Linux-Advocacy Digest #756, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 09:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Pete Goodwin)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Andres Soolo)
Re: KDE or GNOME? ("Adam Warner")
Re: What is user friendly? (Michael Wieserner)
Re: What is user friendly? (mlw)
Re: What is user friendly? ("Nik Simpson")
Re: Largest Linux installation? ("cat cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: Linux Advocacy Starts Here ("cat cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
Re: Microsoft's .NET Vision ("Weevil")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: GPL Like patents. (Rob S. Wolfram)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:04:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> http://www.netslaves.com/comments/983976069.shtml
Fascinating...
"In 1994, I became a Linux hobbyist. My interest was not in Slackware per
se, but in a program called Persistence of Vision Ray Tracer – POVRay."
"Where it once took hours to render, it now took. . . half hours. Long
half hours. Many of them. All in a row. The sucker rendered, and with the
power of xv, I could see it, too! Enrapture! Wonder! O frabjous day!
Callooh! Callay!"
Really?
On Linux POVray runs TWICE as fast?
Is that TRUE?
Did I not recently try this out, and what did I find? That POVray runs at
about the SAME speed on Linux as it does on Windows on the SAME hardware!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:12:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> Sure, you sacrifice some consistency. But, I like to think of multiple
> toolkits and GUI's on Linux as more of artistic freedom. I think that there
> are enough unix apps around that, if you don't like a particular app's GUI,
> you can also choose from a similar app linked to a different toolkit.
> Besides, no matter which toolkit you use, the standard X cuting and pasting
> mechanism of left-click highlight/middle-click paste *always* works. So,
> what's the problem?
Which toolkit should you pick? Gtk? Qt? KDE? GNOME?... and all the rest.
If you create a GUI application, can you be sure everyone out there will
have all the libraries installed for the toolkit you chose?
> All this talk about consistency is bogus. People who complain about
> consistency are merely looking for a Windows replacement. If X had a fixed
> API like Win32, people would be complaining about it being so inflexible.
> Painters don't like to be told which types of paint/convass to use, so as
> programmers, I like the idea of picking and choosing which toolkit I want to
> use.
So for one application you would choose Gtk, for another Qt? You really
have that much time to waste do you?
> I get kind of tired about people in here who whine that Linux's weakness is
> its lack of a consistent GUI, and that you can't edit an image with unix
> command-line tools.
We went through all this before. I find it irritating that Netscape has
one file save dialog that forgets the filename when you change directory,
GNOME apps have yet another one, and KDE apps have yet anther one!
What is this, the Yet-Another-GUI-Toolkit platform?
> I think that people who complain about Linux's lack of GUI to do everything
> and anything should just use a GUI-based OS, such as BeOS, Windows, or MacOS,
> or just shut up.
I do use Windows but I may find I cannot use it for a number of reasons.
I am looking to see if Linux is an alternative. It's nearly there, but if
everyone's reaction to my criticisms are like yours, it'll stagnate where
it is.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:13:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I like to think of multiple toolkits within the X series as a simple
> way to keep from throwing up at home.
>
> They have to keep a pan under me at work.
>
> Windows mono-blather is extremely sickly. Especially when
> combined with corporate-blather policy.
Then why are you still in a job working on Windows Charlie?
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:17:43 GMT
In article <97t6f3$psc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> You haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to anything I have said.
Look who's talking!
> Every app needs a printer driver so that is can generate a file that can
> be printed.
I agree.
However, The Gimp appears to provide it's own.
WHY?
> To save everyone writing every printer driver, everyone uses a standard
> print language that is interprteted by a central driver mechanism
> (although apps are free to use their own individual drivers if they wish*).
Then why is everyone trying to convince me having the "choice" of apps
supplying their own drivers is a "good thing"?
> Print from GIMP to a file using the default driver. What do you get?
In my case, I got text. Postscript as text.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:24:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Oh shure it is. Anybody who uses a modern X environment with
> either KDE or Gnome then uses W2k and comes away with the
> impression W2k is superior has worms for brains.
You're kidding right?
You have actually tried KDE haven't you?
It's a young product.
It's got so many bugs in it I could drive a bus through them.
If you want to lose all your fonts, set your region to anything other
than US. Then watch all your fonts slip to a courier style. This was true
on KDE 2.0. I've only recently installed KDE 2.1 (it blew big time on
Linux Mandrake) on SuSE 7.1. I've not tried this yet.
