Linux-Advocacy Digest #420, Volume #33 Fri, 6 Apr 01 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Rich Teer)
Re: XP = eXPerimental ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("JS PL")
Re: Baseball (*sunbird*)
Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (cjt & trefoil)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Paul Repacholi)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Wilbert Kruithof)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (The Danimal)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Peter da Silva)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message ("WGAF")
Alphas, was Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language? (TTK Ciar)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (667 Neighbor of the
Beast)
NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (667 Neighbor of the Beast)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:14:54 GMT
On 6 Apr 2001, Chris Croughton wrote:
> Rubbish. Save the file and open it with lynx or some other browser. Or
> even attempt to read it directly, not all HTML generators are as bad as
> Word. Pipe it through an HTML stripper, or through w3m. There's plenty
> you /can/ do, you just don't bother.
Why should one have to go through such hoops to read something that shouldn't
be sent in the first place? If every one used plain text for email and
news, this wouldn't be an issue. And let's be honest, I reckon 90% of stuff
that gets sent as HTML doesn't have any formatting in anyway, so plain text
is just as good. Plain text messages are smaller, too.
--
Rich Teer
President,
Rite Online Inc.
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:21:34 GMT
:> Naw...It means eXtra Profit...
eXtra Pathetic
--
Jeff Gentry [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SEX DRUGS UNIX
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB?
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001 13:24:04 -0400
"Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 4 Apr 2001 23:57:34 -0400, "JS PL" <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
>
> >
> >I haven't seen that happening since early in the existence of IE4. IE is
now
> >built in to Windows, why does an ISP have to distribute it these days?
The
> >Alan guy was attempting to fib and got caught. He didn't buy any software
> >which included IE in the download. He got caught and has now taken the
smart
> >course of shutting the fuck up. End of story.
> >
> >The company in the link you posted is most likely breaking the law, but I
> >would have to see the EULA of the browser they are distributing to prove
it.
> >
> Wow, did I cause some ruckus. :-)
> Actually... You're almost right. I bought some software. Quicken as a
> matter of fact. Since I made it a point not to download anything from
> MS since I bought my computer in Feb of 99, it had IE-4.0
> Since Quicken seemed to require it (cant remember if I got it to work
> with Netscape or not), I figured to download the latest version of IE
> (from the Quicken CD). So my mistake was the term download which you
> assumed to mean off the net, where I meant to mean off the CD.
>
> That is the end of the story. BTW, nice job of changing the subject.
> You almost deflected the fact that you are still wrong.
Yeah right. You meant download from your CDROM drive. Excuse me...I need to
download a program from my D drive.
You don't think anyone is dumb enough to believe your "I meant download from
my cd" bullshit do you?
In case you actually DONT know the correct way to use the term "download"
here you go:
<paste>
download v : transfer a file or program from a central computer to a
smaller computer or to a computer at a remote location [ant: upload]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
</paste>
------------------------------
From: *sunbird* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:20:27 -0500
"." wrote:
> Windows isn't easy to use, it's pretty damned painful and stressful.
"windows"?
Windows NT will not do this. If your hardware is sound and drivers
are correct. "GPF" sounds like a 3.1x thing.
If it is the application only that is crashing, then that is an
application fault, not an OS fault. Many apps panic under
certain circumstances when they cannot allocate memory for
certain purposes. Very often frex a "GPF" is actually a
plain ol' stack overflow. Go figure. Programmer error. BOOM.
> To
> have excel GPF because you typed numbers into a cell, and lose your most
> recent work, is frustrating and inexplicable. Especially when you can load
> it up a second time and do exactly the same thing, but this time it wont
> crash.
stack symptoms, definitely.
> Every time I use linux, it does what I would expect it to do. THAT'S ease
> of use.
heh. linux won't even install on a computer that ran windows NT non
stop for
a year and a half (meaning the only time it was "down" was when I shut
it
down). linux has its problems as well.
pt
------------------------------
From: cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:39:56 -0500
Now that's news to me. Who does manufacture them? Can you point me to
a reference?
Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:46:24 -0500, cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > Not when they're manufactured by Intel.
>
> Considering that the really fast Alphas _aren't_ manufactured by
> Intel, it's hardly Intel's fault.
