Linux-Advocacy Digest #638, Volume #32 Sun, 4 Mar 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable? ("Sean Turner")
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (mlw)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Ed Allen)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Alan)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Perry Pip)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Breaking up is so very hard to do... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free (Alan)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Sean Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP! Will it really be reliable?
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2001 10:55:59 -0800
No, it is genuinely better than 98 or ME (albeit way overpriced).
--
Sean Turner
"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sean Turner wrote:
> >
> > It is built on the 2000 kernal, so it will be much better than ME, 95,
or
> > 98. My 2000 machine can stay up for a month.
> >
> > --
> > Sean Turner
> >
> > "jtnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I just saw a news piece on Windows XP!
> > > Microsoft claims that it can run for days
> > > without crashing! Anyone have any real
> > > world experience with Windows XP?
> > > Is it really reliable?
> > >
> > > I already have 5 PC's at home all running
> > > Linux. I don't see why I need a new OS.
>
> XP is the old stuff with another GUI. M$ is clearly running out of new
> ideas - or they have no more companies with new ideas to take over - or
> both...
>
>
> --
> =========================================================
> This signature was added automatically by Linux:
> .
> But you who live on dreams, you are better pleased with the sophistical
> reasoning and frauds of talkers about great and uncertain matters than
> those who speak of certain and natural matters, not of such lofty
> nature.
> -- Leonardo Da Vinci, "The Codex on the Flight of Birds"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 14:03:42 -0500
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 13:13:30 -0500, mlw wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03 Mar 2001 08:10:28 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >> >
> >> >> This is standard GPV zealot doublethink. You *cannot* remove freedoms from
> >> >> the original code. That code is now, and will always be, free. If that were
> >> >> not the case, then the BSD codebase would have disappeared into SunOS a
> >> >> long, long time ago.
> >> >>
> >> >> Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss you off,
> >> >> or else it is a hollow shell. The BSD license does, and the GPV does not.
> >> >> That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
> >> >
> >> >Enforced freedom.
> >> >
> >> >Whether it's an oxymoron or not depends on who you are.
> >>
> >> To me it certainly is.
> >>
> >> However, we should also look at what the GNU crowd mean by "free". They
> >> talk about the software being "free", as if the software has rights. If
> >> you believe that the "rights" of the software outweighs the rights of the
> >> user, then use the GPL. If you believe that the "rights" of the community
> >> outweigh the rights of the individual, get yourself a copy of the communist
> >> manifesto, move to China (or Cuba), and use the GPL.
> >>
> >
> >The communism analogy is false in every respect. Under GPL, I may release
> >software for others to use. That is my choice and freedom. By releasing the
> >code as GPL I am not limiting my ownership or control.
>
> However, RMS says explicitly that he doesn't want to coexist with
> proprietary software, in other words, the ideal FSF world is one
> where programmers have no chioce but to release software for free.
>
> His rhetoric really does remind me of the communist manifesto.
Like many visionaries, RMS, does not see the real implementation of his vision,
and I say this is the best possible way. I see the GPL as a very powerful way
to improve the state of software, very much like the original idea behind the
patent office.
>
> I realise that there are people who release software under the GPL
> and have a completely different philosophical outlook that is
> equally consistent with their choice of license.
>
> However, RMS and the FSF really do seem to be all about limiting "ownership"
> and "control".
yes, legend has it that the whole GPL license was a reaction to someone
improving upon some of RMS' original work, and not sharing back the changes.
>
> My grievance is more with RMS's rhetoric about "freedom" than it is
> about the GPL itself ( I've licensed software under both the GPL and
> LGPL. I prefer the latter for reasons I discuss in another post)
--
The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.
The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of
consistency.
-- Albert Einstein
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:01:02 GMT
In article <sHto6.11845$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 3 Mar 2001 21:42:08 -0500, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
>>
>> > Only 95% are forced to buy windows? Why not 100%?? What is different
>> > about the five percent that they are exempt from being "FORCED" to buy
>> > windows?