Of course Windows 2000 is superior to KDE!
> You might as well attempt to nurse your young on YOUR NIPPLES
> as use Windows in a business environment.
Then why are you still using it Charlie? Wassamatta? Not got the guts to
leave your support job on Windows NT that you spoke about before and get
a job on your nirvana, Linux?
> It's still the bluescreening, buggy, license ridden shit
> it always has been since day 1.
Same question Charlie, why are you still in that job?
Could it be because it PAYS better than anything you could find with
Linux?
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:27:45 GMT
In article <986gu8$bl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> So the first time you saw a thermometer as a kid, you figured it out with
> no ouside help. I'm not sure I believe you.
Oh look a glass tube with markings on it. What's this funny bulb at the
end. Oh look as I touch it the marker goes up slowly.
Hardly cryptic is it?
Now let me see.
'cat'
Wassat? A kitty?
If I type 'cat' what happens.
Nothing.
Ho hum.
If I go look it up (which I didn't do with the thermometer) it tells me
it 'concatenates' files. That's a fancy way of saying 'copy', isn't it.
> > "something not easily seen" is what I'm referring to.
>
> Once you have learnt it, how can it be not easily seen?
It's still not easily seen after learning it, surely!
> > Unfortunately, technically excellent things are rarely successful.
>
> A fine explanation for the success of Windows.
Sad but true.
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:28:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >But they exist in small numbers for a specialist market. Sounds like
> >Linux!
>
> And Ferrari, and HP pocket calculators with RPN, and Rolex, and Ping
> golf clubs, and ... Are all of these companies/technologies
> "failures"
You said "failures", not me. I said "specialist market".
--
Pete
All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 11 Mar 2001 10:50:18 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Linux" will not be seen by many as just a kernel and little else. It
> will be seen as Mandrake, or SuSE etc. The reason why? Well, The Gimp et
> al came with Linux, therefore it's one amorphous mass.
What has the "public perception" to do with the code quality?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hailing frequencies open, Captain.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:08:44 GMT
In article <DIUn6.53473$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Martigan"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have used both, but for me Gnome seems better, Well haven't tried KDE
> 2.1 yet but what does every one else think? Why is one better than the
> other? I'm not looking for Windows similarity!
Having just tried out KDE 2.1 it is extremely polished and beautiful. I
had to install KDE 2.x to try out quanta+ which looks to be a very
impressive rapid development HTML editor (BTW it's not WYSIWYG).
All I can say is that KDE is a more beautiful Windows than Windows. I've
only been using it for a few minutes and I already love the multiple
terminal selector, the fuzzy clock and the cool pop-up calendar.
I'm looking forward to GNOME 1.4 coming out of beta as well.
By the way the Konqueror start page is just amazing. Some of the best
graphic design I've seen.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Michael Wieserner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 11:50:23 GMT
Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>no, personal experience.
>a generally impassable learning curve = user hostile.
>i was using windows to get work done ten minutes after installation.
>u can't touch this
Liar! The last Linux distribution i installed was RedHat 7.0. I installed
it in 45 minutes and after that i had only few things to configure and 15
minutes took me for a kernel recompile and configuration. In contrast,
Windows installation takes me 30 minutes every time. Then, i need to boost
system performance and do some other configurations and install some
security patches, ... ! Then, i install only the necessary programs i work
with. All that takes at least another hour before i can work.
>> Not only that, but Unix is very very very consistant; in contrast, DOS
>> and Windows both have lots of arbitrary rules with even more
>> exceptions.
>
>why, if that is the case, are they so much easier to use?
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
imho they aren't. if you learned how to use an OS there are almost no
difficulties in daily work. But Unix/Linux gives you far more control about
your system.
mw
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:49:35 -0500
Anonymous wrote:
[snipped]
So really, what "IS" user friendly?
Just about everyone on these forums will have probably had a whack at
installing whatever OS they choose at one time or another.
Is the installation process something which we should count as user friendly?
I don't think so, because most computer users will NEVER install an OS. When
something goes wrong, they call someone else, who knows this stuff.
Installation "ease" also has a lot to do with the configuration of your
machine. Just about every OS these days will install very easily if you have
top of the shelf supported peripherals.
In my experience, Linux installs much easier than any OS out there, provided
you have well supported hardware.
