Linux-Advocacy Digest #756, Volume #34 Thu, 24 May 01 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: article on Windows 2002 ("Glitch")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
Re: The nature of competition ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:21:43 +0100
>>You just don't get it, do you (and neither does Chad)? It's not a
>>*sacrifice*. In the Linux world, software gets written because there is
>>a
>>*demand* for a functionality.
>
> That's a cop out because in many cases those very same features are
> being put to good use by folks in the Win and Mac world so obviously
> there is a demand.
In the Linux world, different functionality is required. I don't use
Linux as a free alternative to windows (ie wanting linux to be identical
to windows) I use it because I prefer UNIX to windows.
>> If some functionality is not there it means
>>that either not enough people are interested, or that it is not
>>implemented yet (and then it is generally mentioned in the TODO file).
>
> Or that people who are used to making do with what they have just
> continue to do so like the crap fonts in Netscape.
Yep. The world lives and dies by the fonts in Netscape.
Anyway, I use Windows's fonts (the ones made by Monotype) in netscape and
they look just fine to me. Nice and big, perfectly readable.
>>That's all there is to it. There is no marketing department that tries
>>to sell us features.
>
> Good thing cause they would be out of business in short order.
Exactly. We are more interested in functionality rather than features.
>> You will get some cognitive dissonance when you buy
>>products that are targeted at Windows users. These are generally heavily
>>marketed and full of promises regarding features. That these features
>>are generally just fluff and chrome and often not even do what is
>>promised is immaterial, you didn't ask for them, they are being marketed
>>to you.
>
> I'll agree with you as far as software (ie: Office suites of which 90
> percent of the features are not used by the typical person) but with
> hardware I disagree.
It depends on the user. Do you think that the people buying a new
computer to write letters and do the accounts on are using the fancy 3D
features of their graphics card or sound card?
Hell I don't even use all of my hardware (my moniter came with speakers
that I have little use for, since I have a hi-fi near by).
> I want my mouse to do what it says on the box.
I've yet to see a mouse that doesn't work. The most recent one I've seen
is a logitech wheel mouse and RH7 set it up correctly. Scrolls all the
xterms a treat (the user doesn't do much more than use xterms, vi, gcc and
ghostview).
> I want full use of all
> the features of my sound/video card.
So...? Buy a fully supported one, then.
> and so forth.
If windows is so great with hardware, why can't it use my video card to
its full potential (no Hi-res text modes)?
Why can't I do anything useful with the extra keys on the keyboard (like
I can in Linux)?
> Linux is consistently behind the times in that area.
And it's so far ahead in many others.
>>It's just two different worlds flatty, don't sweat it too much, but *do*
>>try and see things from our perspective.
>
> I see your point, but I'm not one for waiting until a piece of hardware
> has been replaced 3 times by an upgraded version before a Linux driver
> is written that barely works with the first version.
It may come as supise to you but not everyone buys belleding edge, brand
new hardware every 2 months.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:30:53 +0100
>> OTOH, Netscape 4.7x crashes regularly and now, I can't even get it to
>> start up, it just core dumps.
>
> Hmm.. it's rock solid for me.
Same here.
>> Netscape 6 requires practically reinstalling the OS, but it seems to
>> fair a little better. Of course it's a usability and functionality
>> nightmare and the news reader is a complete pile of ****.
If windows makes you nearly reinstall the OS to put on NS, it myst be
realy shitty. Under Linux, you just untar it and it works perfectly. I've
also found the recent Mozilla builds rather better, so its probably worth
going with them instead.
>> Again, NS 6 seems better in this regards, but only if you manage to
>> install it without hosing your OS.
>
> Which is simple since it's difficult to actually hose solaris.. unless
> one wants to deliberately.
The best way is probably to creat an `install software' user, and always
install as him, but making the software world readable. That way you can
guarntee that it will never do anything nasty.
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 00:08:38 GMT
Nico Coetzee wrote:
>
> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > "screwing the customers".
> >
>
> Maybe we as Linux supporters should make a greater effort of promoting
> alternatives to the average user. It's not easy, and where I am (South
> Africa) just about every area is M$ dominated. You have to give it to
> the scum - they can push a shitty deal...
>
> I said it a while back, and I'm going to say it again - we must push
> Linux to the younger generation (School going crowd). If they dig into
> Linux now, they will eventually take it with them in the corporate
> world. Especially since Linux is now 110% ready for the desktop as well.