>>
>> Presumably they bought Macs instead of PC's.
>
>Which is another reason why MS does not have a monopoly. They
>can never establish price controls because Macs are a reasonable
>alternative to the PCs and consumers could reasonably switch to the
>Mac if the PC/Windows realm became too pricey (and indeed they
>have as we have seen with the recent iMac v. PC price wars).
>
In engineering they teach a rule of thumb that one quantity being
over ten times the next largest means than the smaller can be
ignored because the larger totally dominates the input.
Your fantasy of "it can't be a monopoly if it is not 100%' was not
true for Standard Oil either, it did not save them from a breakup
either.
The percentage does not make a monopoly, that is just market share.
Having a large market share can happen by good business pactices, it
is the abusing it by acting anticompetitively which breaks the Sherman
Act.
--
GPL says
"What's mine is ours,
If you make *OUR* stuff better the result is still ours."
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:55:16 GMT
In article <97t625$plg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> No. Not at all. How is this the fault of Linux as you keep claiming?
So apps think it's ok to have their own drivers?
Shouldn't the OS decide that?
> You keep saying it is the fault of the OS. How? it is nothing to do with
> the OS. You are the one not listening. The OS has no control over what
> the apps think they can do.
The OS decides what apps can and cannot do.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 18:57:57 GMT
In article <97t74b$q3o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> So is that why Win2K now has a telnet server and improved command line
> tools?
Does the Professional version have this? Will the consumer version of
Whistler have this? No?
> >> When I run Windows, I get this closed-in, claustrophobic feeling.
> >
> > When I run Linux, I get the closed-in, claustrophobic feeling...
>
> I side with Donn on this one. Click to focus is just plain ugly.
When I run Linux, I get this closed-in, claustrophobic feeling... how
does that relate to "click to focus"?
> > With Linux I can feel the restraints of too many toolkits and the
> > ugliness of multiple window managers all straining to get their fingers
> > on me.
>
> With Windows, your stuck with the extreme ugliness of one windowmanager.
Except you can actually replace them - there are products to do that out
there.
> > On Windows, I couldn't care less what is running.
>
> Could explain the crashing...
Nah, just a feature of Windows.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:06:19 GMT
In article <97t74b$q3o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> I get an exact number for CPU usage and memory consumption of any
> >> process or application, and what state each process it is in.
> >
> >> I get an exact number for CPU usage and memory consumption of any
> >> process or application, and what state each process it is in.
> >
> > On Windows, CPU usage and memory consumption are just not interesting.
> > Except when I run Windows 2000 then I can see.
>
> How do they become more intersting on Win2K?
Because I can see them? Mostly they're of little interest, as they should
be.
> >> But most of all, I don't have to hit control+alt+delete, and try to
> >> guess which instance of a program is hanging. And furthermore, when I
> >> kill something, it dies right then and there.
> >
> > Even on Linux, I bet you can get a process that won't die.
>
> I've never had one. I can even kill this process:
>
> main{
> while(!fork())
> }
>
> since it has a nice killall program.
Leave it running long enough, without limits, then try to get the system
to respond. Good luck!
> > UNIX is an example of a system that was designed too long ago, and got
> > many things wrong. Every piece is a hotpotch affair, all pulling in
> > different directions.
>
> Could you back this with more than 1 example. The cli tools + piping is
> one axample of a very elegant design o parts pulling in the same
> direction.
Oh, I don't have a problem with pipes and tees. I just have a problem
with the whole cryptic command line.
I also have a problem with a desktop on X with either GNOME or KDE that
appears to be a real hotpotch of applications designed with different
desktops and varying standards. I've gone over this before, so I won't
bore you all again with this.
> > Windows 9x is a botched design, a quick hack to keep the punters happy.
> > Windows NT is where we should be, and maybe with Whistler, if they don't
> > impose this silly key system on us.
>
> WinNT is no way as good as UNIX. That's why Micros~1 is trying to make it
> in to a UNIX.
Except they're not, they're trying to kill off UNIX. They've succeeded so
far on the desktop.
