Linux-Advocacy Digest #678, Volume #34 Mon, 21 May 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The nature of competition ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I have a soft spot now and then :) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: RIP the Linux desktop ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Michael Vester)
Re: The nature of competition ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Michael Vester)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (GreyCloud)
Re: Win2000 Annoyances ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2000 Annoyances ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: RIP the Linux desktop ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: The nature of competition (GreyCloud)
Re: RIP the Linux desktop ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: RIP the Linux desktop ("Flacco")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission ("Matthew Gardiner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 19:00:47 -0500
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eav8b$110c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9eaikh$tr1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:9e9eus$c8b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> I was talking with some guys at work. We were joking that we saved
> >> > $100,000
> >> >> on Microsoft licenses on our website. We used Linux, Apache,
Postgres,
> >> > php,
> >> >> and perl across multiple boxes behind a load balancer.
> >> >>
> >> >> I see a lot of talk on this forum about how Linux is marginally
better
> > or
> >> >> W2K is marginally better, etc. From a price/performance perspective
> >> >> W2K
> >> > has
> >> >> to be A LOT better than linux to even tie, and we don't see this
> >> > happening.
> >> >
> >> > Well, so far, the only real tests of price/performance that Linux
> > machines
> >> > have participated in is the TPC benchmark, and that showed a
> >> > price/performance ratio of over twice that of the Win2k box.
> >>
> >> The TPC is NOT an OS benchmark. How many times does this have to be
> >> debated? It is a measure of home many transactions a specific database
> >> environment can do. It is a heavy test of hardware, SQL environment,
and
> >> configuration. The OS has very little to do with it.
> >
> > The point is that nobody seems very interested in trumpeting Linux's
> > superiority in a way that can be proven. Everyone appears to rely on
> > hearsay only. You would think that if Linux was so superior, people
would
> > be generating reams of documentation to prove it.
>
> The above paragraph does not refute my statements about TPC. So, I'll
> assume you agree that only an idiot with no understanding of computers
> would attempt to apply TPC as an OS benchmark.
My point was that the *ONLY* proveable benchmarks linux systems have
participated in so far is TPC. I made no effort to claim how valid or
invalid that is.
> There are other benchmarks, some have to do with web, some with file
> servers, etc. The point is that NONE of these benchmarks show any real
> advantage of W2K over Linux. The may bounce back and forth, but that's it.
We've seen a few, and everytime a benchmark is done, it's done by some
impartial party who doesn't bother to tune the other side.
> With the cost of W2K so high, it is clear that it provides no value for
its
> cost, and that is the point of this thread.
It's value is not in it's direct cost, that's obvious. It's value includes:
Millions of trained professionals who understand it, boatloads of advanced
tools and RAD environments to speed development, the ability to use off the
shelf software for niche tasks rather than writing it yourself or paying
someone to write it for you.
> >> >> Linux is at least as fast, if not faster.
> >> >
> >> > Depends on the task. Linux is *NOT* as fast or faster for things
like
> >> > Video editing, for instance.
> >>
> >> That is an interesting statement. Why do you say that? Perhaps some
> >> applications are not as fast as others, but TiVO is based on Linux,
> >> wouldn't that mean anything?
> >>
> >> In fact, with kernel frame buffer support, there is no reason that
Linux
> >> would be any slower than any other OS on the same hardware.
> >
> > TiVo doesn't do video editing, it only does video capture/playback
to/from
> > mpeg. While, that's not a simple task by any measure, TiVo isn't doing
> > this
> > through X, it's doing it to a dedicated framebuffer. Video Editing
> > requires rather complicated GUI's, not to mention that it must do
multiple
> > sources at
> > the same time without skipping frames. Of course this is mostly
hardware,
> > but the GUI must be fast enough to deal with it, and XFree simply isn't
up
> > to the job.
>
> I don't have any experience with video editing software, but technically,
> with framebuffer support, there is NO reason why Linux would be any slower
> than Windows or NT on the same hardware.
Then why aren't there any Linux based video editing systems built by any of
the major players?
> Once you have a pointer to the frame buffer, it's just bits across the
bus.