>
> Cheers all,
>
> Nico
I've got a project for school aged generation. See my link below. If you
know of any students or schools interested in taking part, send e-mail.
We don't all have to be in the same room, or even the same country!
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 May 2001 20:20:02 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > You had complete separate software
> > > for the //e, and it could sort of kind of
> > > emulate the Mac look-and-field with
> > > a special font. It was a pretty cheezy
> > > approach, really.
> > >
> > > What the IIgs had, on the other hand,
> > > was the real deal.
> >
> > Yopu again show your 0 credibility. The GS original desktop was not 16
> > bit, but 8 bit. It ran under ProDos 8.
>
> You are mistaken. Like the Mac, the IIgs had its
> GUI software partly in ROM. The //e mousetext
> software would run on it, sure, but what's the
> point?
>
> > Mousetext was used for the
> > graphics of the desktop and you could use it on a IIe. You had to pull
> > some files from the GS system disks, but it could be done. I know. I did
> > it. And it was documented in some of the Appl II magazines. Thats were I
> > learned about it.
>
> The mousetext thing did work on //es, but the gs had
> a real GUI. It didn't need it.
Suppose you tell me when the GS had a full 16 bit OS as opposed to its
8bit OS. And suppose you tell me why the GS Desktop uses ProDOS 8?
--
Rick
------------------------------
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: Thu, 24 May 2001 20:24:12 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> [snip]
> > > Microsoft didn't raise their prices for
> > > any of these guys; in fact they lowered them
> > > in some cases.
> >
> > Microsoft lowered prices in face of Digital's competitoni, then raised
> > them again.
>
> Did they? They are still very cheap by all accounts
> I've heard. When did they raise prices, and of
> what products?
>
The lowerd the price on refrigerators... sheesh...
DOS.
> > > Kinda rough on the competition, to judge
> > > by the bodycount. But good for consumers,
> > > certainly.
> >
> > Rough on the competition? It's called predatory anti-compeitive pricing.
>
> Yes, it certainly is called that.
>
And that is illegal.
> And it is rough on the competition, but good
> for consumers.
>
Its not when the consumers' choice is then limited to m$.
> [snip]
> > > MS Windows isn't expensive enough that Linux
> > > is justifiable, not on the desktop.
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Windows is enough better than Linux that
> it's worth the $20 it costs an OEM, even
> though Linux is free.
>
Where do you get your information that $20 is the OEM price, or that
there is only one OEM price?
> The price *difference* is quite small,
> even though Linux is free. Small compared
> to the cost of the comptuer hardware,
> anyway.
>
Its not small when you mulitply it by a large number of machines.
> [snip]
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 17:35:37 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No.... So much for your ability to follow directions when you installed
> it.
No.... You shouldn't have to RTFM just to install a g*ddamned operating
system. That's just too much effort to expect anybody to do. You should
just have to drop in the CD and it just fscking WORKS!
</sarcasm>
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: article on Windows 2002
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 20:47:57 -0400
>> >
>> Keeping SQL server 2000 until XP comes out and then it might end up
>> being SQLXP
>>
>> Don't even have any vowels in that one, lol.
>>
>> I'm right in assuming SQL server 2000 came from SQL server *2.0* right?
>> There is a nomenclature change right there.
>
> No, SQL Server 2000 is SQL Server 8.0
>
there is still a change in naming convention is there not?
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 00:36:21 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b0d8342$0$56152$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9ei5rg$hm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 14 to 16 MB's of memory? You have one of the most F'd up Office
> > > configurations imaginable, or your normal.dot is 10MB's strong. No, I
> > doubt
> > > that as I don't think you can code with VBA.
> > > Winword, the executable name for Word, is running on right now on this
> pc.
> > > MS Outlook Express, which you love to hate but love to use, as you did
> to
> > > make this post,
> >
> > Get a life "~¿~" , or better know as, Mr "I'm too chicken to use my real
> > name".
> >
> > If you read my post I said I was testing out Windows 2000 SP2 since Jon
> had
> > raved on about how great it was going to be, and how fast it is etc etc.
> I
> > am running now it, this is my second install, the first install fucked up
> > after two days.
>
> ahahahahah - you know, without even asking the details and without a shred
> of proof - I'm perfectly confident in declaring you are full of crap. I
> think we've rolled out over 30,000 installs of SP2 at 18 clients so far and
> not one NOT ONE has "fucked up" - and here comes the great anti-MS zealot
> and, surpise? his is fucked up. you are SO predictable...
