Linux-Advocacy Digest #704, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 17:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Chad Myers")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Fred K
Ollinger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:39:06 -0500
"Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9ee7sc$f9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/ I can't say I
> > don't agree.
> > Some points:
> > A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake. B>
> > He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
> > the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
> > C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or
> > equal product in order to convice people to switch, you need something
> > vastly sueprior.
> > Comments, anyone?
> > OK, well, let us be realistic?
> > Flames, anyone?
>
> I've been arguing for a while that Linux advocates should not promote
> Linux for the desktop for the near future. The reason is simple, but for
> Linux advocates a bitter pill to swallow: Linux technology is simply
> too primitive and inferior, and the Linux programmers writing desktop
> apps don't have high enough caliber to compete against Windows
> programmers.
>
> My attitude makes me rare among Linux advocates, but I simply can't
> see any alternative. As far as the desktop goes, Linux is still years
> behind Windows 95. How could any reasonable person expect Linux
> to take over the desktop with technology that is 5 or 10 years behind
> Microsoft?
>
> Look at OS/2 Warp. Warp appeared in 1994, a year ahead
> of Win95, with some internet tools, reasonable stability, a very nice
> user interface, etc. Lotus Smartsuite for OS/2 was a shipping,
> supported product. Besides, OS/2 could run most existing Win 3.x
> and DOS software, including MS Office. OS/2 was much superior to
> Win 3.1 and in many ways better than Win 95. Yet OS/2 failed on
> the desktop. What sane person would expect Linux to come along
> 7 years later than OS/2 Warp, with inferior technology, and make
> a dent against current Microsoft technology?
>
> Trying to argue away the technological inferiority of Linux is not
> advocacy in my book. It's just a waste of time. You can spout all
> the words you want, but when an end user sits in front of a Linux
> box, loaded with apps about 10 years behind comparable Microsoft
> apps, the game is up.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is not intended as a discouragement --
> quite the opposite. Believing that Linux is not taking over the desktop
> despite having good technology, because of something mysterious, --
> that's the ultimate discouragement. If you accept the simple truth,
> that Linux is limited on the desktop by technological deficits, then
> you have no mystery to solve, just some work to get done.
>
> I remain optimistic. After all, Microsoft was playing catch up to
> the Mac. Microsoft was in a sense a decade behind the Mac with
> Win95, but the Mac hadn't advanced much in the previous decade,
> so it didn't really matter at that point. Linux will probably catch up
> to Win 95 technology in about 5 years or so. So Linux gets there 20
> years after the original innovators -- better late than never. Again,
> it won't matter unless Microsoft is significantly beyond the Win 95 ui
> by that point.
>
> I don't see win98 or ME as a signigficant advance. I don't know about XP.
> If Microsoft fritters away the next few years, and fails to develop
> a more advanced generation of user interface technologies, it will
> be facing a free competitor with comparable technology and will have
> a serious problem on its hands.
You should look into XP. There are many sites out there detailing all
the new UI advancements. Microsoft has spent millions doing UI
research with several universities and has incorporated some of the
new design theories of modern UI design. It's no longer just a Mac
knock-off, it's a completely new and original design with some kick-backs
to the old day to keep it somewhat recognizable to old-time users.
-c
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:37:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >Most companies want you to buy their products. They also make sure you
> >stay with their products by tying you to them in some way.
>
> 'All' companies want me to buy their products. Any attempt to forestall
> competition or engross the market is illegal monopolization. The only
> available "tying me to them in some way" is providing competitive
> merits, or a lower price, in order to entice me to so tie myself to
> their brand in order to enjoy the benefits of their product.
You said it.
> >So, I have a monopoly threatened by legal prosecution? Now how do I have
> >that? Do I have any stake in Microsoft other than being a user?
>
> Apparently; you've shown yourself to be a sock puppet. Most sock
> puppets are professionally or fiscally entangled with Microsoft.
Entanglement implies I'm trapped. Yet I don't feel as such. I moved from
one area into Windows, I can just as easily move out again.
> >shares, sorry. Don't work for them either. The company I work does
> >Windows work but we can easily move into other markets.
>
> "Can"? How are we to know "can", but for your contention that "does
> not" is the equivalent of "won't", Mr. Sock Puppet? You've a vested
> interest in maintaining the status quo, and that status quo involves
> monopoly crapware, both financially and technically self-destructive but
> unavoidable being forced on consumers, both OEMs and consumers.
>From "can" to "does not" to "won't". If that isn't a clear example of how
you're twisting words, I don't know what else is.
Earlier on you claim I'm a sock puppet based on laughably thin evidence.
