Linux-Advocacy Digest #760, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Mar 01 16:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone? ("GreyCloud")
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation ("GreyCloud")
Re: Linux Advocacy Starts Here (Michael Vester)
Re: Linux growth underscores threat to Microsoft ("GreyCloud")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. (Andres Soolo)
Re: There is money in Linux (J Sloan)
Re: What does IQ measure? (Arthur Frain)
Re: No problem with multiple GUI's (Karel Jansens)
Re: There is money in Linux (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Date: 11 Mar 2001 20:08:37 GMT
Some of us use, like, and advocate Linux in spite of being neither
young nor thin. :)
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Why is is that everytime the subject of Linux comes up in an
: office, about 25 middle aged fat asses fly into the conversation
: to profess the advocacy of using Windows powered boxes.
: Windows boxes are so easy to install. I tried to install Linux
: and it was SOO DIFFICULT! Every PC crashes, so why pick the OS
: which is hardest to install! Oh my!
: They are so concerned about install and setup they forgot the
: REASON this BECAME IMPORTANT! It BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE,,,,
: MIDDDLE AGGGED FATTTASS MAN ARE YOU LISTENING TO ME HERE,,,,
: IT BECAME IMPORTANT BECAUSE WINDOWS IS AN UNRELIABLE PEICE
: OF SHIT OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH ISN'T CAPABLE OF UPTIMES EXCEEDING
: A WEEK! IT'S THE FUCKING OPERATING SYSTEM WHICH HAS MADE THIS
: RE-INSTALLATION ISSUE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO YOU!
: The next concern MIDDLE AGED FAT ASS MAN has is that Linux
: doesn't have Microsoft Office. MAFAM can't use a computer unless
: it has his favorite! MAFAM, use Star Office or Gnome or KDE office.
: Use Evolution! Do not rely on MAFAM products from Micro-crash anymore.
: There must be a device which uses centrifical force or some other means
: which will transfer MAFAM's brain from this lower extremeties back
: up to his cranium where it belongs.
: MAFAM also has this terrible difficulty in understanding why it's important
: to know LINUX is ready for business when you refer to the largest
: super computer clusters being built from Linux. MAFAM thinks that's
: GEEK BRAINS STUFF and that doesn't APPLY TO MAFAM WORLD!
: Nothing in MAFAM's world needs to have GEEK BRAINS stuff as long as
: you have a GOOD PLAN!
: MAFAM lives by the GOOD PLAN philosophy.
: See you all on the wide track MAFAM'S!
: Charlie
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Linux MUST DO! - Comments anyone?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:18:40 -0800
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QXLq6.33479$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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
>
> Never tried POVray, and in any case, if the Linux and Windows versions are
> not built from the same source, it's a meaningless comparison.
>
> What I *have* tried is a relatively simple chess program called TSCP
(Tom's
> Simple Chess Program, by Tom Kerrigan). It's written pretty much in ANSI
C
> and will probably compile as is for almost any platform. There is no
> graphical interface: you type in your moves. It was written as a sort of
> teaching tool for hobbyists who are interested in writing their own chess
> software.
>
> As is, it reports no statistics. But it's easy to add a few lines of code
> to track nodes per second. I did this and compiled it under Linux using
gcc
> and under Win98 using Visual C++ 4.0 (the only version I have). My
version
> of VC doesn't do much in the way of optimization, so I tried turning on
and
> off all sorts of different optimization options for gcc.
>
> I could find no way of compiling the Linux version that would get TSCP to
> run slower than about twice as fast as the Windows version. Optimizing it
> on Linux got it going around 4 times as fast.
>
> If you have a better version of VC, try it yourself. I'd be very
interested
> to see the results.
>
> --
> - Weevil
>
What edition of VC++?? M$ made 6.0 standard edition just educational only.
The pro version
has the optimizations in it. But gcc does optimizing much better.. The big
problem is the ms libs vs gcc's libs.