>
> --
> In the beginning was the Bit, and the Bit was Zero. Then Someone
> said, Let there be One, and there was One. And Someone blessed them,
> and Someone said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish
> the Word and subdue it: and have dominion over every thing that is.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
From: Paul Repacholi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07 Apr 2001 01:33:01 +0800
"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The tradeoffs are clear: Java's interpreter-oriented design, where
> JIT compilers are an afterthought, has fostered portability;
> dot-NET's design has put run-time performance at the top of the
> design goals. See Bertrand Meyer in "The Significance of 'dot-NET'"
> at http://www.sdmagazine.com/articles/2000/0011/0011l/0011l.htm
The trade-off, cough, that I see is dropping portability in the bin.
Re-read the above carefully...
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
------------------------------
From: Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 19:45:43 +0200
I did not write that message, Mark did. I think that "Wilbert Kruithof
wrote" comes from my first question I posted some days ago. You can read
it a few messages upwards. So read in above message of SH Mark instead
of Wilbert.
OK, that's a addition.
Kind regards,
Wilbert
P.S.
Karel: As you see; there was no reason for moving to email with your
discussion with Mark. I have posted some questions to biological
newsgroups, that's the way SH joined this discussion. :-)
--
Linux Prometheus 2.4.2 #1 Tue Mar 20 20:42:22 CET 2001 i686
Homepage: http://home.hccnet.nl/wilbert.kruithof/
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 17:55:15 GMT
"Salvador Peralta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9akl37$oel$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> WGAF quoth:
>
> > Conversely, for 35 years Unix couldn't manage to come up with a
> > usable version for the end users. Catering for small area is fine,
> > but then it should not be compared to technology aimed at the mass
> > user market. The requirements and the subsequent pricing are
> > different among other things.
>
> A very good point. By the release of KDE 2.1, Linux is finally at a
> point where it competes on basically equal terms with Windows on
> the "end user" desktop -- the caveat here is presentation software
> which is not yet up to par with power point.
The "basically equal terms" part is arguable at best. KDE still requires
more computer knowledge from the average end users, more than most of them
willing to learn when alternate OSes with less knowledge requirements are
easy to come by. Couple this with lack of quality software, support, and the
end user has no reason to change his/her desktop system at the moment.
>
> But for the IT workstation, an integrated desktop / local server
> environment, Linux far surpasses windows in terms of tco and roi. it
> requires less maintenance, the upgrade path is essentially no cost,
> and the hardware lifecycle is *much* longer for Linux simply because
> its server and database software is less greedy in
> terms of required resources.
That maybe true, however, it isn't as clear cut as you seem to suggest.
There are other factors which need to be considered when one picks an OS.
One of them is the available resources to handle such a system and the other
is the end user's knowledge base. One'd need a much wider availability of
Linux admins and users before one can even think of using Linux platform.
There has been some progress in that area, nonetheless it still can't
compete with the other OSes admin and user support base as of yet.
>
> > You says "tremendous inroads", others say hardly visible dent in the
> > OS market.
>
> I think you mean desktop market. Through last year, with no real
> major vendor support, Linux remained the #2 server OS in terms of
> licenses shipped and #1 in terms of growth. This, despite the fact
> that GNU licensing promotes building multiple copies off of a single
> disk and the distribution chain promotes installation via ftp or
> burning your own iso's.
And NT remained the #1 server OS in the market, gaining about 6%. Most of
the Linux' gains came at the expense of Unix and Novell platform and not NT.
> Now we've got Linux supported across IBM's entire mainframe and
> midrange architecture and their Global Services group actively
> promoting the OS. It is poised, if anything, to grow at an even more
> rapid rate than before.
The numbers for this years growth contradict your statement. Linux seems to
slowed down so far this year.
>
> > And the number of copies bought, tried once and thrown away aren't
> > in the statistics either. Not to mention the fact that most of the
> > statistical data for OSes gathered for US only with little or no
> > regards to other countries.
>
> Which is one of the reasons that many people feel that 1% of the end
> user market is too small. Another reason relates to the licensing
> that I just discussed. It is very hard to pin down how much linux is
> used because single copies are so often re-used, or are never even
> purchased from a vendor which sells. I now have 9 machines running
> on 2 cheapbytes copies of linux. For the record, that's 9 systems (
> soon to be 11 ) and not one single license. I would suggest that my
> experience is the norm rather than the exception for an IT
> professional who uses and installs linux.
