Linux-Advocacy Digest #433, Volume #33 Sat, 7 Apr 01 13:13:02 EDT
Contents:
TeX pdf output was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Steve
Bellenot)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Goldhammer)
Re: Hey, JS PL was Re: Microsoft abandoning USB? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (Wodger)
Re: XP = eXPerimental ("Ermine Todd III")
Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a (Martin Eden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Bellenot)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: TeX pdf output was Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: 7 Apr 2001 15:06:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Richard L. Hamilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Agree preferring some of the old to some of the new. But I really _hate_
>the cruddy, almost unreadable fonts one typically sees in TeX generated
>PostScript. They don't look quite so bad on paper, but at mere screen
>resolutions, they're dreadful.
Indeed they can be, but they don't have to be. Here are a couple of
easy fixes:
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot/web/pdf.html
--
http://www.math.fsu.edu/~bellenot
bellenot <At/> math.fsu.edu
+1.850.644.7189 (4053fax)
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 08:25:24 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WGAF quoth:
> In some respect you're right, KDE can lock up as much as Windows :).
I've never that happen in v2.1. I have application crashes, and
application lockups ( so far, only knode in v2.1 ), but that is a
simple PS -A, kill PID. Or XKill.
> However, I disagree with
> your conclusion about the better integration with applications.
I said better integration between the browser and applications. Can
you specify that you want to use an image editor to open images in
IE? Can you select what application you'd like to use to view
source? Can you specify what mail client you'd like to use? Which
news client? How much configuration can you do on your key bindings?
Can you open zipped and gzipped files without uncompressing them?
Can you set HTTP user agent?
> One
> can't even copy/paste between application.
Simply untrue. The only application on my desktop that I do not have
full cut-and-paste capabilities with other applications is Mozilla.
And that's because the project made a poor choice of widget sets to
work with.
> Just because KDE looks
> like Windows it doesn't mean it acts like one in lot of respects.
Thank god for large favors.
> From the tipical end users perspective it doesn't really matter what
> the OS is. Most of them don't know it anyway. Nonetheless they get
> more usability out of Windows or more concisely from the
> applications running on Windows.
Not really. About the only microsoft application you can make a case
for being superior to its counterparts on linux is office. And even
that is open for debate. In terms of visual Office software, I
prefer ABI Word to office for word processing. Spreadsheets are
spreadsheets. The only real advantage office has is its presentation
software. Some people might justify spending a few hundred on that
piece of functionality. I cannot.
> there are
> lots of games, 10 zillion different text editor with little or no
> relation to each other. Not to mention all of the interesting
> looking apps what Linux has.
Holding aside the games ( since I don't use them ), my system came
configured out of the box with a screen magnifier for the visually
impaired. CD burning utilities, fax sender/viewer, babelfish,
advaned text editor, basic text editor, and a binary editor ( all
superior to their counterparts on windows ), postscript and pdf
viewers, the gimp ( you won't really try and compare MS paint to the
gimp, will you? ), screen capture software, ftp, chat, newsreaders,
email, html editors, word, illustrator, spreadsheets, calendar,
organizer, palm connectivity, and a host of other applications all
comparable or better than their counterparts on windows ( if they are
even available after a windows install ), and I don't even have half
of what I could have put on my desktop.
The graphical text editors in KDE are more similar than wordpad and
notepad. As for the non-graphical ones, jed, ed, sed, et al...
I suspect that you don't really know use the shell if you actually
believe that they have little or no relationship to one another.
> Windows comes
> You'd have hard time naming some
> commercial grade application for Linux. Even if you do, they won't
> be free.
Again, what came bundled with my system is superior to what comes
bundled with windows, and there is more of it. Most every piece of
software on my system is commercial grade. As to what commercial
grade software I have on my system compared with windows for free
versus what comes with linux, there is no comparison.
Visual Age for Java Free
DB2 Free
Perl v 5.6 Free
Python Free
Apache Free
Cocoon Free
Tomcat Free
PostGRESQL Free
gcc/gpp Free
etc.etc.etc...
>> There should be little to no learning curve for someone to convert
>> from Windows to KDE if all they intend to do is use applications
>> within the gui.
>
> Provided that KDE could provide the same applications as Windows
> does, which it can't do.
No, it provides more and better applications.
>> Linux comes out of the box with more software and generally higher
>> quality software than windows. There really is no comparison in
>> that
>> arena. The profit model of microsoft and its partners is largely
>> based on limiting the number and quality of applications it
>> provides for free with the os.