So its hard to compare. gcc has better handling of inheritance and
polymorphism than m$ C++... if you make your own base class... create two
classes from your base class and then create a third class that needs stuff
from both of the above classes vc++ chokes! Their C part tho works very
reliably when NISTL was still doing
C certifications and then they stopped back in Dec. 1998. That was the only
thing ms done right was to get their C compiler certified. Their C++
compiler is still buggy in places. Not much one can do on that part. Just
have to do a lot of work arounds. I've finally ditched M$ products and I'm
now converting into the Gnu gcc camp.
Seems like everytime I buy an upgrade for $150 in six months they turn
around and bug you to upgrade again.
So I quite that spiral.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "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
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:27:16 -0800
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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?
>
Uh... win2000 has over 64,000 bugs in it! Its been published by microsoft
themselves and also Sun
microsystems. Try CDE on Solaris 8. It allows you to try OpenLook, CDE, or
Gnome.
> --
> Pete
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy Starts Here
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 13:14:32 -0700
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>
> So you have decided to install Linux huh? Good choice.
> www.psycholinux.com
You forgot to put "#" in front of your " "'s.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth underscores threat to Microsoft
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:43:16 -0800
Hi Rex. That pretty much seems to sum up what is currently going on today.
I didn't know much about the transmeta chip and would like to hear more.
"Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> 2 + 2 wrote:
> >
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4979275.html
> > >
> > >"Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has acknowledged that
> > >Linux has become its No. 1 threat, and
> > >the IDC numbers underscore that position.
> > >Although the figures show that Windows shipments
> > >increased 20 percent, Linux outpaced it with a 24
> > >percent increase."
>
> There are two key elements here. First, Microsoft's claim that
> they must maintain their monopoly to provide a stable and consistent
> platform for computers loses it's merit. The UNIX platform is very
> diverse, not a monopoly, and is supported by a wide variety of makers
> in a very competitive environment. In fact, Microsoft has become a
> minority
> player in the competitve market. The IDC market surveys cover units
> shipped
> and servers. This means that each E10K and each S-80 are counted as 1
> server
> even though each is 100 times more powerful than the largest NT server.
> There
> are a few 8 processor SMP machines, but they are distinctly the
> minority.
>
> > >What's weird about it is that, with Windows at
> > >41%, and Linux at 27%, 68% of the server market is
> > >running on PC OS's (more if you count Netware).
>
> It's more likely that about 55% are running on PC hardware. Linux
> also runs on Alpha chips, Power PC chips, and strongARM chips.
> Still, the Pentium and Athalon chips are very respectable chips
> and Linux has very effectively shown that it is the Microsoft OS
> that makes Intel platforms so unreliable, not the processors and
> motherboards themselves.
>
> Still, a G4 chip running at 500 MHz tends to perform more like a Pentium
> 3 at
> 1 GHz. Most RISC chips have optimizations to accellerate performance in
> UNIX
> environments which include faster frames for C function calls, fast
> context
> switches for multitasking (as opposed to multithreading). At one time
> the
> 680x0 chips were the rivals of the 386 and 486, and even the early
> pentiums,
> but the CISC architecture was dropped in favor of RISC based Power PC,
> SPArC, and MIPS chips. Ironically, because there was so much latency in
> the Windows operating systems, companies like Sun decided to emulate the
> Intel chip in software. The Transmeta chip uses "emulation in firmware"
> to provide Intel functionality while providing very fast performance
> when running in RISC mode. Unfortunately, their stated goal of keeping
> power consumption down hasn't met expectations yet. On the other hand,
> the transmeta chip's optimal power savings occurrs when running in Linux
> mode rather than in Windows mode. A Transmeta based Linux laptop could
> be a severe threat to the Windows/Pentium laptop.
>
> > >I guess it's a tribute to PC hardware makers and
> > >network technology.
>
> Very much so. Ironically, it was Microsoft who tried keep innovations
> out of the market. When Intel implemented an MMU to support DR-DOS
> and UNIX on the 80286 chip, a bug in the mask was left uncorrected
> to protect MS-DOS from competition from multitasking multiuser systems.
> I suppose only Andy Grove knows whether or not Microsoft had a more
> direct
> role in this mask error.
>
> > This is an interesting point.
> >
> > The "PC" server market has no doubt attracted a broader spectrum of
hardware
> > makers, since the pre-PC invasion hardware makers have seen the
handwriting
> > on the wall--compete or die!
