Linux-Advocacy Digest #710, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Interconnect")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Win2000 Annoyances (Zsolt)
Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:49:53 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Here I go again... and may get into trouble soon too. No unclassified
> papers were written about it. But DOD provided a classified physics
> class on the subject. Look at it another way... in waveguides, the EM
> waves act like light waves. The energy travels along the metallic
> surface of the waveguide... not in it. Conversely, lower frequencies,
> the EM waves travel thru the conductor and at a slower speed. Peer
> review is not what the gov. really cares about, just results that work.
>
Without peer review, it is not science. But more than that, what you
claim simply can not be true. You claim that radio waves travel at 0.88c.
But this contradicts experimental evidence. Scientific theories must
stand up to experiment. With all of the huge changes in physics in the
last century, all the new theories still had to stand up to experiment.
Special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics - these all
would have failed if they contradicted experimental evidence. And your
claim that all measurements of the speed of light has thus been been done
only in air is just plain wrong.
Gary
------------------------------
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 17:52:41 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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.
>
> Who's desktop? It certainly works for me!
>
> #include <average_joe_user_rant.h>
>
> > 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.
>
> Oh puh-leeze. Perhaps if Windows came with any useful software I
> would consider using it; as it comes now it's simply a glorified
> typewriter until you spend hours updating and installing by hand.
So which is it? If it comes with apps, then MS is an evil monopoly
trying to squish out all app vendors and competitors, if they
don't then they're just a glorified typewriter.
Which is it?
> EXPLORER.EXE is horrible when compared to Nautilus.
WinXP.
> I'll be the first
> to stand up and admit that Linux isn't for everyone, but to say that
> it isn't a good "desktop" is silly because it's all relative.
Linux has lots of eye candy, too bad it's all broken crap that doesn't
work.
-c
------------------------------
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 17:53:38 -0500
"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eeno1$q9l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3b0aa7f7$0$2604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "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.
> >
> > -c
>
> Just because you suddenly become *aware* of an application via MS does not
> mean it did not exist before.
You mean an antiquated fraction-of-the-features version which could
loosely be called a similar app? I laugh when you guys talk about
IE being a knock-off of spyglass. What a joke!
-c
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:51:59 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You are quite perceptive of the frequency factor. As the frequency
> increases the more the EM wave acts like light. It is a variable
> transformation.
>
But EM == light. They are two different names for the same thing.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 09:08:40 +1000
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 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?
>
> Anyone who uses Linux as a replacement for Windows is asking for
> trouble. Use Linux because you like UNIX/Linux, not because you hate
> Microsoft; any other motive will result in disapointment (just like
> when I use Windows -- it never fails to disapoint me).
>
> I've been running 100% Linux for so long that I can't even figure out
> how to do many things inside Windows 2000. It literally took me an
> hour to figure out how to change the video driver (I couldn't
> right-click on the desktop to do it anymore). I'm sure others have
> similar problems going the other way and think that UNIX is
> problematic.
>
> In short: Windows 2000 is a horrible desktop *for me* (may it RIP).
Hahahahaha! I know the feeling. It just goes to prove a lot of the *Ease Of
Use* debate is what you are accustomed to. Once you get used to working
with Linux, it's surprisingly easy to install, configure, update and remove
applications.
The latest distributions of Linux are improving their Graphical User
Interface at an incredible pace. Installation of Linux *used to be* a
problem, I believe these issues have largely been fixed.
There is a growing list of applications that run under the GUI which are
also becoming more feature rich. Once these applications mature, Windows
will be a tough sell. Gaming being one area where Linux is lagging, but once
companies start releasing titles for Linux it's not inconceivable that even
more users will jump on board.
However all this Linux GUI stuff is being done leaving access to the
underlying system intact. Technical users can use all of the *nix CLI tools
they need and want to make their OS behave and *WORK* the way they want to.
Complete control.
In short I believe that to an individual who knows NOTHING about computers,
MS Windows and Linux are equally formidible to learn.
>
> --
> It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:57:39 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I wonder what the NBS would say? Doesn't say what the setup was. I
> would more fully trust a measurement in outer space at some great
> distances.
>
I just told you what the NBS said. It makes me wonder if you even know
what the NBS is.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 Annoyances
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:00:28 GMT
Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 22 May 2001 22:07:39 +0200 presented us with the
wisdom:
>
> "Mike Vance" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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.
>
> Can you give me some of the titles of those BSODs?
> I've dealt with Win2K systems since B3, and I've never had it.