I disagree with your norm for IT professionals. Then again, it depends which
circle one moves. I'm working with NT and that seems more like a norm now
days.
Otto
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 14:03:53 -0400
From: The Danimal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Toby A Inkster Esq wrote:
>
> In our last episode, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> :It will be rather interesting if
> :Linux becomes the defacto standard on chinese computers, and even if Linux has a
> :20% share in the Chinese OS market, that will equal 240 Million copies, thus
> :definitely putting it a serious position.
>
> That assumes every citizen of China has their own PC. I think that is
> quite an assumption.
It won't be after another 5 or 10 years, as Moore's Law continues to
pound down hardware prices. By the year 2010, a Linux-capable PC will
probably cost less than a Chinese bicycle, even if we factor in
probable software bloat.
Once the cost of the hardware gets down to giveaway levels, the cost
of the software becomes pretty much the whole system cost. That's
probably enough to motivate a lot of Chinese people to figure out
regular expressions, shell commands, and all the other Unix arcana
and incantations they will have to spend years of their lives mastering
to get their "free" software to work. (How many hours would the average
person need, starting with no prior computer knowledge, to master a
book such as O'Reilly's _Unix Power Tools_? And that's just an overview
to get you started.)
The wild card in the mix is the outside chance that someone in the
Linux community will pull his head out of his ass long enough to
address the real problem. Namely, Linux desperately needs someone
to build the killer Linux app: an expert system with a natural
language interface that can accurately simulate 95% or more of
what a (human) Unix system administrator does.* If you put that
on Linux for free, it would be goodbye Bill Gates. Even if Bill
put the same thing on Windows he'd have real trouble charging
any money for it, because the expert interface would become the
key feature, not the OS back-end.
Currently ((Linux) + (a human Linux expert)) = a great system.
Linux without any human expertise is a useless piece of garbage.
Put the expertise INTO THE SYSTEM and it will be unstoppable.
That is why Windows is winning on the desktop: it's a less-capable
system in many ways, but it embeds somewhat more expertise. Part
of that expertise is knowing which features to leave out so as to
avoid confusing lusers with them. Obviously we need to do better
than that.
*What does the administrator do? Basically, he (it's almost always a
"he") listens to the largely incoherent natural-language gibberings
of people who know nothing about computers, gradually gets to know
them and their needs, and synthesizes the Unix incantations necessary
to solve their problems.
To get an idea of what that expertise involves, go buy a few
hundred kilograms of books on Linux admistration and natural language
processing. The barest minimum first stab at the problem would be
to write a comprehensive Linux super-FAQ containing detailed case
studies and examples answering every "How do I?" question any
Linux user ever asks, or would ask if he understood what he was
trying to do. Each FAQ entry should have a canonical wording
plus entries for every known synonym or variant wording people
might use to phrase the same question.
The next step is to build a natural language interface capable
of mapping arbitrary incoherent human expressions of need into
the appropriate FAQ references. This need not happen in one step.
Even human experts have to narrow down client needs by iteratively
hypothesizing what the clients are gibbering about and then posing
questions to the clients to refine their hypotheses. If the average
human ignoramus knew how to express what he wants unambiguously
on the first attempt he'd already be able to use a computer.
Computers are generally difficult to use because computers are
generally poor at communicating their capabilities and limitations
to people, and people are poor at communicating their needs to the
computer.** Since improving people is not a viable option in the
short term, the only recourse is to improve the computer's ability
to (a) explain itself to people and (b) figure out what people want to
do.
Ideally the Linux knowledge base should be capable of automatically
mining new expertise from all the Linux newsgroups and any new
books that come out. Either this could work by having people
running their own individual expert programs that would seek
to become even more expert in given domains, or else some
central authority would supervise the expert training process
and issue certified updates.
**The fact that hardly any human can write a short 1000 word
essay with no errors of spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.
indicates that people generally suck at communicating. There
seems to be a general rule that people who make mistakes at
the low levels of syntax and semantics tend to make mistakes
at similar rates at the higher levels of pragmatics and discourse.
I.e., a person who can't spell usually can't plan or synthesize
much better.