> > In Windows there is so much to choose from,
> Like what?
Applications.
> > so much innovation and fresh
>
> Oh yeah. I can't live without the drop-shadow cursor and fading menus.
Who gets the devices and drivers designed first, huh, Linux or Windows?
Which platform has many games written for it, Linux or Windows?
> > air; in Linux everything is old and crumbling and reeks of yesterday.
>
> What fresh air. Are GNOME and KDE older than windows?
They're young and they show it.
> > Windows gets better every release and has long run away from the
> > plodding lumbering juggernaut that is UNIX.
>
> Yep rnu in the oppersite direction and jumped down a hole.
It's a very nice hole in here. Smells a bit tho'. The stench of virii,
spam and monopolies. Oh well, that's success for you!
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:20:08 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 06:37:11 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I don't think that is the "threat" he was addressing. His argument was
>with taxpayer supported software and the GPL. He was saying, in effect,
>"Our company pays taxes to support the creation of software we can't
>fold into our products." This refers to, among others, the Beowolf
>project, which was developed with the at least in part by NASA, but
>which Microsoft can't stea^H^H^H^H use because of the license. He was
>saying that since Microsoft dollars fund NASA through taxes, Microsoft
>ought to be able to reap the benefits.
Microsoft pays no federal taxes.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/news/viewpoint2000/view-001012-1.shtml
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:13:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> OK, everyone knows this one. It's not a command shell. I'm speaking of
> a full-featured command-line shell with filename completion, complete
> with CLI tools, like awk, sed and grep.
The CLI is the old way of doing things. It has it's place, but it's
getting a bit long in the tooth. Long live the GUI!
> Does start->run do this? No.
> It's kinda hard to work with a command line without virtual consoles.
I worked on command line machines long before Virtual Consoles even
appeared. It wasn't that hard. When X appeared and offered multiple
terminals, wow, gee, lets make that available without X!
Long live the GUI!
> Windows doesn't have a true command line - it just has a DOS prompt.
It doesn't need it thankfully!
Long live the GUI!
> Linux is more flexible, in that it's really easy to open multiple VC's
> and switch between them.
Linux has saddled itself with the old way of thinking. It works fine, but
its not the shiny clicky advanced way of doing things.
> The DOS box command line is kinda hard to work
> with, seeing as to how the default window manager on Windows (Internet
> Explorer) doesn't allow you to work with virtual workspaces. You're
> forced to work within the confines of the crippled environment Windows
> gives you. Windows is stifling in that it forces you to program and/or
> interact with a GUI 99% of the time.
Because the GUI is the best way to work for 99% of the time! It's the CLI
that is stifling! Even with virtual consoles.
> And after all this, why even bother working with a crippled system with
> an outrageous license like Windows?
Because it's better!
Long live the GUI!
> Of course, I will admit Windows has its good points. For example, all
> the companies in the world support Windows, because it is so numerous in
> quantity, and is so mainstream. Also, maybe the user interface is nice
> at helping completely computer illiterate people use the computer. But
> other than that, it's a crippled system. There are even better
> alternatives for computer newbies, such as BeOS and Mac OS-X.
I like BeOS, but BeOS is dead because of lack of applications. Mac OS-X
is always on the sidelines.
As for the UI being nice and helping illiterate people, that's just plain
bias on your part. I do a lot of GUI work and its certainly a bigger
challenge, and a lot more usable than the old CLI prompt.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 4 Mar 2001 19:21:45 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4 Mar 2001 18:23:08 GMT,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 4 Mar 2001 16:38:30 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>>On 4 Mar 2001 15:42:19 GMT,
>
>[ irrelevance snipped ]
Anytime you can't respond to something intelligently you respond like
that. Whether documention is included with an OS or whether is costs
extra is certainly relevant to OS pricing.
>We were discussing Win 9x prices.
>
>FYI, Academic edition of Office : $150-
>Academic version of Visual Studio Pro: I got it for $69-.
