Linux-Advocacy Digest #984, Volume #31 Mon, 5 Feb 01 07:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Linux is a fad? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Shane Phelps)
Re: Linux is a fad? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is a fad? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Aaron R Kulkis (Shane Phelps)
Re: "It's the desktop, stupid" ("Lloyd Llewellyn")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:14:47 GMT
in article 95luc5$56t$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Edward Rosten at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
2/5/01 5:13 AM:
>> When I installed LINUX I spent like 1.5 hours just trying to find a
>> mouse and keyboard it would recognize,
>
> Are you talking USB? (even if you are, I disbelieve you, considering my
> own personal experience).
Nope. PS/2, simple 3 button PS/2 mouse I'd got a garage sale specifically
because linux weenies like you talk about them every time they forget their
medication and, much as you have, rant about silly "advantages" that haven't
really be advantageous since disco topped the charts.
>
>> then more time trying to get it to see a simple thing like a CD ROM,
>
> CDROMS are standard. The only CD I've ever seen it not recognise was an
> old un named 2X model. So, I think you're lying.
Think all you're want, while your add it maybe you can come up with a reason
why PC's don't have a fucking CDROM driver built into the damned BIOS?
>
>> (it never did get the printer)
>
>
> Why does it need to detect the printer. Plug the printer in and load the
> correct driver. Simple. Or have you scratched off the writing on the fromt
> of the printer telling you the make and model?
Ah you bring up a very good point, for half the products out there there ARE
no Linux drivers. I think even OS/2 has it beat.
>> , I
>> remember I had to restart like 4 times to get the monitor to install,
>
> That's a plain lie. You don't even need to know what kind of moniter you
> have. They all recognise standard VGA signals, unless you have one of the
> old IBMs where the raster goes backwards.[*]
>
> And what is more, you never need to restart unless you change the kernel.
Oh sure it'd do 640x480 with a MEGA SLOW refresh rate. I'm sorry though I
don't feel like watching the computer CRAWL because pooowah widdle winux
can't figure out what a video card is. I had to restart numerous times to
get it to have at least the same resolution as Win2k, mind you with a bare,
non-antialiased GUI it wasn't really worth it.
>> the partition program kept fucking up, then the damn thing didn't want
>> to connect to the LAN (and thus the net) took 2 days of strait teeth
>> pulling, and I only had it installed for like 4 months before saying
>> fuck it I've got more important things to do with disk space. My mac
>> already does IP routing, and web serving, and I only have 5 machines on
>> my LAN so I don't need local mail servers or things like that.
>
>
> You're a poor liar. Flatty is amusing which is why (s)he has avoided my
> kill file, which is more than I can say for you. Bye, bye.
Oh I'm so sad.
Feeble geek, ran away knowing full WELL he was full of shit.
-G3!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:19:41 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/5/01 5:00 AM:
> Linux is not HP-UX or Solaris.
>
> Of course...your "Linux Horror Stories" are beginning to sound like
> Pete Goodwin's....springing from incompetance.
>
> Here's an idea... if you are switching operating systems, start out
> first with standard, mainstream devices, not bleeding edge, "there's
> only 3 in existance out of the lab" products.
>
> If RedHat and Caldera couldn't identify your mouse and keyboard, then
> you must be using some reallllllllllly obscure stuff... either that,
> or telling it that you had an AT keyboard when you have PS/2 devices.
They were all pretty much stock devices. Only thing I could imagine it
being is POSSIBLY BIOS related, but I'd be just as disgusted with it if it
required that I go through and tweak every BIOS setting just to run it.
Fact of the matter is in your quest to replace intellectual debate with
mindless gibbering insult you've conveniently run kicking and screaming from
your point about Linux being consumer friendly. I have a DEGREE in
programming, and work with UNIX daily and it took me forever to get linux to
work, and it had NO uses when it finally did. It is NOT a consumer OS,
period end of story.
>
>>
>> All in all it was a waste.
>>
>
> I'm beginning to think that your every breath is a waste of oxygen.
> You should, like, do something about that.
Ah this is I'm certain the same response you'd give to joe schmoe consumer
buying Red hat, yup same old same old UNIX users are a bunch of fat aged
geeks whining about the good old days with their elitist OS singing "if you
don't like our doobie roll your own".
Thank god the PC industry grew up even if you sad saps didn't.
-G3!