Windows is a slow laborious process requiring many reboots, even when you have
supported hardware.
The real issue of installation is when you have unsupported hardware. With
Linux you can get around it, as with the *BSDs, NT/2K, and DOSWindows one
sometimes has to remove peripheral cards in order to let the enumerator to
finish finding the cards in the system.
How about this: Try switching the places of your network card and sound cards
on the PCI bus. There is no way to tell Windows to use the same network card in
a different slot, you'll have to reinstall all your networking stuff, and
remove it for the previous slot.
Even though I hate Windows installation (NT/2K/DOS), we shouldn't consider the
installation process as a usability issue because most people never see it, and
that is a fact.
For a real usability argument, we should set up two machines, one Windows (2k
or DOS) and one Linux.
Linux:
KDE
Star Office
Netscape (With all the normal plugins)
gimp
Windows:
MS-Office
IE (With all normal plugings)
PaintShopPro
You are an office user. You are not a web developer nor are you a software
developer. You are a secretary, account executive, or even HR.
Lets start the discussion with: Why would the Windows box be any more capable
than the Linux box, and how would it be any easier than the Linux box?
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Nik Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 07:55:18 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >xwindows?
> >nerdo please...
> >
>
> Xwindows has had such a powerful affect on Microsoft they
> are trying to emulate it with their BRAND NEW XBOX product.
>
I've always thought Charlie was a little whacked, but this one takes the
cake. Charlie please go and do some research on XBOX then come back and tell
us how the XBOX (here's a clue it's a game console with no relation to X
beyond the ability paint pixels on a display) tries to emulate Xwindows.
--
Nik Simpson
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Largest Linux installation?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:24:56 -0500
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Royal Dutch Shell,
> NASA,
> Fermi Labs,
> Lawrence Livermore Labs,
> Genome Project,
> DeutcheBank.
>
> Most of these organizations have a number of Linux systems including
> servers and workstations,
> I don't know of anyone who has successfully eliminated Windows 9x/NT/2K
> completely.
Apparently not, as the information in your header indicates.
[X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)]
Don't know 'bout you, but if I'm trying to sell Chevy, I'd durn well better
drive a Chevy.
------------------------------
From: "cat < nonsense > cola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy Starts Here
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:29:35 -0500
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:IvFq6.4221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So you have decided to install Linux huh? Good choice.
> www.psycholinux.com
Yes, I see that you're an exemplary Linux advocate by your page's title.
<TITLE>psycholinux.com | Fuck Windows!</TITLE>
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's .NET Vision
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:26:36 GMT
Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> By the way, I've just realised that the current loophole in Microsoft's
> product activation--where product keys for large organisations don't
> require the product to be activated, and those keys may leak out--should
> be able to be phased out by Microsoft when the .NET infrastructure is in
> place (since intellectual property protection is at the heart of
> Microsoft's .NET vision, a .NET-aware OS should be capable of seemlessly
> notifying a company's .NET license database when a new OS has been
> installed, and generating its own product key using particular hardware
> characteristics).
>
> Regards,
> Adam
The real motivation behind Microsoft's ".NET vision" is the growing fear
that the PC market is approaching saturation. At the very least its growth
curve is flattening, and this means Microsoft will no longer be able to
depend on sales of more and more PCs to continue growing the corporation.
They'll need another source of revenue.
That's where the .NET vision comes from. If they can't keep getting new
customers, they'll have to keep getting money from their existing customers.
This is the one and only reason .NET exists (even as an idea). It's like
someone in Microsoft went, "Hey, we just got a couple of hundred bucks from
Joe User for Windows The Latest, and that's great. But he's got more money
in his wallet, AND he's getting ANOTHER paycheck next week! Why can't we
have some of that, too?"
Thus, .NET was born.
--
- Weevil
================================================================
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough [for breaking encryption schemes]
would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers."
-- Bill Gates, The Road Ahead (pg 265), 1995
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 08:51:47 -0500
On 11 Mar 2001, Stuart Krivis wrote:
> Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
> T. Maxine Devlin:
>> enjoy his freedom. Had society insisted that all software be GPL since
>> before TCP was developed, the Internet would work just fine, save a
>> re-arrangement in the specifics of the business model used by the
>> earliest developers. Claims that the modern world wouldn't exist but
>> for BSD sound rather like Mr. Ballard's routine claims that the Internet
> I feel that TCP/IP would not have been used as widely if it had been
> under a more restrictive license. One could argue that it was the
> widespread use of BSD software that made the Internet possible.