Then you build on this sinking ship, twisting words as you go, making me
(apparently) say exactly the opposite of what I actually said.
Are you in politics?
> And so deduction indicates your company, in doing "Windows work", is
> neither a reseller nor a very highly regarded end-user solutions
> provider. And that You, Mr. Sock Puppet, cease to qualify even as an
> end-user, yourself. Perhaps if you didn't troll COLA, you'd simply be
> another sad victim of the monopoly. But it makes no sense to consider
> your opinion that of a self-interested consumer, given you are known to
> have vested interests as a sock puppet.
Your deductions are ludicrous. Besides which there is enough evidence out
there to indicate that the company I work for are very highly regarded.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:40:13 -0500
"David Steinberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eect7$nun$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : I though you guys hated the mousy-clicky stuff?
>
> When will you learn, Chad? There is no "you guys." Linux users are
> best defined by their diversity. What I like, another user may
> despise. From more or less the same large set of packages that are
> collectively called a Linux system (or, to make RMS happy, a GNU/Linux
> system), we are all able to pick, choose, and configure to create the
> desktop or server environment in which we are most comfortable.
>
> Those who cannot handle such choice simply accept whatever Microsoft says
> is the only way to do things this week.
You mean, those who want some semblance of choice AND still have their
OS work, use Windows. If you want lots of choice, but many bugs, crashes
and UI oddities and flakiness, use GNU/Linux.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:41:04 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS \\ PL wrote:
>
> > Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT KICKS
> > MANDRAKE ASS!!
> > Internet connection stays when switching users!
>
> You mean you lose your internet connection whenever you log out? It's
> the way you have KDE set up that is at fault, because kppp is exiting
> when you logout. But you should be able to login to your provider with
> a command-line equivalent of ppp, so that your internet connection will
> stay up once you start it, no matter who logs in or out.
No, above he said that Mandrake DID keep the connection OPEN, and
existing Windows did not.
Windows XP DOES keep it open now as well.
-c
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:39:11 GMT
In article <9ec7a4$m2i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Yep plenty. Just do a search for
> "Another Linux OOPSIE"
>
> it's filled with prime examples.
Fine, quote one.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:39:32 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:41:57 -0500
"Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >>
> >> > If Microsoft wants to earn the same respect as the likes of NCR, UNISYS
or
> >> > Xerox, then maybe they should start porting IE to more than just Mac,
> >> > Windows and a few obscure UNIX's.
> >
> >Yeah, you know, those "few obscure UNIX's" like Solaris, HP-UX,
> >and Digital Unix.
> >
> >If those are obscure, what's your definition of common?
>
> Linux, FreeBSD. The number of people using web browsers on Linux is probably
> ten times the number of people using web browsers in Solaris,
> HP-UX and DU combined.
>
> The unix-like desktop market is so Linux+FreeBSD centric it's not even
> funny.
Solaris and HP-UX are hardly "obscure", though, regardles of which
world you're living in.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: 22 May 2001 20:42:03 GMT
Mart van de Wege ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In article <9ee7sc$f9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
: <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
: >
: > I can't say I don't agree.
: >
: > Some points:
: > A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake. B>
: > He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
: > the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
: > C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or
: > equal product in order to convice people to switch, you need something
: > vastly sueprior.
So what did windows do that was vastly superior to system 7 on the mac?
Fred
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: 22 May 2001 20:42:50 GMT
Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:9ee7sc$f9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
: >
: > I can't say I don't agree.
: >
: > Some points:
: > A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
: > B> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
: > the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
: > C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or equal
: > product in order to convice people to switch, you need something vastly
: > sueprior.
: Not to mention new innovation. Everything that was out there for
: Linux was either a rehashed 30-year old app with a new GUI
: front end, or a cheap knock-off of a current Microsoft app.
While the same can be said of MS. Either it's a cheap knockoff of a unix
app or a mac app. Same thing.
Fred
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:43:23 -0500
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eefir$3cm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >>
> >> > If Microsoft wants to earn the same respect as the likes of NCR, UNISYS
or
> >> > Xerox, then maybe they should start porting IE to more than just Mac,
> >> > Windows and a few obscure UNIX's.
>
> > Yeah, you know, those "few obscure UNIX's" like Solaris, HP-UX,
> > and Digital Unix.
>
> > If those are obscure, what's your definition of common?
>
>
> >> They might also try doing a half way decent job in those ports too. I've
> >> tried all the IE versions for Solaris, and it makes Netscape look like one
of
> >> the best apps ever written.
>
> > Really?
>
> > Netscape runs about 40% of time on my Solaris box here at work.
> > Most of the time, I click the web-browser button and nothing
> > happens or I just get a core dump.
