Linux-Advocacy Digest #708, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (.)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: RIP the Linux desktop (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (.)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (.)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Interconnect")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Craig
Kelley)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Terry
Porter)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form (Roberto Alsina)
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form (Mike)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 22 May 2001 21:58:40 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Correct, if she is willing. However homosexuals are not allowed
>> >> to marry the willing adult of their choice, and that makes them
>> >> second class citizens.
>>
>> > Marriage is not defined as "the adult of your choice", marriage
>> > is defined as "the adult OF THE OPPOSITE SEX". Gays are just as
>> > free to participate as non gays.
>>
>> Oh really? And whos definition of marriage is that, exactly?
> The same one that has been in use for THOUSANDS OF YEARS/
Up until pope pious XVI, the catholic church itself sanctified same
sex marriages.
These were often for family bridging and friendship though, the church
never confirmed *any* sodomic relationships.
You dont know what youre talking about. Anti-homosexual perspectives
are not only a fairly recent development, but also vary greatly with
geography and culture. The world is not in your house.
>>
>> You poor sweet dear, you believe in god AND guns, dontcha.
> I believe in what is real.
I knew you believed in god. This conversation is over, it is impossible
to reason with the insane.
>> >> Nope, the rest of us have the right to marry the willing adult
>> >> partner of our choice.
>>
>> > See above.
>>
>> Again, whos law is that, anyhow?
> Society's
Do you have any references? And which society, exactly?
=====.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:59:11 +0200
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <3b0ad984$0$2599$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It does for people who do serious word processing. You're a developer,
> so you probably don't need most of the features, but for people creating
> real documents with flash and pizzaz, those features save lots of time.
>
> -c
>
>
Chad,
Wouldn't you classify academic dissertations of 200 pages as serious word
processing? C't did a test on word processors beginning this year and Word
2000 (SP1) consistently barfed on that. Hardly a recommendation. I can
scan in the test and put it on my web server if you want (better learn
Dutch though).
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RIP the Linux desktop
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 21:56:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > In article <9ec11j$oql$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> We didnt make it for *you*.
> MS didn't make Windows for you either, they made it for
> *your money*.
You're replying to [EMAIL PROTECTED], so why respond to me?
> > No wonder Linux is an also ran in the desktop.
>
> In the light of the Justice Dept findings, this comment
> just makes you sound ignorant.
Really. And what's the outcome of the court case so far? Zilch!
> On my desktop, Windows is 'once ran, now consigned
> to the wheelie bin of history'.
Yet Microsoft show no sign of stopping.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 22 May 2001 21:59:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Aw, suck my dick, you little right wing turd. I'll insult little
>> >> phoney fuckheads like you all I want. I've earned my rights to
>> >> criticize little bastards like you.
>>
>> > I hope you get your wish for nationwide gun ban. Then me and all my
>> > rightwing gunnut friends can legally invade your home and totally
>> > trash it out looking for yours.
>>
>> >>
>> >> Oh, you're a SOLDIER! So fucking what? Plenty of us have been soldiers,
>> >> and I doubt that many have been as much of a sad sack as you. Soldiers
>> >> are like any other population - there are some great ones, and there are
>> >> some losers - like YOU.
>>
>> > I was decorated 9 times in my first 3 years of service.
>> > what does that tell you
>>
>> That you're either A. lying or B. aaron kulkis isnt your real name. If
>> you had been decorated, it would have been a matter of public record (as
>> all military decorations are). Somehow though, not one person named
>> aaron kulkis was decorated for *anything* during the year preceeding
>> desert shield, desert shield itself, desert storm, and the year immediately
>> following.
> Bzzzzzzt! Wrong.
Say its wrong all you want, it still wont change the absolute fact that
neither the army, navy, marines nor airforce have any goddamn idea who
you are. You are lying. You are caught, and now you are insane and
pathetic.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: 22 May 2001 16:00:12 -0600
"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.
EXPLORER.EXE is horrible when compared to Nautilus. 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.
> 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?
How, exactly, is it *years* behind Windows 95?
> 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?
Warp was expensive (especially if you wanted to run Windows apps --
slower than Windows did), that's why it failed. Warp didn't run
Microsoft Office very well; that is why it failed. IBM was arrogant;
they've since been humbled.