> If you have a specialized video card with multiple viewports, it is an
> IOCTL call to have it move the memory from one to the other.
Oh great, just what an application programmer wants to be doing.
> I have written video drivers for Windows and NT, and I don't see any
reason
> why Linux (with frame buffer support) would be any slower. If you know
> something about the technology involved that would make Linux slower,
> please explain. Otherwise you are making it up.
XFree86 is slow, even 4.0, it's very slow. You need to do all this within a
GUI, and you need other tools to function as well, so you can't take over
the framebuffer.
>
>
> >
> >> >> Linux has been proven to be more stable.
> >> >
> >> > It has? How? I've seen no verifiable studies that show Linux's
uptime
> > to
> >> > be greater than anything else.
> >>
> >> Define "Verifiable" as it applies here.
> >
> > Verifiable is not someone saying "My linux box stays up for 3 years
> > without
> > a reboot". It's a study, perforned in a repeatable manner with
evidence.
>
> You mean like the Microsoft funded MTTF study of Windows W2K? lol.
>
> >
> >> >> Linux has proven to be more secure.
> >> >
> >> > Again, it has? What do you call the 49 security bulletins in the
last
> >> > 6 months for Red Hat?
> >>
> >> It isn't the number, it is the severity and the number of documented
> >> exploits prior to a patch being made available. Besides, I think any
> > notion
> >> that NT/2K is secure is ridiculous based on the various news items.
> >
> > I never said it was secure, I'm saying that Linux is no better. Bugs
> > exist in all software, and the security bugs in Linux are just as bad.
> >
> > The number of exploits is also meaningless, since a single bug can cause
> > millions of exploits. Remember the morris internet worm?
>
> I state that Linux is secure because people can see the code and bugs get
> found, and fixed faster. I also state that W2K is less secure because it
is
> closed source and no one can double check for secret back doors or stupid
> errors.
>
> That is the logical argument. Do you refute it? If so what is the argument
> to the contrary?
>
> >
> >> >> Linux is free.
> >> >
> >> > More of that ambiguity.
> >>
> >> What is ambiguous about free? That is a FUD comment and you know it.
> >
> > Are we really going to go into this? Hell, the FSF has a complete essay
> > on the ambiguity of the word.
>
> I don't know how you define free, but I am working on a computer for which
> I have never had to pay anything for any of the software on it. Not one
> penny, I pay nothing and I am fully licensed to use the software on it.
>
> That is what I mean by free.
>
>
> >
> > I know you'll find it humorous, but the quality of the software is the
> > issue. Quality in this sense does not mean "stability" or "how many
bugs"
> > but rather "what it can do".
>
> What does Star Office *not* do?
>
> I have yet to find something I want to do on Linux for which I can't find
a
> program.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I have a soft spot now and then :)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:57:47 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:06:15 +0100, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yeah! You've got your old sig back :-)
>
>-Ed
I like your Psycho Rat one better :)
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 00:59:37 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 01:11:44 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Exactly. Now it should be clear why I reacted that way to TMax post.
>Obviously TMax knows about as much about physics as he knows about
>programming, that is, nothing at all.
>
>Peter
So it would appear!
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:02:30 GMT
On 21 May 2001 21:24:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>And once again, who cares? What is it to you or any of us? Linux
>was just fine before it was noticed by money chewing corporate
>types (like yourself) and will be just fine after.
I'm self employed.
Left the corporate world years ago and it was the be$t thing I ever
did.
>We didnt make it for *you*.
So *who* did you make it for?
>
>
>
>-----.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:28:37 -0700
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jon Johansan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:9duli0$rlp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > >> >> Linux improves for free. Guffaw.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > If your time is worth nothing...tee hee...
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If your time is worth nothing, install Linux.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> If both your time and money are worth nothing, then install
> > Microsoft.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am convinced there is almost no way you attend oxford - unless
> > your
> > > > > > parents paid off admissions...
> > > > >
> > > > > Hahahaha! LOL!
> > > > >
> > > > > You checked the root of my email address then!