>
> > I only use IE on Solaris now because it's the only thing that
> > works! It's pretty decent, actually. It renders pages as they
> > are supposed to appear rather than destroying them like
> > Netscape, and it doesn't have that annoying refresh problem
> > when resizing the window.
>
> > -c
>
> You are lying, chad. You dont have a solaris box at work.
>
> If you do, please post from it. If you're lying, please continue
> in abject silence.
Ok. I haven't tried doing NNTP from it, but I'll give it a shot.
I'll trying using Outlook Express for Solaris, and Netscape just
to double prove.
If you're still not happy with that, I will try another
unix-only newsreader if you point me to one that you recommend
and is fairly easy to set up (I don't have all day to waste
proving simple facts to you).
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: 22 May 2001 20:47:52 GMT
Chad Myers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > In article <3b0aa7f7$0$2604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: >
: > > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > > news:9ee7sc$f9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: > >> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
: > >>
: > >> I can't say I don't agree.
: > >>
: > >> Some points:
: > >> A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake. B>
: > >> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
: > >> the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it
: > >> run. C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less
: > >> or equal product in order to convice people to switch, you need
: > >> something vastly sueprior.
: > >
: > > Not to mention new innovation. Everything that was out there for Linux
: > > was either a rehashed 30-year old app with a new GUI front end, or a
: > > cheap knock-off of a current Microsoft app....
: >
: > ....Which was a knock-off of the Mac...Which was a knock-off of Xerox
: > PARC...
: No. Outlook is a knock-off of which Mac app? Which Xerox app?
: Outlook Express?
Don't know this one.
: Internet Explorer is hardly a knock off of any existing application.
spyglass. Learn your history.
: Word? Word is far beyond what any other previous word processor
: was.
No, it was a copy of the mac's teachtext. Even at word 4, there are a few
features added. MS just kept taking features from other apps and adding them.
The result was a pile of crap. I can't use word for 2 min w/o getting pissed
off b/c it auto-does something. I don't have time to turn all these off on
each comp I use, I just want my app to just work.
: Excel? Lotus 123 wasn't even close.
You need to look at excel 1.0. I think you might find lotus to be more
featureful. The rest is just kludge on top of the older app. This kludge took
years while users suffered w/ alpha versions of sw which they paid for. The
situation in linux looks much better than it did back then. Things are evolving
much faster. All ready, linux offers better apps for me on their 2 cds, then
a default install of win+office. Here's to one happy user.
Fred
: Please, elaborate.
: > <sigh>
: >
: > BTDTGTTS
: >
: > News at 11.
: >
: > When will you learn Chad? There is precious little innovation going on in
: > computers. Gradual evolution is more likely.
: Yeah, what little this is seems only to be happening at Microsoft
: (http://research.microsoft.com) and the rest is just knock-offs
: from that.
: -c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 15:48:34 -0500
This is from OE on Solaris.
-c
Chad Myers wrote in message
<3b0acf6e$0$2604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9eefir$3cm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > If Microsoft wants to earn the same respect as the likes of NCR,
UNISYS
>or
>> >> > Xerox, then maybe they should start porting IE to more than just
Mac,
>> >> > Windows and a few obscure UNIX's.
>>
>> > Yeah, you know, those "few obscure UNIX's" like Solaris, HP-UX,
>> > and Digital Unix.
>>
>> > If those are obscure, what's your definition of common?
>>
>>
>> >> They might also try doing a half way decent job in those ports too.
I've
>> >> tried all the IE versions for Solaris, and it makes Netscape look like
one
>of
>> >> the best apps ever written.
>>
>> > Really?
>>
>> > Netscape runs about 40% of time on my Solaris box here at work.
>> > Most of the time, I click the web-browser button and nothing
>> > happens or I just get a core dump.
>>
>> > I only use IE on Solaris now because it's the only thing that
>> > works! It's pretty decent, actually. It renders pages as they
>> > are supposed to appear rather than destroying them like
>> > Netscape, and it doesn't have that annoying refresh problem
>> > when resizing the window.
>>
>> > -c
>>
>> You are lying, chad. You dont have a solaris box at work.
>>
>> If you do, please post from it. If you're lying, please continue
>> in abject silence.
>
>Ok. I haven't tried doing NNTP from it, but I'll give it a shot.
>I'll trying using Outlook Express for Solaris, and Netscape just
>to double prove.
>
>If you're still not happy with that, I will try another
>unix-only newsreader if you point me to one that you recommend
>and is fairly easy to set up (I don't have all day to waste
>proving simple facts to you).
>
>-c
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 22 May 2001 20:49:09 GMT
Where do I download a copy of win xp?
Fred
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