> 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.
... unless said person doesn't have a vested interest in those apps.
Yes, people who love Outlook and can't live without Word are not going
to move over to Linux any time soon; but those aren't the only users
out there. This isn't a popularity contest -- use what works for
you.
[snip]
> I remain optimistic.
Why would anyone be otherwise? If your future outlook of Linux
depends on how well it "competes" with Microsoft Windows, then you
have other problems/agendas brewing.
[snip]
Besides, in 50 years nobody is going to care about their operating
system; they will all be open-source and free and they will all run
applications written for any.
Microsoft *can't* win in the long-term, and they know it -- but that
STILL isn't a good reason to run Linux *right now*. The only reason
to run Linux *right now* is because you enjoy running Linux.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 22 May 2001 22:00:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >I was decorated 9 times in my first 3 years of service.
>> >> >what does that tell you
>> >>
>> >> You own some little ribbons you like to flaunt when you're among
>> >> other slaves of the system? I find that ritualistic behaviour
>> >> akin to baboon's exposure of erect penises as sign of authority.
>> >>
>>
>> > Commendation for work well done.
>>
>> > Work which I *CHOSE* to get into.
>>
>> See my other post. Aaron Kulkis recieved exactly zero commendations
>> in any branch of the US military. He is a raging liar.
>>
> toooooooo funny.
paaaaaaaaathetic.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 22 May 2001 15:03:14 -0700
Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <> Also, using myself as an
> <>example: I'm heterosexual and have *no* choice in the matter.
>
> But you do have a choice in your behavior.
>
> 1Peter 5:7
I assume you say this from a religious perspective. In that case,
if you are a literalist, his behaviour doesn't matter all that
much, since already the desire is a sin.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 08:15:11 +1000
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.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:00:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> Metaphorically, maybe. In the real world, it's a stupid claim, without
> >> purpose or meaning.
> >
> >Like your posts. Stupid and without purpose or meaning.
> >
> >ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>
> In the real world, yours is a stupid claim, without purpose or meaning.
> As are your responses; stupid claims, without purpose or meaning.
Repeating yourself doesn't make it so.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:01:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >> Got any examples of that?
> I have, but you'll say you didn't distort my meaning with your cutting,
> won't ya Pete?
Given that I don't do such things, I agree!
> > BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!
> Exactly :)
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:02:11 +0200
John Wiltshire wrote:
> On Sat, 19 May 2001 18:26:46 +0000, Karel Jansens
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed, which is the speed of
>>light in a given medium. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves end will
>>therefore never be slower than light.
>
> Not true. Most medium exhibit a frequency dependance on the speed of
> light. Shine a light through a glass prism and you get a rainbow -
> this is because the speed of light is different for the different
> wavelengths of light.
?????????
Peter
--
We are Borg. Resistance is futile (Borg Gates)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 22 May 2001 22:11:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Wiltshire wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 19 May 2001 18:26:46 +0000, Karel Jansens
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>All electromagnetic waves travel at the same speed, which is the speed of
>>>light in a given medium. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves end will
>>>therefore never be slower than light.
>>
>> Not true. Most medium exhibit a frequency dependance on the speed of
>> light. Shine a light through a glass prism and you get a rainbow -
>> this is because the speed of light is different for the different
>> wavelengths of light.
>
>?????????
I think Peter is right. The refraction index (which is related to
the speed of light in a medium) varies according to frequency.
Here's a very basic explanation:
http://www.webnexus.com/users/billv/rainbow/
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:13:15 -0400
Krow wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
> > >
> > > Get with it. You can't be a good little right wing bigot if you
> > > can't read the program, Aaron.
> > >
> >
> > Did it ever occur to you that I really don't give a fuck about gays...
> >
>
> For someone who doesn't give a fuck about gays you spend an inordinate time
> on the internet discussing them.
Those who insist on parading around their deviancy will be justly persecuted for it.
>
> Krow
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[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: 22 May 2001 16:13:24 -0600
"JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Internet connection stays when switching users!
Wow. Welcome to Slackware 1.0.