TMax doesn't like to believe this, Mr Krivis. Indeed, TMax is under the
impression that the Kerberos problem[1] was a code-availability problem and
not a specification problem. He also believes that software development is
easy, no matter that he's never done anything like that.
-f
[1] IMO, yes, it was a problem.
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: 11 Mar 2001 10:05:10 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <98ajo2$4qg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> There is very little difference.
>
>Except Windows gets it right and as usual Linux doesn't.
Pete, do us all a favor and don't use Linux. It clearly is not ready for
people with your mindset. Currently, Linux is about *choice*, and
anything that limits choice is considered a Bad Thing(tm).
Maybe in a few years there will be a Linux distro that will remove all
options and present you with one unified everyting, then I'll be the
first one to recommend it to you. Currently, Linux is not a free
Windows. I hope and I expect it never becomes that.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
"... being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more
than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer."
-- Eric S. Raymond
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 11 Mar 2001 10:26:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>> Make it a separate library, and everything should be OK. If you want to
>> INCORPORATE readline into your code, well, then you are in violation.
>
>What is your opinion on the case where you have some code that can detect
>whether the library is available and use it if so, but otherwise use an
>alternative (much simpler) mechanism?
#include IANAL.h
Nice example. Since the GPL only discusses how you *distribute* code,
not how you use it, I'd say that would depend on the distribution.
If non-free program A can be linked against either non-free library B or
GPLed library C, then distributing A alone or in combination with B
would not constitute a GPL violation, even if the end user uses C
instead. Distributing it with C would mean that the intension is for it
to be used with C and that would violate the GPL.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
... then you wish to copulate?
-- Seven of Nine, stardate 51186.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Re: GPL Like patents.
Date: 11 Mar 2001 13:52:25 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Les Mikesell wrote:
>> What RMS or even the GPL itself says in regard to what is a derivative
>> is pretty much irrelevant. This must be defined by copyright law itself,
>> since the GPL puts no restrictions on use,
>
>Oh, but there's a catch there. The GPL SAYS it puts no restrictions to use.
>Ask RMS about "user-does-the-linking", and he will come up with something
>that looks suspiciously similar to a restriction in use:
>
>I asked RMS if a program developed to use the intergace of GDBM (GPLd
>library) and compiled against a binary compatible do-nothing library would
>be legal.
>
>Consider that in this case I, the developer, don't even need to own a copy
>of the GDBM lib. Since I have never licensed it under the GPL, I can NOT
>violate the GPL :-)
>
>However, he told me that when the user receives the binary of my program
>and installs it on his system, and then the system links it to the GDBM
>library, there is a violation of the GPL.
The GPL talks about distributing code. If you would distribute your
binary with your BCDN library, then (legally) you intend it to be used
with that library and even if RMS would dance tango with the devil it
would still not be a violation of the GPL whether the user links against
a GPL library or not.
If, however, your BCDN library is just a stub during compile time, and
you distribute a factually incomplete binary with the sole purpose of
being linked against a GPL library (because that's the only binary
compatible library "in the wild") then I'd say there's no legal
difference with distributing it along with the GPLed library, so yes,
I'd say that it would constitute a violation of the GPL.
So the factual solution is to also publish the stub and tell people that
they can link against either library (however I'd say this is already a
gray area, because the two linked versions do not have the same
functionality).
>I was honestly sick of the argument so I didn't push it further, but since
>the developer never licensed GDBM, the GPL violator must be the user. Since
>the user is not making copies, distributing, etc, he must be violating it
>by use, which the GPL specifically says he can't do.
I'd say that if a developer distributes code that can *only* be linked
against the GDBM, she has legally licensed the GDBM. But that's just
MHO. The view of a judge would be extremelly welcome here.
Where exactly does one start to violate the GPL in your opinion given
non-free (FSF-wise) binary A and GPLed library B that A links against:
a. distributing A without B
b. distributing A and B on physically separate media
c. distributing A and B as separate binaries on the same media
d. distributing separate A.o and B.a and a script to statically link the
code of B.a in A's excuable
e. distributing A with B statically linked
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
OHNOSECOND(n): Time between pressing Enter and realizing you did
something terribly and irrevocably wrong.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
