Linux-Advocacy Digest #631, Volume #33 Sun, 15 Apr 01 17:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism, Communist
propagandists in the US...still..to this day.) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Douglas Siebert)
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? (webgiant)
Re: Communism ("billh")
Re: Microsoft gets hard ("JS PL")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Why left-wing communist assholes hate Reagan. (was Re: Communism,
Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.)
Date: 15 Apr 2001 20:10:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Fun problem: Our monetary policy ensures that we can never have full
: employment. Since we have a policy of intentional unemployment, it is morally
: unacceptable to not have some kind of welfare system.
I don't understand where you get either the premise or the conclusion.
: We can quibble about how
: a welfare system should be implimented, but one is needed in a regime of
: intentional unemployment to cut inflation.
Plentiful opportunities for employment, and education and training,
are the best welfare system I'm aware of.
: The GOP wants to have its cake and eat it too by having a monetary policy of
: intentional unemployment and not having any kind of welfare system.
Well, let me be blunt here. I still don't know where you're getting
the theory of "intentional unemployment." Unemployment has seldom
existed in unregulated labor markets such as Hong Kong (before the
communist takeover); it is produced largely by minimum wage laws and
massive illiteracy, both of which Republicans oppose.
But not too many Republicans are bold enough to call for a complete
and final end to the federal dependency system. And, ironically, one
of the few things Slick Willie ever did that actually helped the
economy was to place a time cap on federal welfare payments. This
forced hundreds of thousands of people into jobs, many of whom, by
their own admission, would otherwise never have had them.
: The GOP
: will get their wish, but they should be careful about what they wish for.
: That's becuse of the upcoming global oil production peak aka Oil Max-Out. In a
: regime of a permanent oil shortage that worsens over time, government will
: lose power as it's ENERGY that makes government power. After all, you need
: energy to fuel the cop cars.
A permanent fuel shortage would hurt the developing world far more
than the U.S., *even* if the eco-terrorists continue to successfully
prevent the exploration and production facilities that would be needed
to increase domestic production to satisfy domestic demand. And it
looks like in some of the places that they've held hostage the
longest, such as California, public sentiment is rapidly turning
against them. This is a good thing, because the environmental
problems that can (but need not) be caused by energy production are
tiny compared to those that may result from widespread shortages and
the economic and social chaos that would likely result.
Disclaimer: I'm not a Republican, though I agree with much of what
they *claim* to believe about the economy, the Constitution, and the
rule of law. (I differ from them in that I would like to see them
actually do what they say they believe, far more consistently than
most of them actually do).
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Douglas Siebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
"Russell Easterly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>I will switch to LINUX when it can reliably run
>Windows NT as a sub-process.
You can today, visit www.vmware.com (unless you meant "for free", in which
case visit www.plex86.org but AFAIK it is not yet ready to the point of
running "reliably" yet)
--
Douglas Siebert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have discovered a remarkable proof which this .sig is too small to contain!
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:37:54 GMT
[snips]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> > Now tell me what non x86 or x86 clone amchines Windows runs on. Or
>> > Solaris.
>>
>> Solaris runs on Sparc and on x86. Maybe more.
>>
>> Besides, Solaris is merely ONE member of the Unix family. If you want,
>> you can go to Sun's website and download Solaris for x86.
>>
>> http://www.sun.com/solaris/downloads.html
>>
>>
> You forgot to tell me what non-x86 or non-x86 clones WIndows works on.
Alpha, for one. And MIPS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (webgiant )
Subject: Re: Has Linux anything to offer ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:43:48 GMT
On 10 Apr 2001 22:06:30 -0700, roger$@a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rex says...
>
>> If you are a student who would like to learn the principles of UNIX,
>> if you are the secretary of a non-profit and want to put up a web-site,
>> or if you just want to chat and e-mail, Linux has some really great tools
>> to do this.
>
>The problem is that on Linux, there is no consistant and coherant way
>with how applications work. One can't cut/paste from one app to
>another like on windows. Application quality in general are less of
>those that exist on widnows.
>
>Let take some examples:
>
>1. Using IE 6.0 beta, If I am on a web page, and do 'save', IE is
>smart enough not only to save the HTML page itself, but also to
>create a subdirectory with all the gif files on that page. This means
>when one views the locally saved HTML page later on, it comes up with
>all the images intact on it. There is nothing like this on Linux.