What's even more hilarious about it, is even The Register (known for fabricating
news on-demand and editorializing in reports and passing them as facts)
has yet to come up with even one concrete example where SP2 has had problems.
The last report I saw, where they were trying their hardest, they could only
come up with a "few" users having problems "some of the time" with hibernation
on laptops. I have a crappy Dell PoS laptop and even it hummed along with
SP2 just fine, including about 20+ hibernations in the past 3-4 days due
to flight-hopping and such.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 00:37:41 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b0d8392$0$56115$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9ei7m4$j2b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > C't is a biased MS-bashing rag just like The Register. I have yet to
> > > see either posted a favorable article of Microsoft.
> > >
> > > Somehow, millions of people use Word very efficiently and demand
> > > even more features from, yet you, all-knowing, all-wise deem it
> > > crap because you can't seem to figure it out?
> >
> > I wouldn't exactly say the below link is biased in anyway.
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19134.html
> >
>
> I would ... this rag is trash and anything quoted from it is equal to
> trash...
I would as well. Note at the bottom how they're quick to defend VA
Linux's obvious death march. Even with MS's best news, they are
quick to point out any failings or faults of MS in every single
article.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 17:58:07 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> The worst thing I have found about *nix sysadmins is that they haven't a
> clue about anything that has to do with hardware. Totally clueless.
Maybe you should have said "some" or even "most". I was a field service
engineer for ten years before I landed my first UNIX sysadmin job. I've
forgotten more about hardware than you'll ever hope to know.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:00:58 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2001 23:19:46 +0100, "David Dorward"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It seems that on Thu, 24 May 2001 14:08:36 +0100, someone claiming to be
>"WJP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed this:
>
>> Does Netscape for Linux have the AOL Instant Message capability?
>
>I'm not sure if Netscape comes with one, but there are several AIM clients
>for Linux. Take a look at:
>
>http://kaim.sourceforge.net
>http://gaim.sourceforge.net/
>http://freshmeat.net/projects/bonim/
>http://www.aol.com/aim/Linuxbeta.html
>
>as well as a search on http://freshmeat.net/
>
>
>(Use AOL as a ISP for a Linux box is almost certainly a no no)
FWIW gaim worked pretty well for me.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:05:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Edward Rosten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 13 May 2001 23:46:14 +0100
<9dmvak$de5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> That is not true. If you took 500 cats in boxes and lookes at them all
>>> at once, n would be dead and 500-n would be alive. You would have no
>>> way of predicting in an individual case whether the cat would be dead
>>> or alive, thus the observation does not stop it being random, it merely
>>> forces it in to a random (but observable) state.
>>
>> If you take a random number, then modify it, it's no longer random. If
>
>That is not true. I can take a random number and multiple it by two, the
>result still being random.
But with different characteristics.
Take a random number, uniformly distributed from 0 to 1 [*], and multiply
by 2. One gets a random number, uniformly distributed from 0 to 2.
It gets worse.
Take two random numbers which are both uniformly distributed from
0 to 1 and add them together. One gets a "tent"-distributed random
number, which starts at 0, peaks at 1, and ends at 2.
Take two uniformly-distributed random numbers from 0 to 1 and multiply them
together -- one would probably get a weird-looking thing. I'd have
to work out what it looks like, but it would still be random -- just
not uniformly-distributed.
And then there's the bell curve... :-)
This is admittedly leading to an interesting, if slightly goofy, utility,
just to check my statements... :-)
[rest snipped]
[*] to be precise, the area under the range (x, x+Dx) would be the
probability that a random number would fall in that range. This
means that the area under (-oo,+oo) has to have area 1. For
a uniformly-distributed random number from 0 to 1, this isn't
much of an issue as the curve is 1 from [0,1] and 0 everywhere else.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- who knows just enough statistics to be dangerous
EAC code #191 24d:19h:53m actually running Linux.
I am, you are, he, she, and it is, but they're not.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 01:06:51 GMT
On Thu, 24 May 2001 17:35:37 -0700, "Paolo Ciambotti"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> No.... So much for your ability to follow directions when you installed
>> it.
>
>No.... You shouldn't have to RTFM just to install a g*ddamned operating
>system. That's just too much effort to expect anybody to do. You should
>just have to drop in the CD and it just fscking WORKS!
>
></sarcasm>
He doesn't have to read a manual at all he just didn't bother to check
the box that would have allowed him to save his current config and
back off the SP2 if it caused troubles, which I think is highly
suspect in and of itself.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