> > > >
> > > > why - just read the organization line... yawn...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, I've got news for you buddy, my parents didn't pay off
> > admissions
> > > > > (that kind of stuff doesn't happen any more) and besides if they did,
> > I
> > > > > would have failed my first exams with flying colours and have been
> > kicked
> > > > > out. Oh, BTW I passed, so I'm good enough to stay here.
> > > >
> > > > oh boy - you're a paper computer "expert" - yhipee
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you still don't believe me, go to the following URL:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://users.ox.ac.uk
> > > > >
> > > > > And look under my name under private pages. If you're lazy, here's a
> > > > > short cut:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://users.ox.ac.uk/~scat1148/
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > wow - impressive - NOT
> > >
> > > For a swede you aren't too bright! Were you a victim of an avalance?!
> >
> > That's VERY poor taste and an obvious sign of desperation in the face of
> > failing logic on your part to attack my nationality.
>
> Ok. I won't attack your nationality. After a while we all won't have a
> nationality anyway.
> But then again, your tastes in arguing with others could use a lot of
> improvements.
>
> --
> V
Obviously. We will eventually all become just Earthlings, Earthers,
Humans, or whatever label happens to stick. Arbitrary political
geographical difference will become irrelevant. Different languages will
disappear too. I am betting that English or something like English will be
the only language spoken in another generation.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:07:42 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:06:19 +0100, Nigel Feltham
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Have you tried Broadcast2000 - a broadcast quality editing suite for linux
>which can handle multiple 24bit 96khz audio tracks, firewire, every mixing,
>wiping and fading effect imaginable and is still free.
Things are atarting to look better!
It looks kind of like a Sonic Foundry Vegas Video/Audio clone. I'll
give it a whirl when I get around to installing Mandrake 8.0 later
this week.
Thanks for the info.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:35:53 -0700
Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3b080964$0$37299$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > > Amazing that I've never ever seen an IIS box do that, 4 or 5 - and yet
> > you
> > > > seem to make it sound like they all do... agenda ??
> > >
> > > All of mine do it since I moved what a pair of Linux boxes used to do
> > > with Apache/mod_perl and some custom programming over to a set of 8
> > > Win2k/IIS5 boxes handling the same job with ASP pages that use
> > > xml/xsl formatting. The reason for the switch is mostly that the
> > > xml data comes from an in-house product and service that we sell
> > > and we wanted to use the same technology on our own web site.
> > >
> > > I had run a pair of Win2k/IIS5 boxes serving only static images
> > > for a few months before attempting the dynamic part and they
> > > ran fine then. Why would I need an agenda to describe what
> > > happens in actual operation? I'd much prefer that it wasn't
> > > happening - it is wasting a lot of my time.
> >
> > Look - the fact that due to some custom programming of YOUR own something
> > happens on your boxes that doesn't happen to anyone else - how is that a
> > problem with IIS?
>
> The only custom programming involved is in ASP pages that use
> documented methods from the msxml3.dll objects. The boxes are
> loaded with stock Win2k server, sp1, and the msxml3.dll. All
> straight from Microsoft. All of the pages work when tested
> individually.
>
> >How about if we take the same ASP pages adn try to run
> > them on a linux box and then complain that linux sucks when they don't
> run -
> > makes about the same amount of sense as what you are trying to foist upon
> > us.
>
> Well yes, if the Linux system documented methods that are supposed
> to work but in fact cause the server to hang at random I would complain
> about that. However, the fact is that my Linux systems work - some
> have been up well over a year, and the IIS servers crash daily and
> don't restart themselves even though the service is set to automaticall
> restart.
>
They don't automatically restart because they are completely locked up. I
have seen this phenomenon on every IIS server I have seen. We never get
more than a week out of our IIS servers before they lock up. On the other
hand, one of our Solaris servers has been running for 3 years
continuously.
> > OK, so your systems have a programming problem (something you wrote) -
> > quite blaming the OS.
>
> So you think it is fine for IIS to pop a dialog box and wait? I don't
> even if the asp code has something wrong. I guess people who
> only run MS systems have different expectations about the system
> software.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
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]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:11:00 -0700
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
>
> What's this! What's this!
>
> "OK, it's official: Linux on the desktop is dead."
>
> But it never even started! Giving up before even trying!
>
> --
> Pete
Notice that it was just the authors opinions.