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:23:42 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 4 Feb 2001 08:04:14 -0800, Salvador Peralta
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] quoth:
> >
> >> FWIW I started back in the days of the IBM 1401 and have had my share
> >> of paper tapes snap and cause carriage runaways on 1403's.
> >
> >From the juvenile tone of most of your posts, age is something
> >that I'd be embarrassed to admit, were I in your shoes. Honestly, I
> >thought that you were 13 or 14 years old.
>
> It's a lot better than being boring.
Not nearly as good as having the credibility to air grievances in a hostile
environment (and be taken seriously). When you're not firing blanks, you're
hitting your own foot.
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 10:59:21 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
> >
> > "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > In comp.os.linux.misc Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > John Hasler wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> Walt writes:
> > > >> > The dictionary definition of "atheist" is, "one who denies the existence
> > > >> > of God."
> > > >>
> > > >> Make that "_a_ dictionary definition": at best an approximation. I (an
> > > >> atheist) prefer this definition: "one who denies the existence of your
> > > >> imaginary friend while not claiming to have one of his own".
> > > >>
> > > >> > That is definitely an active belief.
> > > >>
> > > >> "Does not believe" is not "believes not".
> > >
> > > > Geeze, you're as dogmatic as the people you deride.
> > >
> > > Uh, fella, this is as basic a piece of modal logic as one can get.
> > >
> > > You seem to be unaware of the logic of modalities like belief, proof,
> > > necessity, obligation, and so on. Id normally direct you to the
> > > library, but let's try ...
> > >
> > > Basically the logical operators "belief" and "not" do not commute, OK?
> > > I gave you a clearer example of how that can happen using Goedels proof
> > > operator ("prove not" != "not prove"), but the same goes for modal
> > > operators like belief, obligation, and so on.
> > >
> > > Now you know what the subject area is called - it's an important and
> > > large one - you can look it up.
> >
> > you can stop trying. it is a lost cause. as far i can determine,
> > aaron r kulkis is a write-only device.
>
> Then how come what I write always relates to what was written
> by someone else (leaving the only logical explanation: that,
> yes, I *do* read.....moron).
yes, you do read, but you don't take input.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:27:11 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/5/01 4:55 AM:
> Actually, i am. Graphics is what got me into computing.
> I'm also an artist; People on 5 different continents have pictures that
> I have drawn hanging on their walls.
>
>
>> I work in a part of computing where users
>> have to interact and approve of aesthetically of the stuff I do. You can't
>> do image editing in text, you can't to good page layout in text. You can't
>> do good web design without previewing it under a GUI.
>
> Well DUH.
>
> However, writing a memo does NOT require a GUI.
> Data Entry does NOT require a GUI.
> Dispatching service personell does NOT require a GUI.
> Corporate book-keeping does NOT require a GUI
> Customer contact management does NOT require a GUI
>
> Is any of this getting through your thick skull?
Which sort of Data Entry? I can think of plenty of types that do, plenty
where the user (some moron the company hired with no presumed experience)
would benefit GREATLY from a GUI. But you being a fool don't let little
things like scientific principles, lawsuits from carpal tunnel, or even ease
of use infect your vision of a world with 10 foot tall beige towers running
an OS you totally wrote from scratch.
>>
>> It has nothing to do with using a mouse (90% of what I use I use hot keys
>> for but they still require a GUI. 14 hot key sequences in photoshop still
>> require seeing the image!) and everything to do with working with modern
>> computing and not carrying on a 70's dinosaur legacy of computing.
>
> If the bloated, resource-hungery WIMP interface is so easy to use, why
> do you bypass it in favor of hotkeys?
You seem to be going around in circular logic. You insisted I must be tied
to a mouse, I pointed out that I use Hot keys, and you assume that's a
defect in the GUI? GUI != Mouse! The way you manipulate an object is by
far and away different from the object itself. Opps I forgot all you UNIX
idiots still code procedural what with all your stupid schell scripting crap
and all.
>
>>
>> Even email "can" be done in text but you can't HTML formated emails in text
>> and have them look right.
>>
>> People who insist text is great for everything don't use their computers for
>> anything that came out since 82!
>
> Of course text is not great for EVERYTHING....but it covers over 95% of
> what computers are used for.
> If the typical business office had the GUI's ripped out of 95% of the
> desktops,
> company would suffer not in the slightest.
You are in some serious need of a reality check. If we had the rates of eye
strain, and non-ergonomic injuries we had 30 years ago today we'd have
LAWSUITS. Don't you realize people go BLIND staring at your monochrome text
based gibber?