>
> What makes this more interesting is that we now have the ability to put
> the full
> power of UNIX servers into laptops and low-cost desktop machines. This
> means that
> instead of being required to do UNIX development at the physical site,
> most of
> the development can be done on a laptop or PC.
>
> For many years, this was a unique feature of Windows. Many managers
> even tried
> to use Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 as servers because they could develop
> software
> on their workstations. It wasn't until laptops got powerful enough to
> run a full
> featured Linux system that UNIX developers had this option.
>
> Many OEMs sell laptops and desktop machines with Windows pre-installed,
> but
> when you are programming for a UNIX server, one of the first things you
> do
> is add Linux to the machine. I still run in dual-boot mode because
> there
> are certain utilities that are not yet fully functional under Linux, but
> I look forward to the day when I don't have to boot Windows.
>
> > Also, the server market even within the Linux/Windows segment has a lot
of
> > price differentiation. USB also has attracted a broader range of
suppliers.
>
> Very true. Since the royalties are much lower for Linux, it's easy to
> get
> more powerful hardware such as SCSI-II and more memory - you just get
> more
> bang for the buck. With a Windows server, you can pay a few thousand
> for the
> servers, and still get hit with another $40,000 in licenses for the
> unlimited
> user license edition. If you want reliability, you need 2 servers and
> $60,000
> in Microsoft royalties.
>
> > Finally, clustering has meant that low priced hardware components can be
> > used.
>
> Keep in mind also that Linux clusters have much lower royalties than the
> equivalent Windows royalties. Can you imagine a cluster such as
> Google's
> 1024 server cluster, with each CPU costing an additional $10,000, $10
> million. Keep in mind that Microsoft is eyeballing nearly 10 million
> servers
> with the potential for $10 billion in new revenue - without doing
> anything
> more that a little corporate arm-twisting.
>
> Perhaps back in the mid-1990's, when IT money was spent frivolously on
> anything
> Microsoft, because there were no widely accepted competitors. This was
> back when
> Microsoft was telling McGraw-Hill to either stop publishing pro-UNIX
> content in
> Byte Magazine or forfeit advertizing in all of their other 179
> publications, including
> the Co-op advertizing from the OEMs (which Microsoft held the placement
> control rights).
>
> While Microsoft floundered in delayed an unsuccessful releases of
> Windows 3.11, Windows NT 3.51, and NT 4.0 (pre SP-3), UNIX quietly
> created it's own communication channels. Today,
> most CIOs and CTOs depend more on usenet for reliable information than
> they depend on
> Microsoft controlled media. CEOs and CFOs, who are much more budget
> concious, are looking very carefully at Linux and UNIX.
>
> > The effect of convergence will even be greater with Intel's McKinley
chip.
>
> Add to McKinley the ability of Linux 2.4 to support 64 Gig of memory,
> 16,000 terabytes of
> memory, and up to 1 million processes, in addition to very powerful
> peer-to-peer (Beowulf)
> clusters. The numbers should be quite spectacular.
>
> Linux already supports 64 bit processors such as the Alpha, PPC, and
> UltraSparc, and
> is already poised to support Merced whenever Intel finally gets
> production silicon
> running (how much of this delay is Microsoft driven?).
>
> > 2 + 2
> > >
> > >Chris
>
> --
> Rex Ballard
> It Architect
> http://www.open4success.com
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: 11 Mar 2001 20:53:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And to the Linux lunatics. There is such a thing which grownups use,
>> called "tools".
> Yes, all Linux programmers are children. Or, you are a dumbass who
> can't have a discussion without insulting.
Someone once said a childlike unbounded creativity is a hacker's
most important asset. :-)
> have to know the most efficient way to code things, *especially* if you
> are using a high-level language. You can't know what's efficient unless
> you have some understanding of how your tools work under the hood.
You mean there's no way to project the best way through a town
if you don't know that your car isn't too good at driving through
buildings?
How come the people who "just want to get on with their lives" can
get the concept of streets and find the concept of directory tree
too difficult?
But the true point is, wtf are the winvocates praising *stupidity* for?