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2000 Annoyances
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:16:50 GMT
On Mon, 21 May 2001 16:49:38 -0700, Mike Vance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>1) Most-Frequently-Used Menus Bug Me: that new feature that defaults so
>that only the most frequently used menu options are displayed bothers me
>to no end even though it can still be disabled. The default should be
>that this feature is turned off. It is another example of the interface
>being dumbed down to the disadvantage of serious computer users. I'm
>still cringing from the time MS tried to convert the world to the BOB
>interface (remember that?).
I dislike that one as well, but turn off personalized menus and your
all set.
>2) Win2000 key shortcuts are no longer underlined by default. You have
>to hold down the ALT key to get the underlining to show and that just
>does not seem right. Makes everything more mouse-centric that it
>already is.
Tweakui is your friend. Also you don't have to hold the alt key it
toggels on or off of the underlines.
>3) Win2000 has still proven amazingly unstable even though everyone
>taughts its stability. Its self-corrupting nature is not as potent as
>it was in Win95/98 but I still find it growing progressively more
>unstable as the day continues. Have to reboot it daily. I've have many
>blue screens of death with it (daily even) and even got a nice registry
>corruption and profile corruption thrown in seperately to spice things
>up. No wonder all the good servers are Linux-based.
Something is very wrong with your system.
I do digital audio editing of huge files with various programs and
haven't rebooted in weeks.
>4) The Win2000 recovery console lacks the power of even the simple DOS
>1.0 command-line. I prefer a graphical interface but sometimes the
>system needs to be debugged from the command-line.
I only use basic functions of the command prompt so I really can't
comment.
>5) Tired of having to reinstall Windows and every single app from
>scratch whenever I upgrade to a new motherboard. Probably some pros out
>there know how to get around having to do this but MS seems to want the
>OS and the Apps to be so installation-program dependant.
Somewhat true.
>6) Win2000 can't be booted to from a CD making fixing stand-alone
>computers more difficult since the Win2000 recovery console is so
>limited in functionality.
Boot from the 4 diskettes and away you go. What exactly do you need to
do with the recovery console?
>I am still investigating Linux but hope to be converted over to it
>within the next few months.
You'll love the command line :)
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 Annoyances
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:19:32 +1200
Just to add
6) Windows 2000 CLI lacks basic tools that I would normally use on Linux,
such as, when I am look for, say, the file foo, I go, ls /*/*/*/*foo*
however, in Windows 2000 I can't. Copying files is another pain, unless it
is visable (aka non-hidden), you can't copy it, where as in Linux I could
always copy .foo files without any problems.
Matthew Gardiner
"Mike Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I thought I would take a couple minutes to type up what is annoying me
> with the Windows operating system just to get some gripes off my chest.
> I am one of many lurkers in this forum seriously contemplating turning
> to Linux permanently.
>
> 1) Most-Frequently-Used Menus Bug Me: that new feature that defaults so
> that only the most frequently used menu options are displayed bothers me
> to no end even though it can still be disabled. The default should be
> that this feature is turned off. It is another example of the interface
> being dumbed down to the disadvantage of serious computer users. I'm
> still cringing from the time MS tried to convert the world to the BOB
> interface (remember that?).
>
> 2) Win2000 key shortcuts are no longer underlined by default. You have
> to hold down the ALT key to get the underlining to show and that just
> does not seem right. Makes everything more mouse-centric that it
> already is.
>
> 3) Win2000 has still proven amazingly unstable even though everyone
> taughts its stability. Its self-corrupting nature is not as potent as
> it was in Win95/98 but I still find it growing progressively more
> unstable as the day continues. Have to reboot it daily. I've have many
> blue screens of death with it (daily even) and even got a nice registry
> corruption and profile corruption thrown in seperately to spice things
> up. No wonder all the good servers are Linux-based.
>
> 4) The Win2000 recovery console lacks the power of even the simple DOS
> 1.0 command-line. I prefer a graphical interface but sometimes the
> system needs to be debugged from the command-line.
>
> 5) Tired of having to reinstall Windows and every single app from
> scratch whenever I upgrade to a new motherboard. Probably some pros out
> there know how to get around having to do this but MS seems to want the
> OS and the Apps to be so installation-program dependant.