>
> And even if they do provide free software with the OS, MS is called
> names and accused of monopoly. Go figure...
Microsoft is reviled because of their business practises. if you;d
like to get into that discussion, I'll be happy to. But let's be
clear. I'm not calling microsoft names. I'm saying that their
software is worse than what I have with linux. The operating system
is worse. The applications they bundle with their operating system
are worse. And both the operating system and its applications are
improving at a slower rate than those that come with linux.
>> The justification is simple: Linux is hands down better than
>> windows9x, and at worst, comparable to NT and its variants without
>> the associated costs and endless upgrade cycle.
>
> Linux is about 3 years away from Windows 2000. Since 90+% of people
> use some form of Windows, one could say that people voted with they
> wallet. You can dice it whichever way you wanted, but you can't deny
> that fact.
Linux wasn't a commercial desktop option until the end of last year
or early this year so that's really a silly comparison. As for being
3 years away from the current incarnation of win32, I don't think
we've gotten that far ahead of windows 2000.
>> Again, for anyone interested in a system with a long product
>> lifecycle and low total cost of ownership, linux is a much better
>> alternative than windows. For example, a few weeks ago I upgraded
>> my desktop environment and every application in it without
>> rebooting. All at zero cost.
>
> And I have only Windows 2000 in my home network, 6 PCs in all.
I hope you have licenses for all of those copies. If not, you are
admitting to a criminal act in a public forum.
>> Never mind the fact that it is also more stable, secure, and comes
>> out of the box with a much more robust suite of applications.
>
> You're kidding, right?
Not at all. I've made the case for Linux being superior with the
applications that are bundled with it. If you'd like to make a case
for windows plus a bunch of commercial add-on's, don't forget to
throw in the costs associated with each purchase required to bring
it's suite of applications up to or above what I have for free on
linux.
>> Moreover, Linux is improving faster than windows and is supported
>> on more architectures than windows.
>
> It is easier to improve something on the lower level...
Which makes me wonder why microsoft simply isn't improving as quickly.
>> I'm not so sure. A graphical interface is a graphical interface.
>> And KDE's happens to be very windows-like specifically to eliminate
>> the "end users will need to be retrained" objection.
>
> With everything being equal, which isn't IMHO, the lack of
> applications is still a hurdle what Linux needs to take.
I can basically guarantee that I have more applications on my linux
system than you do on any of your windows systems.
>> Since linux has traditionally drawn its user base from a more
>> technically literate cohort than windows does, and because Unix
>> skills are Unix skills whether your particular Unix system is
>> PC-based or mainframe based, there is actually a very high number
>> of competent administrators relative to a platform like windows
>> where a person can spend thousands learning how to plug values into
>> wizards that change every few months without getting grounded in
>> the underlying principles of the systems they are learning to
>> configure. they'll have an MCSE ( or whatever it is called these
>> days ), but will they be able to help their end users ( without
>> costly retraining ) when the next flavor of windows hits the
>> street?
>
> Be careful here, the wizards started to show up in Linux also to
> ease the administration and installation of applications and the OS
> in itself.
I'm not critiquing the use of configurators, etc. I've written
several myself. What I am taking issue with is the fact that windows
"training" leaves most of the trainees generally unqualified to do
much beyond pointing and clicking. I am also saying that microsoft
will change the interface with some regularity for no visible reason
other than ( possibly ) to increase revenues from their certification
programs.
> And if I tell you that being an NT admin and had to explain to Unix
> admin that he can not telnet to Solaris 2.7 as root user, what does
> it tell you?
It tells me that your unix admin was probably an inexperienced hire.
Holding aside the root issue, he must be inexperienced if he is
thinking about logging onto a production machine with telnet as *ANY*
user. If you are more experienced, you should know better as well.
> You mean those manpages which start at year 1900? But you're right,
> it is not easy to read the Linux manuals and one needs to learn how
> to read them first.
Start with the how-to's. My system came bundled with most of them.
>> Garbage. Linux has a much more robust support network than any
>> other
>> OS in existence. It is also better documented than windows or
>> *any*
>> other flavor of unix. It is easier to find information on how to
>> handle administrative chores. Indeed, the system itself comes with
>> a much more complete library of documentation than any other system
>> in existence.
