Linux-Advocacy Digest #864, Volume #34 Thu, 31 May 01 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Opera (Terry Porter)
Re: sorry NT... (.)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Jim Richardson)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: The nature of competition (Bob Hauck)
Windows Update vs. apt-get (Was: ease and convenience (Perry Pip)
Re: ease and convenience (Perry Pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 04:49:31 +0200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 May 2001 07:56:07 +1200,
> > Or they could just get Linux and struggle to find a decent web browser,
> Thats true at the moment, but not for much longer. Mozilla is shaping up
> to be a very useful browser.
Mozilla is shaping out to be a very useful browser for two or three years
now, isn't it?
> > have
> > to download a new Office suite,
> If they upgrade to XP, they'll need to upgrade too, and at a cost of
> $1150 (from my local newspaper) per seat!
Who told you that?
I'm not aware of any technical or license reason that will force you to
upgrade to OfficeXP if you are using Windows XP.
BTW, please leave a blank line between your posting and the posting you
reply to.
The way you do it now makes it hard to seperate what you says and what you
reply to.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Opera
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 31 May 2001 01:50:24 GMT
On Wed, 30 May 2001 19:54:06 GMT,
Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 19:31:41 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 May 2001 16:28:06 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)) wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 29 May 2001 20:49:23 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 27 May 2001 13:43:56 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> >> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)) wrote:
>>
>> >> >Upgrades are free, so if you registered a previous version and upgrade,
>> >> >it will still be registered and you won't see the ads.
>>
>> >> Do the cracks work on the Linux version?
>>
>> >I have no idea. I paid for mine.
I paid for my copy of Win95 (since sold it too) and my copy
of MS Access, and Ms Money (both since thrown in the bin).
>>
>> Why?
Because Linux users have some moral discipline regarding stealing
thats why.
>
> Why do you care?
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| Codem Systems, Inc.
> -| http://www.codem.com/
--
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] (.)
Subject: Re: sorry NT...
Date: 31 May 2001 02:02:50 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This article was posted and commented on in here almost 3 weeks ago. You're
> behind the times.
> Several people in the industry stated specifically that Linux was not
> replacing NT, but was supplementing it, mostly in render farms.
Apparantly you didnt read the article where it clearly said "replacing
desktop machines".
You idiot.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 19:19:05 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In msgid <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin
wrote: on Friday 25 May 2001 11:25
> In article <9effh5$7o6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>> > The Intel one only runs on Windows. They chose it because it's the most
>> > popular.
>>
>> What a bunch of bollocks. Seti@home for intel linux is available at
>> http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/unix.html
>
> The Intel one is dedicated to Cancer research. It only works on Windows
> last time I looked. You did look didn't you, before you opened your
> mouth and inserted both feet in it? Didn't you?
>
Pete wake up and read, the seti client, is not the cancer research client,
and the seti client for x86 is available for many OS, not just windows.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 02:44:03 GMT
On Tue, 29 May 2001 00:16:05 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is a tedious long post,
Yes it was, so I snipped most of it.
> StarOffice is a good example of something I've
> been talking about though;
I don't see how your observations lead to this conclusion. There are
other conclusions that also plausibly explain the observations.
> StarOffice does not use the normal control
> set.
StarOffice does not use the normal *Windows* control set. It being a
cross-platform app, it is not surprising that there are some differences
from a native app.
> It's very, very hard to get a consistant user
> interface without using a common toolset,
> but StarOffice can't use the Windows
> tools because they do not work on Unix.
Or on OS/2. StarOffice also used to work on OS/2. And this is not a
deficiency of Unix, but of cross-platform development.
> That these Unix developers had to
> waste their time doing all this says
> a lot about why desktop apps are
> usually developed for Windows,
> I think. These guys were supposed
> to be writing a Office package.