Most of the world is not a lifetime college student like you are. Real
world prices are much higher. And even with those prices you've doubled
the price of the OS.
>
>>From another angle, do you know what MS's reported profit margins are??
>
>You need a better argument than "they're succesful, so they must be bad"
>to make a credible case.
This is another example of your poor debating tactics!! Where do I make
the above argument? I was resonding *your* explicit claim:
"What I am saying is that the "MS's prices are too high" claim is
unsubstantiated nonsense."
Read Judge Jacksons finding of fact part III-F. He says that Microsoft
could have sold Win98 for $49 and still have made a reasonalbe
profit. The fact that they have a monopoly, which you acknowledge, by
the definition of monopoly means they can fix prices.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:17:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Furthermore theres the total lack of individualism in the whole Windows
> Experience. You are literally forced in certain directions - like active
> desktop in 98. Ya, the winlosers will now post something on how easy it
> is to switch off, but why not give the user the option on first
> installation or first log on? At least all the Linux Window Managers
> starts with a basic settings, and from there you can add to your harts
> content as you get to know your environment better.
Because Microsoft think they know what's best for you. At least you can
switch off all those annoying features and get a desktop close to what
you want.
> We have multiple desktops now for how long? And this is probably the
> most irritating thing for me when I have to work on a Windows machine -
> theres only one damn desktop! It clutters so quickly, you soon feel
> lost, even though you might have 20 odd years experience with computers!
I've been working happily without multiple desktops for years without too
much trouble. Even on Linux I hardly use them.
> The XP thing also does not look good on the eye to me - we will just
> have to wait and see how the marketing people will sell it - definitely
> not on looks!
It's a bit gross on the eye, isn't it?
> Well, maybe one day we will no longer be forced to use Windows (as in
> many company policies). I can't wait.
Not any time soon.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:19:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> The average Office-Depot shopping jerk cannot. And such comprise the
> bulk of the consumer market.
But that still doesn't stop them doing buying blank machines!
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:20:53 GMT
In article <97t4jt$p5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Unless most people don't know that there are alternatives (which they
> don't). Besides, having paid for something is usually incentive to use
> it.
And how much does it cost, with a system?
£100?
£50?
£30...
It's around £30 or less. That's a big expense is it?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:22:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Consider this, Pete: If Windows weren't mandatory, the salesperson
> would have to offer a choice: Windows 95, 95-SR2, 98, 98-SR1, ME,
> Windows XP ("Xtra Profits"), 2000 Pro, 2000 Pro with SP1, some
> brand of Linux, some brand of BSD, BeOS.
Why is it mandatory? I thought that had changed?
As for a choice, most customers want to buy Windows. It's popular.
They've never heard of Linux.
> Of course, we know that inertia and laziness, as well as the many
> fragmented versions of Windows, would lead to some sort of
> Microsoft selection. But there would be some people who would
> opt for something else, and then actually not have to pay for
> a hidden Microsoft selection.
You can actually buy a PC with Linux installed.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:23:31 GMT
In article <DHto6.6356$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> There's nothing really stopping you from saving a little money, catching a
> plane to China, and trying to single-handedly stop the human rights abuses,
> by force if necessary. The only thing STOPPING you is cowardice and/or
> laziness.
There's one big difference. You _can_ actually buy a PC with Linux
installed.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Breaking up is so very hard to do...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:25:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> The appellate court is NOT the supreme court.
Oh sorry, I thought the current court was the supreme court. And if they
overturn the findings, does that mean it could go to appeal afterwards?
More dragging on of the case, meanwhile Microsoft carry on as they are?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alan)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Crimosoft will get off scot-free
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:35:09 GMT
On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 06:37:11 GMT, Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I don't think that is the "threat" he was addressing. His argument was
>with taxpayer supported software and the GPL. He was saying, in effect,
>"Our company pays taxes to support the creation of software we can't
>fold into our products." This refers to, among others, the Beowolf
>project, which was developed with the at least in part by NASA, but
>which Microsoft can't stea^H^H^H^H use because of the license. He was
>saying that since Microsoft dollars fund NASA through taxes, Microsoft
>ought to be able to reap the benefits.