> There are usually one of two reasons for this, bad hardware or bad drivers.
>
Don't you all just _LOVE_ these double standards ???
If/when Linux can't handle a specific hardware, then it goes like:
"These pile of shit linsux can't work with my superb hardware" OR
"These stupid linux geeks can't even write a proper driver"
On the other hand, all Windows BSODs are due to either:
a) bad hardware OR
b) bad drivers
Re: a) Really ??? How comes it works with Linux then ???
Re: b) Now, that is of course not the fault of Microsoft or the OS,
since the driver is written by the hardware manufacturer....
How convenient !
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Anecdote: MS' grip loosening
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:02:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 17 May 2001 23:36:52 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:30:23 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 16 May 2001 02:24:32 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Why are you downloading that shit at work?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Doesn't matter WHERE it was downloaded. Tivoli is spyware that allows
>> >> your company to know exactly what is on your system no matter where it
>> >> came from.
>> >
>> >Why are you downloading that shit onto company equipment?
>>
>> I don't have any company equipment, I am self employed.
>>
>> Point is Tivoli is spyware.
>
>You set up Tivoli to spy on yourself????
>
>Gota multiple personality disorder, or something?
One can never be too careful, what with all the .Net
black helicopters around... :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random paranoia here
EAC code #191 22d:23h:25m actually running Linux.
The computer is your friend, citizen.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:09:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charles Lyttle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 12 May 2001 22:34:52 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
[snip]
>> But there is a service in development -- if not outright deployed --
>> that can be used by the police to shut down a vehicle, if it's
>> reported stolen and a patrol car notices it moving around.
>>
>Calif. is pushing for that one very hard. By the time it gets
>implemented, is should have the ability to build an electronic box to do
>that, and be just senile enough to think it would be great fun to stand
>on an overpass and shut down cars being tail-gated by semis. Who needs
>to go to a movie to see great explosions. Please note : If Onstar can
>unlock your car, so can I. If the police can shutdown your car, so can
>I. Think of the market for such devices! Professional carjackers steal
>your car and reprogram it with the ID of a salvaged vehicle! This is
>already being done. Watch out for late model cars from lowend used car
>lots. They are often assembled from two or three wrecked vehicles. The
>elecronics can get very screwey even if the bodies aren't.
And people wonder why technology occasionally makes me nervous. :-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- the solutions are wonderful, but where are the problems?
EAC code #191 22d:17h:29m actually running Linux.
[ ] Do you want this message to be private? Oops, too late.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 19:12:02 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Yes. It's possible there was a port of the
> > > Vulcan Database to the Apple II that
> > > flopped; I merely have no evidence for
> > > it.
> >
> > I said dBase II. dBAse II ran on the Apple II
>
> I rather doubt it. It would be a from-scratch
> rewrite, and it would be crippled by the
> limitations of the Apple II.
>
You are making assumptions again. go back and read your snips. You have
lost some context.
> > > Certainly it was an even worse platform
> > > for it than CP/M.
> >
> > So now were back to CP/M being a lousy platform, even when running
> > relational datatbases.
>
> Relational databases? Most of these early
> guys were flat-file databases.
>
Was dBase II relational?
> [snip]
> > > It does not matter who said it; it's still
> > > impossible. The IBM PC was the first PC
> > > to use the 8088 CPU. There was
> > > no version of CP/M that ran on this CPU
> > > before MS-DOS came along.
> >
> > And source code is transferable... even a little... EVERYTHING had to be
> > completely re-written?
>
> Assembly source isn't transferable. You don't
> believe that either product was written
> in a high level language do you?
>
Was it? Wasnt it? Can you say for SURE what language it was written in?
> [snip]
> > > Mind you, there *were* development tools
> > > for the early PC, and they quickly
> > > outstripped what you could do on an
> > > 8-bit machine.
> >
> > It doesnt matter. If there is no one to sell to, no market, the there
> > will be no development. Unless you creat a market, or two, like Apple
> > has done.
>
> Not so. Every new computer line begins its life with
> no users. They only take off when some developer
> codes for it *anyway*, and users want to get that
> developer's app.
>
But with a new platform... there arent any splashy developer tools. How
can developers develop without splashy development tool? Why, it defies
ALL reason. Every one just KNOWS there has to be a passle of developer
tools bevfore a developer will develop anything.
/sarcasm (just in case you missed it)
> [snip]
> > > Softtalk was a magazine of the time, wasn't it?
> > >
> > > Why would anyone thing its readership was
> > > representative of anything in particular?