No, it says a lot about why apps are usually developed only for one
platform. And it says a lot about large apps being hard to make
portable. It doesn't say very much at all about the supposed
deficiencies of Unix. Modern toolkits like those underlying Gnome and
KDE are really quite good, but StarOffice doesn't use them just like it
does not use the native Windows toolkit.
> I've been fooling with the word processor.
> It's got a lot of features.
>
> But if it has a feature Word has not,
> I don't see what it is. Perhaps you
> can point it out.
So it is very similar to Word's feature set. It is no doubt "good
enough" for the majority of users then.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 03:43:58 GMT
On Mon, 28 May 2001 14:15:38 +0800, Todd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > The one MindCraft benchmark where MS, PCWeek and RedHat all attended
> > > clearly showed W2k was faster than Linux in basic tasks.
That is not what it showed, please stop repeating that claim. Firstly,
Mindcraft tested NT against Linux 2.2, not W2K against Linux 2.4.
Secondly, the "basic tasks" centered around serving static web pages
with SMP machines equipped with multiple network cards. The whole thing
is irrelevant to desktop users from the get-go.
> > Mindcraft tests have been shown again and again, in many topics here, to
> > be 'aranged' to favor Windows.
>
> How so? Red Hat was there representing the Linux community - twice.
What was tested was carefully selected to highlight a specific weakness
in Linux 2.2 kernels that NT happened to not have. Interestingly, NT
had the same weakness until SP3. I guess it is just a coincidence that
MS happened to pick a configuration that emphasized this difference for
the Mindcraft test.
Mindcraft did point out some deficiencies of Linux in specific areas
but can't be generalized to anything resembling the categorical
superiority of NT's SMP that MS salesmen like to claim. On top of
that, Mindcraft tested a 2.2 kernel, not 2.4, so it is no longer
relevant anyway.
> Are you saying they were biased??
The tests were conducted honestly, but what was tested was calibrated
to make NT look good and Linux look bad. Other tests with slightly
different configurations got the opposite result.
> W2k (in benchmarks) has been benchmarked several times against NT
> (which has won SMP benchmarks against Linux in web/file/app. sharing)
More Mindcraft? More Linux 2.2? Is that all you've got? Oh, yeah,
you have those TPC-C scores with clusters of servers in a configuration
that has never been sold to a customer.
> and W2k has come out ahead of NT by at least 25% faster utilizing SMP.
What does that mean? 25% faster at what? I/O? Computation? With how
many CPU's? This is meaningless marketing babble.with just the naked
"25% faster" and nothing else.
> Actually, I am not. I have seen other Linux users' posts regarding
> Netscape and how it can cause panics
Can you provide a reference? I have never seen Netscape panic Linux.
I can't recall seeing anyone else claim that either. I have seen
people claim that Netscape wedged their X server, which is not the same
thing at all. I have seen you claim that a core dump means the OS
crashed, which is completely mistaken, so you'll have to pardon me for
not trusing your memory.
> W2k is a very complex OS that has many things built into the OS that Linux
> simple doesn't provide at all... things like distributed COM objects or
> Active Directory...
>
> Yet it all works very well with surprisingly few problems.
At least with other Microsoft software, most of the time.
> MS is also very good at getting patches out very quickly,
If you threaten to release an exploit.
> Who *knows* what lurks in Linux?
Anyone who reads the code.
> But when you are quoting on a project, time=money. And MS allows you to
> develop stuff in a greatly reduced time period.
My experience is that Windows allows you to develop on a greatly
reduced time period...and then spend the rest of the normal time period
tracking down the bugs in components MS or some third party sold you.
> If you have a problem with their products, depending on the service
> level (usually good if you are working on big projects), you could have
> an expert at your door the next day to help debug the solution.
Oh, yeah, that's something that every Windows developer gets. This
kind of support is available for Linux too you know, if you have the
money.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Windows Update vs. apt-get (Was: ease and convenience
Date: 31 May 2001 03:52:37 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 May 2001 13:47:05 +0800,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:40:29 +0800,
>> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
>>
>> Because he wants to have a *choice* as to what newsreader to use.