--- the Danimal
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: 6 Apr 2001 17:59:42 GMT
In article <9ajlpm$tr8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 2 + 2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isn't the big question how Intel new McKinley chip will work with .NET's
> execution engine or Just In Time compilers? This is a kind of componentized
> assembly language (Intermediate Language) that the .NET?
Does anyone care? .NET has the same problem as ActiveX... it replaces a
security mechanism with a trust mechanism, and the two are not equivalent.
I can't imagine switching to .NET on any system containing any data I
care about.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Disclaimer: WWFD?
------------------------------
From: "WGAF" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 18:33:30 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eeped:
> > > > >so you're saying that in 1991 there was a unix system as easy to
use as
> > > > >windows is today?
> > > >
> > > > To someone who knows how to use it, Unix is easy to use. To someone
who
> > > > does not know how to use it, Windows is hard to use.
> > >
> > > But Max, I have spent my entire two years with a computer using
windows, and
> > > I have also spent five seconds watching linux boot. I know windows is
easy,
> > > because I can use it, and I am a fucking peasant. Linux is hard,
because it
> > > sometimes comes up in text mode, and I have to think about what I'm
doing.
> >
> > thus:
> >
> > desktop market share
> >
> > windows 92%
> > linux 1%
> > mac 4%
> >
> > ha haaaw!
> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
> >
> > p.s.
> >
> > server market share
> >
> > windows 41%
> > linux 27%
> > netware 17%
> > unix 14%
> > other 2%
> >
> > windows rules on servers too?!?
> > who woulda thunk it...
>
> That's because you need 15 windows servers to give you the same level
> of service as one Unix or Linux server.
>
> Hint...you need AT LEAST one NT server for your E-mail, and AT LEAST one
> NT server to run your web server, and AT LEAST on NT server for file
> serving, AT LEAST on NT server to do print serving, etc. etc. etc.,
Once again you're wrong... I'm not even going to argue how well Unix or
Linux can handle multiple services on the same server. Not to mention the
fact that it greatly depends on the underlying hardware. One of the
Microsft's product, Small Business Server, incorporates Exchange, SQL,
Proxy, web, file and print services, etc, into one server. Can you see why
your posting was wrong, or should I give you some hints?
Otto
------------------------------
From: TTK Ciar
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Alphas, was Re: Java, the "Dot-Com" Language?
Date: 6 Apr 2001 18:12:00 GMT
Once upon a time, cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:39:56 -0500
>
>Now that's news to me. Who does manufacture them? Can you point me to
>a reference?
>
>Jan Ingvoldstad wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 20:46:24 -0500, cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> Considering that the really fast Alphas _aren't_ manufactured by
>> Intel, it's hardly Intel's fault.
Samsung's been manufacturing Alphas for a long time now, qv:
http://www.usa.samsungsemi.com/about/press/archive/alpha21264.htm
This was why most of the comp.arch regulars were scratching their
heads over why everyone thought it was such a big deal that DEC sold
their (obsolete, ill-running) fab plant to Intel. It was a bit of a
white elephant, but somehow everyone got it into their heads that DEC
was selling Alpha ITSELF to Intel.
-- TTK
------------------------------
From: 667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:04:19 -0700
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Anonymous ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : desktop market share
>
> : windows 92%
> : linux 1%
> : mac 4%
>
Actually, Linux is at 2%.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You crossposted
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You suck
[ ] Other (describe)
------------------------------
From: 667 Neighbor of the Beast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:09:56 -0700
> > Anonymous wrote:
> >
> > > server market share
> > >
> > > windows 41%
> > > linux 27%
> > > netware 17%
> > > unix 14%
> > > other 2%
> > >
> > > windows rules on servers too?!?
> > > who woulda thunk it...
41% is not rules. Anyway, since Linux is is Unix, let us combine the
Unix and Linux scores. Now it reads:
Windows 41%
Unix 41%
Netware 17%
Other 2%
Let us not forget that Windows has been stagnant for 3 years. 3 years
ago, they were at 39%, now they are at 41%. And that is with the
strength of a criminal monopoly being leveraged wildly all the way.
If with that built-in guarantee, they still cannot cut it. Linux's
momentum is astounding; NT's is basically flat!
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You crossposted
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Your stupidity is astounding
[ ] You suck
[ ] Other (describe)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