The problem here is that when the saved website is saved, IE goes
through and creates *absolute pathnames* to all the linked objects
that it saves into the subdirectory. What this means is that even if
the saved website only assumed that the gifs were in the local
directory, IE has just required you to rewrite the entire HTML file in
order to copy the website onto a floppy or even anywhere else on your
existing machine.
About the only reason I can think of to save a website locally is to
take it off the machine and into a location which does not have
Internet access. IE has just made a decision for me which only
results in MORE WORK for me. If I had been required to save all the
images myself, I would at least have had the kind of control necessary
to get it saved right the *first time*.
>2. On windows, I can drag an image from my Visio document to my word
>document and have it show up there. There is nothing like this on linux.
Sure there is. I can pop open StarOffice and drag documents between
applications in the Suite with no difficulty. The Linux version
Clipboard exists to cut and paste data inbetween applications.
>3. On Windows, when one starts a CD writes, the writes software
>automatically scans scsi and ide devices and locates the CD-W device.
>On linux, one must compile the kernel and do other hacks to get this
>to work.
The advantage Linux has here (yes, I said advantage) is that the SCSI
emulation required to write CDs on IDE CDRWs is handled in the kernel.
Windoze, which has to do the exact same SCSI emulation as the Linux
kernel, handles it inside a much higher software layer. So the Linux
system, for all its extra compiling of the kernel, writes a CD much
faster than the comparable Windoze CD-writer.
>4. On linux, each distro has it own way interface and methods of how
>to configure and update the system. On widnows there is one way.
Which can also be taken as a *disadvantage*: On Windoze, you are
forced to use only one interface and you cannot change it. In Linux,
you can make your interface fit your own personal needs.
As for configuration and updates, I would still argue that Linux has
the better system. In Windoze, I have often had a C: which was
overflowing with extra files, and the Windoze Installer kept piling on
more files into the same C:. In Linux, if I tell it to drop the file
somewhere else, the file goes where it should go without corrupting
anything, thanks to the symbolic link.
If Windoze ran like Linux, I could take the entire Common Files folder
out of C: and drop it into some other partition with more space,
symbolically link the new location back to C:, and Windoze wouldn't
require a registry edit to make the whole thing work.
There is a standards committee working on a universal install
standard. This "problem" with Linux is a short-lived one, and the
advantages of Linux more than make up for it at this current point in
time.
>5. On linux, it is still very hard to get a system working using
>anti-aliased fonts, without more user hacks and configurations. On
>windows, it comes build in and the user has to do nothing more.
This is comparing apples and oranges. If every single user had to
install Windoze from scratch, the learning curves would be identical.
Worse, rather, since Linux already comes with most of its drivers
pre-installed and autodetects most hardware without multiple reboots!
This "problem" is also going away. Dell and IBM offer Linux as a
standard OS on the machine you take home from the store.
Pre-installed Linux is a thing of the present.
One could point out that most of your "Linux problems" are based on
the theory that Linux will NEVER be pre-installed on systems. It is
being pre-installed on systems, hence most of your problems will
simply GO AWAY.
>6. Printing on Linux is broke. On widnows, setting up a printer requires
>no hacks as on linux. It just works.
You must be talking about some old Linux install you did years ago.
On my system Linux printing was quite a breeze.
Again, I see that most of your alleged Linux "problems" stem from
Linux not being pre-installed on a system. This is no longer a
problem.
>7. On Linux, there are many different desktop environments, each work
>differently. Applications written for one, might not work as expected
>on another. On windows, there is one way to do it, making developer life
>much simpler and users are familiar with how GUI applications are expected
>to behave.
There are two problems with this statement:
[1] Using conventional workstation installs, all libraries for all
desktop environments are installed, making a KDE program run under
Enlightenment (a GNOME desktop) run quite nicely.
[2] Are you serious when you claim that the Windoze API is "stable"?
The Windoze API was written with one thing in mind: to make it
difficult for non-Windoze application companies to compete with
Windoze application divisions.
As I recall, the GIMP (Graphical Image Manipulation Program) did not
need to be rewritten just to RUN every time Linux had a kernel
upgrade!