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paralysis through analysis.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 20:54:57 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > I'm not going to bother quoting stock prices or revenues for corporate
> > distribution makers bacause I couldn't be bothered.
>
> The stocks on Linux, they go up, they go down. It's difficult to make
> money on something that basically is given away.
So, is that why Sun stock took a dive, because they are
now "giving away" Solaris?
I think the thing that has you confused is that Linux companies
are not "giving away" tech support, consulting, and custom
engineering services, and they are not "giving away" Linux
systems, as I can assure you after looking at the latest quote
from the vendor. Perhaps you were given some bogus info, but
you should have been able to figure that much out.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What does IQ measure?
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 12:56:53 -0800
Brock Hannibal wrote:
> Arthur Frain wrote:
> > Brock Hannibal wrote:
> > > That would sort of be like saying F=ma is not true
> > > because you've redefined a to be something other
> > > than acceleration.
> > Well, the fact is F=ma isn't true if dm/dt != 0 [1].
> > The assumptions you're making about IQ are in the same
> > league as assuming that dm/dt can always be ignored,
> > when in the Real World (tm) it can't be (rockets burning
> > fuel or space debris hitting the atmosphere for example).
> That's dodging the analogy you stupid fucking idiot.
Nah, it's just demonstrating the analogy is flawed.
> If you redefine any term in an equation the equation loses
> validity as you take great lengths to show later.
But I'm not redefining terms - dp/dt is *the* definition
of F. F = ma is a special case of that, where someone has
assumed/defined dm/dt = 0.
> If you redefine mass as a changing amount instead of a
> constant F=ma does not apply. My analogy works with that
> too, you arrogant twit.
If your analogy works, then you really are arguing about nothing.
> I think you are very confused. At any instant in time F=ma always
> holds.
Nope - F = ma only holds if dm/dt = 0 and dv/dt != 0 - if velocity
isn't changing there is no 'a', but there could be an F due to
dm. The math is pretty simple. Bonus points for examples - I can
think of at least two.
[A]
> Of course if the mass is changing over time because of boil
> off or fuel consumption you have to take that into account.
My point exactly. Thank you.
> > > It makes a pretty good case though. When you want to know whether X
> > > and Y are related, a high correlation is good evidence.
> > Jeez - Hume pretty much settled this in what - the 18th
> > century? Catch up, please. Relation is not causation, and
> > correlation isn't even necessarily relation in any
> > meaningful sense. You can correlate the DJIA with
> > sunspots - doesn't mean there's any relation or causation
> > between the two (it's as likely that the DJIA causes
> > sunspot activity as the other way around unless you know
> > something specific about causality, which no theory of IQ
> > I've ever seen establishes).
>
> You in your jerklike out of context way snipped this statement by
> Steve Madding:
> > > > You can argue correlations all you want.
> > > > Showing correlations is insufficient to prove your point.
> To which I responded with a reasonable statement that:
> > > It makes a pretty good case though. When you want to know whether X
> > > and Y are related, a high correlation is good evidence.
> I never said it "proved " anything, just that it is good evidence
But it's not good evidence of anything unless you have some
model of causation, and you don't have that. I fail to see
how that's out of context - not very convenient for what you're
claiming, but not out of context.
> > Secondly, "high" is not a number, and it certainly isn't
> > 1.0, meaning that in the best of all worlds for IQ
> > proponents there are other factors that need to be
> > considered. The truth is probably much worse than
> > that, since by "high" IQ proponents often mean > 0.
> No they mean >> 0. Like 0.4 or better. You obviously have very
> little understanding of statistics. It sounds like your
> understanding is limited to H.S. physics.
But it's easy to find things that correlate to much better
than .4 - say population over time and the decay of C-14
over time. Doesn't mean there's any connection whatsoever
(except the passage of time), and it's "evidence" of nothing.
Maybe I'm not an expert in stats, but a .4 correlation
coefficient doesn't seem very impressive to me. Wouldn't
impress a physicist, I'm sure.
> > [1] People with reasonable IQ's recall from HS physics
> > that F=dp/dt, where p=mv is momentum, so F= m*dv/dt + v*dm/dt.