All of the things you mention benefit GREATLY in terms of ease of use,
quickness of sorting information, and efficiency of user interaction by
having a GUI. I don't work a lot with Windows so maybe that's where you get
off thinking that GUIs are all bloated but the ones on my mac are far from
it.
-G3!
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:30:09 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 2/5/01 4:50 AM:
> Dear doofus...insisting that EVERYTHING be done through a GUI is stupid.
>
> Ever try batch-processing 200 files with a GUI?
>
> Hint fucking hint...you can't...unless you like spending your time
> pointing and clicking through 200 seperate files.
>
> UGH!
>
> Your problem is, you have absolutely NO fucking idea how high-end
> computing is done. And as long as you stay sucked up to the GUI,
> like a baby on a nipple...you never will.
Um excuse me? I right click the selected list and hit apply script.
Under a CLI that would take at least 3 steps to my one. Apparently you
haven't heard of things like drag-select? Or are you simply presuming that
all machines are like Windows and have no system wide scripting
architecture. Either way your sadly mistaken.
-G3
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:42:45 +1100
G3 wrote:
>
[ snip ]
>
> Gates on the other hand does things like Tell IBM he will sell them an OS
> (leaving out he lacks one to sell) TOTALLY rips off another company, adds a
> couple of crappy Microsoft BASIC things, and gets rich off almost entirely
> other people's work.
>
The story is a bit more complicated than that, and involves a certain amount
of good luck and a certain amount of good connections.
Bill Gates originally sent the IBM people off to talk to Gary Kildall of DR,
but that came to nothing. THere are a number of versions of that story, but
they seem to boil down Gary Kildall not dropping everything when IBM
came calling.
The most plausible is that he was on a business trip and couldn't get back.
IBM went back to MS, who may or may not have offered them Xenix (now, wouldn't
*that* have changed the PC landscape). He ended up licencing Seattle Software's
Q-DOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) to IBM, and then bought the rights
to Q-DOS. MS paid a fair price for Q-DOS at the time, and I believe there
may have been some form of options which made multi-milionaires of the
SS people.
MS also offered to *sell* MS-DOS to IBM very early in the piece, but IBM
turned it down.
MS has apparently followed the Standard Oil / IBM / International Harvester
book of business practice since then. The company has had enough (documented)
shady business dealings in recent years without having to attribute it's
early success to the same tactics.
Apple was probably a dodgier company to deal with in the 1980s than MS,
but it still produced a very nice computer and System software.
[ snip ]
>
> >>> Gates is hardly a visionary. He stole a couple good ideas who's creators
> >>> didn't stick around long enough to fight him on it.
> >>
> >> Gates saw what other people didn't see. Remember that when he was
> >> starting out he too was a small company!
>
> Are you on crack? IBM asked him if he had an OS, he LIED and said he had
> one in development, he bought the lamest cheapest on he could mind (QD DOS),
> and slapped the MS logo on it. That is not vision my friend, that's luck
> and skillful evasion.
>
Depends on the version of the story you heard/believe :-)
I think it's more likely that he got lucky with IBM and Q-DOS.
The version I read was that he told IBM (after they came back from DR)
that he could get them an OS, not that MS was developing it.
After 20+ years, it's hard to say which (if either) version is right.
> MS is where it is not because of selling good product but because they have
> for YEAR used deceptive advertising, bad mouthing of the other guys
> products, threats, frequently legally questionable exclusive contracts. And
> pretty much every idea the mob every came up with to keep yourself in
> business and off your competitors. GATES had NOTHING to do with this, Steve
> Balmer is the smart guy who focused on Business Business Business.
>
Regardless of MS's business practices since it has become a monopoly, that
wasn't really the case in the earlier days. THere were probably 2 things which
really put MS into the position it's in now.
1) having the default OS on the IBM PC
2) Excel. Excel was streets ahead of anything else on the Mac, but SuperCalc
was going nowhere on the PC. Lotus 1-2-3 wasn't much good either, but it had
the market share (sound familiar?). MS probably developed Windows just to
make sales of Excel on the PC. Up until Windows 386 they were *giving* Windows
away with Excel.
Excel was (and still is) a good product. Excel, Word and friends are tending
to middle-aged spread now, but doesn't anybody remember just how crappy
all the DOS programs were in the 1980s?
Apple could (and should) have won the War of the WIMPs, but short-term greed
and boardroom wars put paid to that. My memories of Apple in the 1980s lead
me to think a MacMonopoly would have been no better than a MS one.