By contrast, Adobe, a non-Windoze applications company, had to rewrite
Adobe Photoshop every single time Micro$oft upgraded its OS! Adobe
created version 3 for Windoze 3.11, had to bring out version 4.0 just
so that there was a version which ran on Windoze 95, and finally had
to create an entirely new version of Photoshop, v5.0, to let it run on
Windoze 98!
Try running GIMP v1.0 on kernel 2.4. You won't have any problems.
Now try running Adobe Photoshop 3.0 using Windoze 98. Windoze 98 will
inform you that Adobe Photoshop 3.0 WILL NOT RUN in Windoze 98.
If we're doing comparisons between writing software for Linux and
doing it for Windoze, and the winning application is "one which
consistently runs the same way regardless of which distribution
version you are running it on," Linux wins hands down!
>>PERL, Python, PHP, and other scripting languages, combined with KDE
>>and GNOME components have made it very easy to obtain programs that
>>can be packaged quite creatively.
>
>PERL, python, PHP all exist on windows.
But to a lesser extent, and only because they were ported there.
Plus, you wouldn't want to run a Web server using a Windoze product,
and those languages excel on servers.
>>> Are CD-R and CD-RW easier to configure and use with Linux?
>>
>
>>This depends or your system. Linux sports multiple "toasters", and
>>the set-up for the read-write is a bit more involved. On the other
>>hand, the EZ-CD Creator used on most Windows CD-ROM burners
>>costs over $100 retail.
>
>CD writer devices come with a FREE cdwrites software packages
>with it in the box, (for windows of course).
Want the new version of a CD writer program?
Linux: FREE
Windoze: $100+ retail.
So what you seem to be arguing is that one should go for the dead-end
option over the easily upgraded option.
Hmmm. You appear to have your priorities skewed.
>>> Is the support for Display Cards, DVD, Sound Cards, Large Hard Drives and
>>> Printers better?
>>
>>For the products that advertise Linux compatibility, the support is
>>usually
>>quite good.
>
>There is no commerical DVD player for linux. What is there is
>mostly hacks that does not support half of what a commercial
>DVD players on widnows support.
Largely due to a proprietary DVD encoding format, not Linux itself.
If the code for DVD decoding were available and a lot cheaper than the
DVD companies make it, Linux would have one of the best DVD decoders
on the market.
>>Some people like it because they like having the power and stability
>>of a UNIX system.
>
>win2k is VERY stable. The stability claim is getting too old now.
>need to find a new one.
VERY stable isn't the same thing as stable. Linux runs for years
without a reboot. W2K has yet to prove it has the same level of
stability.
Also, what exactly is the conversion rate to W2K? What is the new
user rate of W2K? Seems you may be trying to use the newest product
but failing to report the actual use of this new product.
Windoze may be 90% of the market, but that 90% is not entirely
composed of W2K, and the conversion rate to W2K seems to be rather
slow and ponderous, even when Micro$oft starts cutting the price in
*thirds*. Windoze 98 didn't achieve a higher market share of the
Windoze market until its price dropped from $199 to $59.
The stability argument is still quite sound since the Micro$oft market
is still mostly composed of versions of Windoze which are unstable.
>In summary:
>-----------
>The Linux KERNEL is good. No one can argue about that. But to have
>an OS for the end user has nothing to do with the KERNEL.
Except when we are talking about a Windoze market composed mostly of
UNSTABLE KERNELS. Users who have to reboot three times a day on every
single version of an OS which has always promised to be "stable"
aren't going to convert to W2K just because of ANOTHER promise that it
is "stable".
Linux, by contrast, has systems which have been running for YEARS
without a reboot. Micro$oft can't compete with that kind of
stability, and its past track record will hurt it even if it
eventually does develop a stable kernel.
Finally, there are reports that W2K includes quite a bit of the Linux
source code in it, making the W2K stability more dependent on Linux's
stability than on anything Redmond has done. And if Linux was
required to make Micro$oft stable, then what does that say about
Micro$oft by itself?
>The main problem with Linux as and end user, is that there is no overall
>guiding strategy and design to drive it.
A standards committee is currently working on a standard model, and a
draft is expected this year.
>Each linux group decide to make something as they please, a new Linux
>flavour is out each month. We now have 75 Linux distro and counting.
>No standard way to do anything. From application installation to printer
>setup to configuring the network.
Considering that many new Linux distros are specific-use distros and
don't hit the home market, not all of those 75 distros will ever make
it into the hands of the home user.