> > OTOH, people who make superficial, imprecise arguments
> > only remember that F=ma, and forget that's a special case
> > (Newton's Law of Usenet Debate)
> It's only a special case in unrealizable, for the most part,
> conditions.
Hardly unrealizable - I gave two fairly common examples.
But you're contradicting your statement at [A] above
where you agreed with those examples.
> You are arguing against the statement that the vector
> equation F=ma is untrue?
Yep, because it is untrue in some cases, while F = dp/dt
is always true in the Newtonian world (by definition -
F *is* dp/dt - AFAIK there is no other definition, but
I might be wrong on that).
> No I don't think so. It too loses validity
> at near light speed, another condition that's unrealizable in your
> Real World, dumbfuck.
Gee, that must be why Newtonian mechanics is so successful
at describing atomic level kinetics. Oh, sorry, nuclear
physics must not be part of the Real World (tm).
> That still is only proof of the analogy that I made. Thank you for
> providing additional backup for my argument that if you redefine the
> conditions or the elements of an equation you have a different
> equation.
Hey - no problem. Always happy to be of service.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No problem with multiple GUI's
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 17:10:18 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> 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?
>
If I were to write a non-commercial GUI application, I might include a
readme file that told any prospective user what libraries (s)he had to
have installed. Other than that I really couldn't care less.
If I were to write a commercial GUI based application, I'd make sure the
installer checks for the necessary libraries and installed them if
needed.
Spot the difference.
> > 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?
>
If he has, what's it to 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?
>
If the dialogs are more important to you than the application, get
consistent applications. If you can't find any, pay someone to write
them. If you don't have the money, learn to program and write one
yourself.
> > 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.
>
You don't seem to get the point that your "criticisms" are diametrically
opposed to what the people who develop for/in linux consider as its
important features. And you are not important enough to make a dent in
their opinions.
So you're pissed off with Windows; it crashes too much; the figgin'
companies charge too much for software. But hey! there's this neat thing
called linux; I better try that one out. And then you find out this
linux thing is not the same as Windows, and you start bitching about it,
hiding yourself behind the facade of "linux has to become more
user-friendly if it hopes to succeed".
Guess what, Pete? Linux already _is_ successful, but for you
"succcessful" only means "it does what little Pete wants it to do".
Leave it or live with it, Pete. Those are the only options you've got,
because nobody is listening to your whining.
--
Regards (sort of),
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is money in Linux
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 10:05:00 +1300
I'll give you MY experience, I went into my local book store, "London
Books" (kinda ironic being in New Zealand), well, anyway, the number
of Linux books are around the same number as Windows books, however,
there are more Windows books, as they cater for the complete moron all
the way to [insert highest level], compared to Linux which tends to have
fewer books, but, most of them cover from the complete moron all the way
up to the Linux Guru in one book, instead of having the information
spread over several books. The most dominant section of computers
books, is the programming area, which has alot of books ranging from C++
all the way to Fortran and COBOL. Hence, the number of books doesn't
really show the full picture of what is happening on the Linux vs.
Windows front.
Matthew Gardiner
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > I'm not going to bother quoting stock prices or revenues for corporate
> > distribution makers bacause I couldn't be bothered.
>
> The stocks on Linux, they go up, they go down. It's difficult to make
> money on something that basically is given away.
>
> > Just go in to any book shop with a computer section.
>
> And count the number of Windows books, or Java, or HTML or... pick the
> favourite fad.
>
> > I went in to Blackwell's the other day. The Linux section is getting
> > quite big.
>
> In proportion to what?
>
> > Well, looks like someone is making plenty of money otu of Linux.
>
> Someone was making money out of Dot COM's until the bubble burst.
>
> Are you investing in Linux companies?
>
> --
> Pete
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 16:07:25 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Middle Aged Fat Asses
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Why is is that everytime the subject of Linux comes up in an
> office, about 25 middle aged fat asses fly into the conversation
> to profess the advocacy of using Windows powered boxes.
Had I been a king from the middle ages, I'd have people sent to the rack
for advocating Windows. Or, maybe I could have them hung upside-down in
the dungeon. 8-)
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