> >
> > I just dont believe you. They were computer users. They used computers
> > and software. What do you think they represented... Ford dealers?
>
> :D
>
> Actually, the problem I'd expect to see is that they
> would not be Ford dealers, or secretaries, or anything
> like that. They would be computer enthusiasts.
>
> [snip]
> > > What makes you think the SoftCard
> > > sold "well" at all?
> >
> > It did. Do some research. Go to a library, since you cant use google.
>
> If you did the research, you can tell me:
> What percentage of Apple II series
> computers had SoftCards installed?
>
So?
> > > There was much less reason to put
> > > CP/M on an Apple II than there
> > > is to put a PC-card in a Mac. The
> > > Apple II had more software than
> > > CP/M did, back then.
> >
> > You have no basis to make this claim.
>
> I don't let little things like that stop me. :D
>
Obviously.
> [snip]
> > > I said "database" not "fnord". You are allowed to
> > > see that word. :D
> >
> > So, are you saying WP, SS, DB meaningless work, or not?
>
> I'm not saying that. I never said that. That notion
> exists only in your fervid little imagination.
>
So, WP, SS and DB ARE meaningful work. Micros then DID do WP, SS and DB,
so how could they not do meaningful work?
> [snip]
> > > 40 column, all uppercase text was ugly, but
> > > it wasn't a big handicap for a spreadsheet.
> >
> > SO, Apple IIs runnign vivicalc were OK, huh? Not just puny little toys?
> > You might want to read up on what people thought about Visical when it
> > first came out. Apparently many businessmen were amazed.
>
> Many accountants *were* amazed; it was
> very innovative.
>
> Of course you could do better on a PC, but
> remember that VisiCalc came out before
> the PC existed.
>
How could you do better on a PC when the first spreadsheet was Visicalc
and it came out for the Apple II first, and was ported to the PC for a
while?
> [snip]
> > > You might be surprised about that. They
> > > were expensive, but they weren't
> > > *that* expensive.
> >
> > sez you.
>
> Says me.
>
Big deel.
> [snip]
> > > Sure. But *8-bit* computers were no good
> > > at databases; tiny disks and tiny memories
> > > are real problems. Databases need to
> > > store and work with volumes of data-
> > > even for a small office.
> >
> > You know DBs, dont have to HUGE to be meaningful to a business... just
> > in your self-imoortant mind.
>
> No, but 144k is pretty crampt, even for
> a small office.
>
Better than pencil and paper.
> [snpi]
> > > > m$ Works was just as integrated as Clarisworks, without the GUI.
> > >
> > > Huh?
> > >
> > > MS Works *has* a GUI.
> > >
> >
> > MS Works -didnt- when it first came out.
>
> Oh yes, the DOS version. I was thinking of
> a later timeframe.
>
> [snip]
> > > I guess you can't do it yourself, because you
> > > know very little about the other packages
> > > available at the time.
> >
> > I see you sidestepped the question. Still cant work google?
>
> You'd be surprised how little useful information
> there is from this early.
>
> [snip]
> > > > That just shouw you self-important arrogance.
> > >
> > > By the way, just what engineers do you know
> > > who considered the Apple IIs graphics
> > > system a work of "art"?
> >
> > Only what Ive read in many articles and books, since I didnt know them
> > personally.
>
> What articles? What books?
>
You cant read, either?
> [snip]
> > > > You just said bigger offices dont use m$ Office.
> > >
> > > No, I didn't. What they don't use is
> > > SQL Server. :D
> >
> > No big business offices use SQL?
>
> Some do, some don't. The ones who
> are using mainframes aren't doing so in
> preference to using MS Office, but in
> preference to SQL Server, Oracle, etc.
>
So, first you say big offices DONT use SQL, then you say they DO use
SQL. Sheesh.
> [snip]
> > > It isn't exactly all word processing. In fact, that
> > > is kind of peripheral.
> >
> > ReallY?
>
> Yes.
>
> [snip]
> > > > > I had one of those once. Neat little
> > > > > toy. So cute. Adorable, really.
> > > >
> > > > You really are a jerk.
> > >
> > > What, just for liking the Model 102?
> >
> > You dissed the 102.
>
> Come on. You aren't going to tell me
> those little things outpaced a PC
> *too*, are you?
I'd say that the first laptop was pretty snazzy. It was a wonder for its
day. AND, Im in the process of figuring out how to use one as a
tetminal. It replaced my IIe while I waited for my GS to arrive. It
wasnt adorable, or cute or any of those little insults. It was a fine
tool.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