>
> That's bs at its best. Those documentations are written with
> competent Linux users in mind which makes it harder for a newbie to
> learn Linux.
I see. Now we're taking issue with targetting useful documents to
competent users. Less competent users can start with the how-to's.
My system came with how-to's, info pages, man pages, Administrator's
guides, programmer's guides, etc. Yours came with a set of generally
useless popup windows.
> I understand more about MS licensing than I care to disclose.
So you understand why there are many times more linux systems
deployed than there are systems licensed. Why not just concede the
point and have done?
> Furthermore, lately Linux functionality is getting licensed and cost
> money too. Yes, the base OS is still free but there are signs that a
> robust Linux system will cost as much as NT.
Right. Like how you need to pay big bucks to do clustering with
Beowulf? Or big bucks to handle SMP on a single system? oops. The
only additional cost associated with linux is usually the cost of
licensing a product like oracle or db2 or a best in class server like
Tux. But then you aren't paying for linux, you are paying for an
application.
> It is a lot easier to grow from less than a single digit to couple
> of digits vs. growing 90+%, agreed?
Yep. Windows has nowhere to go but down.
>> As for NT, while I agree that there are more NT systems deployed,
>
> That sentence seems to contradict your previous claims...
Not at all. Whatever may be going on in server-space, NT has a
larger client-base.
> Even Linux realized this and trying to make it easier for
> the admins and end users to use the OS. Even traditionally CLI only
> devices, like routers, load balancers, and firewalls are giving the
> end user the choice to use GUI. And that's how it should be.
I agree. But with linux, they aren't locked into a gui, and that's
also how it should be.
--
Salvador Peralta -o)
Programmer/Analyst, Webmaster / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Goldhammer)
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 15:18:48 GMT
On Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:24:30 +0000,
Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I consider Charles Darwin a genius because he came up with a
>revolutionary idea that has stood the test of time..
Hm. That's a bit odd. Darwin espoused Lamarkian
evolution, along with his nonsensical "sexual
evolution" as well as social darwinism. These
are not exactly ideas which have stood the test
of time.
As for natural selection, this idea, as explained
by Darwin, is so vague, it might as well mean anything
or account for anything imaginable. Maybe that's why
people think he's a genius.
>Of course he didn't
>think of it all by himself, but he was the first to put all the elements
>we now consider as evolutionary biology together.
Little of Darwin's original thought remains
in modern evolutionary theories. There is only
a philosophical common thread, and the idea
of natural selection. Natural selection is
destined to remain with us forever, because it
can and does mean anything you want it to mean.
>One may not like his
>writing style, or criticise his argumentative skills.
No, not really. I rather like his writing style. What
I don't like is his faulty reasoning. It's not an issue
of his rhetorical skills.
>the fact remains
>that he gave us a totally new way of looking at life and how it evolves.
His writings have no doubt been highly influential, but
so have Marx's, Rand's, and Freud's writings.
There is an undeniable element of unscientific
rubbish which runs through all of Darwin's work.
Influential, yes. Genius, no.
Was Lysenko influential? Yes he was. Was he
a scientific genius? No, not in my opinion.
People think Nietzche was a highly original
genius. I don't think so. I'm not really impressed
when some guy comes along, tells me 'Nietzche said
that water is dry' and expects me to fall down and
cry out "such genius!".
Darwin is a similar case. He babbles on about how a
race of bears sitting in water would transmogrify
into whales by itty bitty changes, and we're all
supposed to fall down and cry: such genius! The man's
explained it all!!
Or that I'm supposed to overlook the fact that
one of the pillar's of Darwin's reasoning was that
Black people evolved from apes... 'ignore that, he
was a GENIUS!!' Or that women have evolved to be
stupider than men... 'he was a GENIUS!!' Or that
we are a race of fools because we pracice eugenics
on animals, but not on ourselves... 'he was a GENIUS!!'
Or that Native Americans and "savages" have no morals
whatsoever... 'he was a GENIUS!!'
>And I strongly protest against putting the name of Ayn Rand in a
>sentence that contains the term "scientific genius[es]", unless
>it also contains the terms "no", "bitch", "that" and "is".
Sure, I agree it's offensive. But many people
out there claim Rand was not only a scientific genius,
but the greatest genius that ever lived. Just as many
brainwashed Marxists will tell you Marx was a "scientific
genius". Of course they don't merit the title in the least,
but I've heard the title applied to them countless times. Just
as I hear the title "scientific genius" applied to Darwin
quite often. I prefer "scientific fraud."