Microsoft pays no federal income taxes. Please see
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/news/viewpoint2000/view-001012-1.shtml
Alan
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
purposes only. ***
=======================
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:56:30 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Consider this, Pete: If Windows weren't mandatory, the salesperson
> > would have to offer a choice: Windows 95, 95-SR2, 98, 98-SR1, ME,
> > Windows XP ("Xtra Profits"), 2000 Pro, 2000 Pro with SP1, some
> > brand of Linux, some brand of BSD, BeOS.
>
> Why is it mandatory? I thought that had changed?
That's the past subjunctive form of "were", Pete.
However, it is still primarily true. More importantly, most
vendors don't offer the choice up-front. They depend on the
caller to inquire as to the availability, or know about it through
other sources.
> As for a choice, most customers want to buy Windows. It's popular.
> They've never heard of Linux.
So which came first, the chicken or the egg??? <grin>
> > Of course, we know that inertia and laziness, as well as the many
> > fragmented versions of Windows, would lead to some sort of
> > Microsoft selection. But there would be some people who would
> > opt for something else, and then actually not have to pay for
> > a hidden Microsoft selection.
>
> You can actually buy a PC with Linux installed.
You know it, and I know it, but relatively few other consumers know it:
> They've never heard of Linux.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:58:09 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> Read Judge Jacksons finding of fact part III-F. He says that Microsoft
> could have sold Win98 for $49 and still have made a reasonalbe
> profit. The fact that they have a monopoly, which you acknowledge, by
> the definition of monopoly means they can fix prices.
Ahhh, so that's why Win ME upgrades were only $49!!! I thought it was
competition from Linux.
Chris
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 19:59:13 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <97t4jt$p5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Unless most people don't know that there are alternatives (which they
> > don't). Besides, having paid for something is usually incentive to use
> > it.
>
> And how much does it cost, with a system?
>
> £100?
> £50?
> £30...
>
> It's around £30 or less. That's a big expense is it?
It is is you don't want it, having an alternative operating system already
on hand you want installed.
You're arguments are getting short and weak.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 20:07:47 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> The CLI is the old way of doing things. It has it's place, but it's
> getting a bit long in the tooth. Long live the GUI!
I always chuckle going through Windows NT Server books as they
explain how to do it:
Go the X menu. Click the Y button. Go to the Z edit field.
Type in the DNS addresses. Click the add button. Go to the Z
edit field. Type in the second DNS address. Click...
Click... click...
We've had this argument over and over. GUI's are good for newbies
and when you can't quite remember what to do. Otherwise, the CLI
and scripts rules.
> I worked on command line machines long before Virtual Consoles even
> appeared. It wasn't that hard. When X appeared and offered multiple
> terminals, wow, gee, lets make that available without X!
Ever here of virtual consoles, mate?
> > Windows doesn't have a true command line - it just has a DOS prompt.
>
> It doesn't need it thankfully!
Tell that to the network administrator who needs to run nslookup,
telnet, ipconfig, and tracert [the Windoze version of traceroute],
not to mention the plethora of "net" commands.
> Linux has saddled itself with the old way of thinking. It works fine, but
> its not the shiny clicky advanced way of doing things.
It's got it all, dude.
> Because the GUI is the best way to work for 99% of the time! It's the CLI
> that is stifling! Even with virtual consoles.
I find myself using the command line about 50% of the time. I suppose I'm
just being stupid and inefficient, though, heh heh. Anyway, I hope the
shell scripters come down hard on you for such inanity.
> Because it's better!
Another dazed follower of William H. Gates.
> As for the UI being nice and helping illiterate people, that's just plain
> bias on your part. I do a lot of GUI work and its certainly a bigger
> challenge, and a lot more usable than the old CLI prompt.
Sounds contradictory.
Chris
--
[X] Check here to always trust content from Chris
[ ] Check here if you're a dazed follower of Bill 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
******************************