>
> 6) Win2000 can't be booted to from a CD making fixing stand-alone
> computers more difficult since the Win2000 recovery console is so
> limited in functionality.
>
> I am still investigating Linux but hope to be converted over to it
> within the next few months.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:22:55 +1200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 21 May 2001 21:24:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>
>
> >And once again, who cares? What is it to you or any of us? Linux
> >was just fine before it was noticed by money chewing corporate
> >types (like yourself) and will be just fine after.
>
> I'm self employed.
>
> Left the corporate world years ago and it was the be$t thing I ever
> did.
>
> >We didnt make it for *you*.
>
> So *who* did you make it for?
For anyone who wants to use it. Maybe you should hope over to www.news.com
and watch the video interview of Linus.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 18:26:21 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9e9eus$c8b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I was talking with some guys at work. We were joking that we saved
> $100,000
> > on Microsoft licenses on our website. We used Linux, Apache, Postgres,
> php,
> > and perl across multiple boxes behind a load balancer.
> >
> > I see a lot of talk on this forum about how Linux is marginally better or
> > W2K is marginally better, etc. From a price/performance perspective W2K
> has
> > to be A LOT better than linux to even tie, and we don't see this
> happening.
>
> Well, so far, the only real tests of price/performance that Linux machines
> have participated in is the TPC benchmark, and that showed a
> price/performance ratio of over twice that of the Win2k box.
>
> > Linux is at least as fast, if not faster.
>
> Depends on the task. Linux is *NOT* as fast or faster for things like Video
> editing, for instance.
>
> > Linux has been proven to be more stable.
>
> It has? How? I've seen no verifiable studies that show Linux's uptime to
> be greater than anything else.
>
> > Linux has proven to be more secure.
>
> Again, it has? What do you call the 49 security bulletins in the last 6
> months for Red Hat?
>
> > Linux is free.
>
> More of that ambiguity.
>
What is ambigous about free?
> > So, why would anyone choose a Microsoft solution?
>
> Software.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:29:11 +1200
I have never seen Linus in any interview say that he was aiming for the
desktop. Maybe you, along with flatfish should hop over to www.news.com and
watch the interview with Linus and his opinion on where Linux is heading.
Linux has only been pushed into the home market by a few companies. Redhat
and Caldera are looking squarely at the business desktop and server market.
SuSE has got its all-you-need-in-one-packet server distributions, Mandrake
is aiming for the desktop, and Debian are out there for the Linux purist. I
personally see no one saying, "lets go for the desktop", most distros are
actually aiming for the server arena, the most profitable part of the
computer software and services market.
Matthew Gardiner
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
>
> What's this! What's this!
>
> "OK, it's official: Linux on the desktop is dead."
>
> But it never even started! Giving up before even trying!
>
> --
> Pete
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 01:32:04 GMT
> This ignorant chappy probably does the same as most newbies who come
> in here to rant against Linux; it isn't exactly like Windows, therefore
> it can't possibly be a desktop environment. There's more than one way to
> skin a cat, figuratively speaking.
I think some journalists equate Eazel with the Linux desktop. Personally,
I was a bit bewildered by all the hype surrounding Nautilus. I tried it
twice and felt that it got in my way more than anything else. It needs
UI refinement and performance tuning, and, as has been pointed out
frequently by others, since it's open source it will outlive the company
that spawned it - if it deserves to, on its merits.
The Linux Desktop isn't dead - it just isn't "there" yet. It's getting
there, and it doesn't depend on VC's, journalists, or anyone except the
developers to get there.
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Wintroll Mission
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 13:38:22 +1200
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9e9kuv$7ak$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Whats even worse, when someone tries to help him (Pete), For exampe, I
tried
> > to find out why anti-aliasing wasn't working on his (Pete's) PeeCee, he
> > totally ignores any follow up posts as it could actually fix the
problem.
> > Funny enough, anti-aliasing worked straight out of the box for me, why
not
> > for Pete? or does he (Pete) have a voodoo computer?
>
> I never saw those follow up posts.
>
Don't blame me.
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