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 16:54:32 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 23:54:52 -0400, JS PL <jspl@jsplom> wrote:
> >"667 Neighbor of the Beast" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >> During the trial it was made clear that MS frequently offered nearly
> >> free server software for ISP's if they promised to get at least 75% of
> >> their customers to use IE.
> >
> >I don't remember that being brought up at the MS lynchi....err...trial.
>
> He's confused. They offered ISP's various incentives if they gave IE
> to 75% of their users, but server software wasn't part of that. One
> incentive was free "setup builder" kits that enabled the ISP to create
> a customized version of IE that would automatically dial their system.
> Netscape offered this for a couple thousand dollars.
The customiztion kit wasn't only for ISPs, it could (still can? didn't
checked it) by anyone.
For a long time, I'd IE with my dog's picture as an icon.
------------------------------
From: Wodger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2001 02:32:08 +1000
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Everett wrote:
> > >
> > > Microsoft is doing the old shuffle and lie...but signs are they are
> > > starting to sweat:
> > >
> > > http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-5508903.html?tag=mn_hd
> > >
> > > On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 04:10:39 GMT, Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >Oh... ...my... ...god.
> > >>SNIP for bandwidth<<
> > But they seem to retain the clause about being able to change terms at
> > any time. So, if you are a business, you have to have a lawyer check the
> > terms every few minutes and before sending any mail.
>
> And this is different from every other licensing agreement how?
Come on, this is like the post office saying thay can use any
information you post in a letter. You trust the postal service to
protect your privacy and to deliver your mail without having the
government or corporations having a peak inside. Hotmail is going to
grep your mail everytime you post. No business or research institution
is going to trust Hotmail while this policy exists and consumers should
not either.
W
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: XP = eXPerimental
Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2001 09:32:01 -0700
Linux is for people who don't have any real work to do and can spend endless
hours recompiling the kernel and are too cheap to pay for the real thing.
--ET--
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> eXtra Problems
>
> --
> Windows is just the instable version of Linux for users who are too
> dumb to handle the real thing.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT is stagnant while Linux explodes
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:48:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 667 Neighbor of the Beast
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 06 Apr 2001 12:09:56 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> > 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.
It is a plurality. While not a majority, it is in fact the
dominant platform. (This doesn't mean that it is the best
platform, of course!)
>Anyway, since Linux is is Unix, let us combine the
>Unix and Linux scores.
Be careful here. Unix is a conglomerate itself of many operating
systems: AIX, HP/UX, Tru64 Unix, Solaris, and even QNX and Mac OSX,
if I'm not mistaken. Linux is not Unix as far as the Open Group
is concerned (yes, that's a nitpick), although it's so close I for one
would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
>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!
Even without the combination, it's still fairly impressive (assuming
the numbers are accurate) to see Linux grow from essentially nothing
in 1991 to 27% today. To be sure, it may require a lot more
visibility in the desktop market -- where NT simply shines (probably
because it's so glitzy looking and reliability is less of an issue).
It may also require resolution of ease-of-use issues such as consistent
cut and paste -- which isn't bad on Linux today, actually, although I for
one would wish for better handling of various X issues such as
copy-and-replace (it's all in the token; most X apps and widget sets
lose their select area when they lose the token, which is kinda dumb).
>--
>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)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:18h:35m actually running Linux.
You were expecting something relevant down here?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Undeniable proof that Aaron R. Kulkis is a hypocrite, and a
Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2001 16:53:02 GMT
In article <9an897$l9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen S. Edwards II says...
~snip~
>
>You are not welcome here. We're all sick of trimming
>that damned .signature file of yours. We're sick of
>you pretending to be a UNIX user when it's clear that
>you're a Windows98 user. We're sick of your useless
>discussion content, and we're sick of your wild stories,
>and dull notions.
>
>Please, just go away.
That's what his mother tells him all the time, yet there he is in her basement.
Aaron will never leave. Usenet is a substitute for a real social life in Aaron's
case. Just go over to google and count his posts. He is on usenet literally 24
hours per day, 7 days a week. He contributes his worthless opinion to dozens of
groups, often exceeding 300 posts per day.
It's sort of funny, in a sad, pathetic way. You see him reply to something and
nobody takes him seriously. The only responses he gets are from other kooks or
people looking for some entertainment. (And I have to admit, he is
entertaining).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