> And get this - Applications even stay open and are there (still
> open) when returning to that user.
And to GNOME 1.0.
> That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the browser still
> kicks ass, and copy and paste is still much much better between
> apps, as opposed to the hit and miss copy/paste support in
> Linux. Ohh I could go on and endlessly list how much better XP is
> than Mandrake. Once again the Linux community is playing catch up to
> the industry leader. Competition at it's finest! Thank You.
You're welcome.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 May 2001 22:14:01 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 17:27:53 -0400,
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400, "JS \\ PL"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>I even
>>liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching users
>>(unlike Win2K)
>
> [snip]
>
>>Internet connection stays when switching users!
>
> Umm... This ability has been there since NT 3.51.
>
> Fire up your registry editor and add the following REG_SZ:
>
> HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\
> Winlogon\KeepRasConnection = 1
While you're at it,
Fire up your registry editor and add the following REG_SZ:
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows 98\CurrentVersion\
BSOD\random = 0
This should improve the stability of your Win98.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: 22 May 2001 22:18:35 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 22 May 2001 18:13:15 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Krow wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Get with it. You can't be a good little right wing bigot if you
>> > > can't read the program, Aaron.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Did it ever occur to you that I really don't give a fuck about gays...
>> >
>>
>> For someone who doesn't give a fuck about gays you spend an inordinate time
>> on the internet discussing them.
>
>Those who insist on parading around their deviancy will be justly persecuted for it.
I suppose that's why you need guns. All that angry crowd persecuting you.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 22:20:04 GMT
Danielle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:23:38 -0700, "jet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> jackie wrote:
>>> > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting it may
>>> > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal. that is
>>> > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of men to
>>> > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that might
>>> ^^^^^
>>> is this a typo?
>>
>>LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking even for
>>you!
>>
>>A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets married to,
>>or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look straight.
>>
>>J
>
>
>I didn't know that either.
Me either.
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:29:28 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The speed of "radiation" is not at issue; I don't think "radiation" has
> a speed.
If by radiation, you mean the normal definition - electromagnetic
radiation, then the speed in a vacuum is c.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 22 May 2001 22:33:44 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 13:59:19 -0700,
Robert Morelli <[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.
>> 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,
I didn't find Linux technology 'primitive and inferior' when I designed
my microprocessor burner (see sig).
All the programming tools I needed to complete that task, were available
and free. The whole job went smoothly, and was a lot of fun.
> and the Linux programmers writing desktop
> apps don't have high enough caliber to compete against Windows
> programmers.
What a trite and sweeping generalisation!
>
> My attitude makes me rare among Linux advocates,
But common amongst Wintrolls.
> but I simply can't
> see any alternative.
This does not mean that any alternatives do NOT exist.
> As far as the desktop goes, Linux is still years
> behind Windows 95.
In what areas ?
> How could any reasonable person expect Linux
> to take over the desktop with technology that is 5 or 10 years behind
> Microsoft?
Microsoft technology is not the holy grail you claim. Microsoft
don't even have remote GUI.
>
> Look at OS/2 Warp.
I did.
> 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.
Wrong, OS2 was a huge hit,and the reason it preceeded Win95 by a year
was because MS discovered that OS2 was killing sales of Win3.11, and
announced that they had a new OS(Win95) that was "about" to be released
(vaporware). This is what killed OS2, as the market stopped buying it,
while they waited and waited..... over a year.... for Win95 to appear.
> 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?
Considering that Linux was *available* (Yggdrassil) in 1993, and not
2001, its hardly worth arguing this with you.
> Trying to argue away the technological inferiority of Linux is not
> advocacy in my book.
Dont you mean 'Windows" ?
> 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.
It would be *if* this was true.
>
> The point I'm trying to make is not intended as a discouragement --
Thats cool, your lack of Linux knowledge, doesn't discourage me.
> 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.
There is no mystery to me, I use Linux full time, on the desktop.
> 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.
What is this ' Win95 technology' that you keep reffering to ?
> So Linux gets there 20
> years after the original innovators -- better late than never.
Who are you talking about ?
> 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.
Microsoft already has a number of serious problems on its hands, the
Justice Dept being just one.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