The Unix vendors opened the doors for the NT invasion with their wars
and the Balkanisation of Unix.
The common factor in the rise of MS was that the entrenched players didn't
take them seriously until too late.
The latest outpourings of FUD from MS seem to indicate that MS might be
taking Linux seriously.
> (It seems only Steves do the truly important stuff. :( Steve Jobs, Steve
> Balmer, Steve Case, did Netscape have a Steve? Oh sorry they got Steved by
> AOL. ;p)
>
> -g3
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:47:11 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:95kh2v$a3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 23:18:02 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So we have the truth at last! He just wants to look at the pretty
> >>girls!
> >> I bet that's the only reason he has a computer!
> >
> > I am a girl.
>
And this should be a surprise to no-one...
PS: No offense but, you argue like one! <g>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is a fad?
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:49:18 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2001 18:22:10 -0000, "--==<\( Jeepster \)>==--"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Flatfish, they seem to think we are the same person ;-)
> >
> >LOL
>
> Welcome to the "school" :)
>
> They think everyone who doesn't agree with them is me.
>
> I'm surprised they don't think Pete and me are the same person as
> well.
The writing styles differ to the point that if both were the same person,
either a Pulitzer or strait-jacket, would be called for.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Aaron R Kulkis
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:56:48 +1100
"--==<( Jeepster )>==--" wrote:
>
> A very sad little boy who pretends to be a man with an important job.
>
> Nearly every post he makes he has to swear in.
>
> Sad.
>
> Still, I suppose it has to be so when Linux attracts mostly long hair
> weirdos.
That's a very 1960s red-neck statement, isn't it?
What's wrong with long hair weirdos?
... and what does that have to do with swearing?
I think you have that bass-ackwards.
Some of the best swearers I've heard have had short-back-and-sides
haircuts. If I thought it would improve my swearing I'd go for the
bowling-ball look :-)
------------------------------
From: "Lloyd Llewellyn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: "It's the desktop, stupid"
Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 11:57:22 GMT
"It is not about quality alone. It truly is about freedom from tyranny
at both the desktop and the server levels. We have already seen what kind of
future we could expect with Microsoft at the helm."
This from the article says it all for me. I like Linux - it's different and
exciting. But I could probably live with Win2K, as a product. What's important
to me is maximizing choice in the marketplace, and having open source
alternatives, so I'm not at the mercy at HugeOmniMegaCorp, along with the rest
of the planet.
If the tables were turned, and Win2K were open-source and Linux were
proprietary, I would be championing Win2K.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 12:57:05 +0100
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> >
> > Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > >
> > > Gates LIED and told them that his company had such an OS. He then
> > > went out and bought QDOS(*) from Digital Research.
> > >
> > > * QDOS was an 8086/8088 port of CP/M. CP/M was a *hobbyist* O/S
> > > written by some guy in his basement in the mid-1970's, which somehow
> > > managed to spread by ad hoc floppy copying throughout the country.
> > >
> > A R Kulkis is wrong again.
> > Digital Research had CP/M86 at that time, and IBM went to them at first.
> > They somehow didn't come top grips, so IBM decided to go to Billy Boy.
> > He bought QDOS, but not from DR. It was from a guy at Seattle Computer,
> > if I remember correctly. It WAS a little bit like CP/M, hence its name
> > (Quick and Dirty OS)
> >
> > Also CP/M was everything else as a "hobbyists" OS. Take a look into
> > BYTE from those years, CP/M everywhere.
>
> I used to read BYTE in those days...
>
> Everywhere, true...but it was still written by some guy in his basement,
> purely as a 'hobby project'. CP/M was never meant for commercial use...
> it just came to that by default (mostly becuase of the TRS-80 machines,
> i would think)
>
Ever head from companies like Cromenco, or CompuPro, or Jade?
Those were all CP/M systems, and ran rings around the PC's which were
just introduced at that time. There existed even a multiitasking version of
CP/M called MP/M. Was quite good.
Naturally, that didn't help. Still the PC's with there shoddy
Hardware-design and crappy MS-DOS prevailed.
TRS-80 (got one myself, my Model-I had a build-# in the 300s.
Later got also a Model IV. Still have that) Those were really good
machines at that time.
But TRS-80s were mainly used with their own OS, which was way
better than anything else at that time,but I had CP/M for mine also.
--
Linux is simply a fad that has been generated by the media
We are Borg. Resistance is futile (Borg Gates)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