Consider also that many of the "new" distros are using the GPL to use
an OLD distro to make a "new" distro, so one cannot make the argument
that standards are not being held to. A distro based on RedHat still
uses the RedHat RPM format and the RedHat directory tree, making the
"new" distro hold to the RedHat standard.
>It is like being in the kitchen with 20 cooks making one big dinner. Each
>want to do the dinner their own way.
Which is better than a single cook who refuses to serve you exactly
what you want to order...and loads every third dish with
Salmonella....
>Unless this is fundemantly chaned, linux will never compete with windows
>on the desktop. windows still claims 90% of the desktop. The reason is
>simple. It is simple to use and consistant in the way it works.
Windoze claims 90% of the desktop for reasons unrelated to simplicity,
and you keep comparing W2K to Linux even though it is clearly not 90%
of the market of Windoze.
The real market in Windoze got its way through contracts forcing OEMs
to put it on their systems.
>Making something simple and easy to use is something the Linux advocates
>find very hard to understand. Users do not want 20 different ways to do
>the same thing.
Users also do not want to be forced to use a product only in the way
which the manufacturer wants them to use it.
>Users want the OS to hide the complixity of the machine
>from them. Users want an OS that is easy to configure and manage and use.
Which seems like a contradiction, since if users want to be able to
configure the system, they're going to have to face up to some of the
complexity of the machine.
There are huge databases devoted to Windoze drivers, and very few
devoted to Linux drivers. Why? Because Windoze doesn't make the
effort to hide the complexity from its users by including all the
drivers in advance, or even writing actual code to autodetect systems
and include general drivers in the kernel. Linux, by contrast, has
never failed to detect the weird hardware I put into homemade
computers, and I've never needed to download a special driver just to
use the new video card I purchased.
>So far, windows is winning in this area, if it were not, it would not
>have 90% market share. (of course, you will blame this on MS marketing,
>right?)
Of course it can be blamed on MS marketing practices, practices which
resulted in users not really having a choice because distributors
didn't have a choice. Plus there have really been no alternative OSes
in the market until Linux popped up.
Windoze has a 90% market share, but only if you consider all versions
of Windoze, not just your precious W2K. And when you get right down
to it, the stability of all the other versions of Windoze has been so
shaky for so long that there really can be no other reason for
Micro$oft's success other than marketing practices.
Micro$oft has indicated that Linux is a threat. If Micro$oft's
success was really due to something other than marketing practices, an
OS which only comes bundled on a couple distributors' systems and
which is, as you claim, difficult to install, would not be a threat to
them.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:57:59 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Dance, little man, dance. LOL!!!
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 17:02:07 -0400
"unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Of course there's a name for companies that trusted Microsoft as a
busniess
> partner...extinct!
Which one is extinct? There's about 32,000 Certified Business Partners
Organizations. And about 6 million developers using Microsoft Development
tools.
http://www.microsoft.com/business/partners/
Which one became extinct? Ass.
You really shouldn't Drink & Write.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2001 20:47:17 GMT
"webgiant " <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 06:11:02 GMT, "Electric Ninja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >"Andy Walker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Jan Johanson wrote in message <3ab419a9$0$48766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/11929.html
> >> >
> >> >"Lockheed Martin is working on the design of the new US CVN 77 aircraft
> >> >carrier, and Microsoft Federal Systems is to co-operate in the ship's
> >> >information technology architecture. This will, we kid you not, be based
> >on
> >> >Windows 2000. Microsoft Consulting Services will meanwhile chip in with
> >> tech
> >> >support during the ship's software design, development and deployment."
> >> >
> >> >Cause the Navy knows what everyone else already knows, W2K is rock solid
> >> >enough to trust lives to.
> >
> >For getting work done I love Win2000 like a charm but I'm scared to death to
> >have something like that running one of our aircraft carriers.
>
> Wasn't that USA-China gaffe over a NAVY spyplane?
>
> Forboding of worse things to come?
>
> "Falcon to Base! Our screens just went blue and we were being buzzed
> by a Chinese plane right before they went offline! <CRASH!> Oops..."
Well, it could've been worse:
"Bravo 6 to eagle, we are being buzzed by a Chinese MiG. We will be
taking evasive maneuvers as soon as our kernel is done recompiling to
add in the "steering" support we downloaded from site in... china!"
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
