>> >
>> > Apple did more. It cannot be denied that MacOS is easier to use
>> > than windows, and much easier to learn.
>>
>> I disagree. I have stated over and over, easier to learn and easier to use
>are
>> different things.
>>
>> The Mac (and Windows) are very hard to use. You have to do many repetitive
>> steps, you have to learn a whole new language of pictures. Where as a
>command
>> line system uses language skills which we humans have developed over eons,
>in
>> favor of the pictographic expressions for the purpose of simplification.
>No one
>> argues that a graphic system is well suited for graphic applications, but
>> logical tasks require words not mice.
>
>False, we have writing for only couple of thousands years, we have eyes for
>*much* longer. (Try couple of hundreds of millions of years)
We've been seeing for much longer, not using hieroglyphs for
much longer. Also notice the trends in language developments
as civilization advances: from many complex pictographs to a
small set of more fundemental primitives that are then combined
to form the visual representation of a word or concept.
>We can understand pictures much better than text.
Pictures require context, much more so than text does.
Also, a few words can be remarkably more expessive and
(more importantly) PRECISE than any pictogram.
>And it isn't as if CLI shows you all the commands (unless you tell it to),
>you've to *remember* them.
Big deal. Then you tell it to show them to you.
>That is a big minus, in GUI, you *see* what is going on.
You have as much negative feedback in CLI shells too. What
GUI's do is castrate the interface so that there are less
ways for you to make a mistake. Although there are still
plenty left for the novice.
>
>> For most people, the GUI is simply how applications are launched, and
>> directories (folders) are managed.
>>
>> Almost every single OS on the market supports this capability.
>>
>> Once in applications, most people have to memorize pictures for functions,
>and
>> if possible turn of the pictures, and revert to words. In the next version
>of
>> the application, the pictures change confusing the users. This is not easy
>to
>> use, hell it isn't easy to "relearn."
>
>That is why it's so important to have uniform look in application.
>Take a look on *any* book about designing application, get to the part where
>it talk about UI, you will find that consistency is a large part of that.
That only demonstrates that academics in a particular discipline
think alike. If you were to go over to the industrial engineering
department, you might get a different perspective.
>And consistency with the OS' look is another part.
>That is why I don't really like Linux's GUI, and why Java programming is not
All the current linux GUI's have style guides. So you can keep
yourself in a single interface ghetto if you really want.
OTOH, a computer is not a single tool but a collection of them.
It's silly to think that the whole range of computer users and
computer uses should be constrained by a neurotic obsession with
conformity.
This notion can severely stifle the end user. That is the whole
reason why alternatives sprang up to begin with. Not everyone
agrees with the Ivory Tower.
HELL, the end users didn't even agree with you.
>a favoraite of mine. (Java won't let you access directly to the API that
>create windows & textboxes and all the rest, you can rely on Java's own APIs
>(make your application look consistly ugly on all platforms) or use JNI and
>lose the platform-idependent.)
What happened to "foolish consistency"? Java is enforcing a
"one true interface" here. You should be happy for them. They
are starting to "quell the chaos".
>
>> Like lemmings, people are convinced that GUI environments are easier.
>There is
>> no changing this, unfortunately, but we as thinking people need not accept
>the
>> status quo as truth if we observe differently. That, in fact, may be the
>first
>> step.
>
>Wrong, please point me to *one* study that claim that CLI is better than GUI
>in ease-of-use for day-to-day tasks.
Who's day?
[deletia]
We are not all Borg.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