>
> So *choose* the one with IE :)
That's *your* choice to be conformist. Can't you respect others in
making their choices, or should all conform to what it dictated to
them.
> Seriously, my *dad* downloads stuff from the net all the time with no
> problem.
My father in-law installed Linux, and installed some games for his
grandchildren to play. What's really funny, though, is that whilst
running Windows he unknowingly emailed viruses to several of his
relatives ;)
>
> I see messages from *technical* people that can't figure out how to do
> something in Linux -- not because it is difficult, but because it is so
> damned unintuitive and hard to find related documentation.
And I see so called "technical" people rebooting and reinstalling Windows
constantly. They never ask for help becuase they know with Windows there is no
hope for solution other than reboot/reinstall.
> With Windows, there is a *central* help system for all OS related things
> that is *fully* text indexed for easy retrieval.
>
That's a laugh. Windows help is superficial fluff. In Linux there is
also a central help system, fully indexed, with *complete* information
about what the tools actually do.
>> >
>> > Windows:
>>
>> You're leaving a few things out about Windows Update, aren't you?? For
>> example:
>>
>> >
>> > 1) Start->Windows Update
>>
>> 1a) answer 'ok' to the message that says you can't download and
>> install SP2, security updates, or any other package simultaneously
>> while downloading and installing IE.
>
> This is *only* if you decided to install other stuff - my instructions were
> *simple* -> just download IE.
Well the original poster decided to install Agent, which won't happen
at all by your method. With Debian Linux you install the newsreader of
your choice in single command. Same method to install any
newsreader. Many to choose from. Some of us like choice and freedom.
> So this step is ignored.
>
Not at all. Security updates are critical on any system. In Debian
Linux, you do it with single command and no reboots, the same command
that intalls the newsreader.
>> IOW, thru Windows Update you must
>> install numerous packages separately and reboot each time. (In
>> contrast, I run apt-get once with no reboots)
>
> You do NOT need to reboot each time (I'm assuming you are using W2k
> here...) -- YES for Service Packs (of course)... most other stuff does not
> require a reboot. AND you can download and install them simultaneously.
Your flat out lying. IE 5.5 from Windows Update on W2k requires a
reboot. It won't let you do more updates untill your reboot. Service
Packs require a reboot. Critical security updates require
reboots. Each must be downloaded and installed separately, resulting
in a series of downloads and reboots. I've been thru it several
times. In Linux you do it all in one command, no reboot. Enter the
command, go out and have a beer, come back and you are done. Please
don't try to tell me Windows Update is easier than that. I've used
both Windows Update on W2K and apt-get on debian. Apt-get is far
easier, faster an more powerful. Updating can be easily and totally
automated in a nightly or weekly cron job.
>> > 2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
>>
>> 2a) click 'ok' repeatedly to numerous stupid questions, preventing you
>> from going off and doing other things at the time thus making you a
>> prisoner to the whole process.
>
> No specifics here... I don't have this problem.
The next time you run Windows Update just count how many clicks you
have to do. I'll be out having a beer while apt-get is running on my
system.
>> 2b) reboot... once for each update you install.
>
> Wrong. My instructions were for IE only. Not for downloading *every*
> update just because it is listed.
Your instructions are irrelevent. The original poster wanted a
different newsreader. The issue I am now raising is Windows Update
vs. apt-get.
>
>> > 3) Start IE->Tools->Read News
>>
>> 4) go back to step one and repeat the process for each additional
>> Windows Update you want to install.
>
> My instructions were only for IE to get the Newsreader. If you *followed*
> them, you wouldn't have all the rest of the stuff you mentioned.
Your instructions are irrelevent. The original poster wanted a
different newsreader. The issue I am now raising is Windows Update
vs. apt-get.
> Of course, the more stuff you install, the more you have to do... more than
> half can be downloaded and installed at the SAME time.
More that half at once?? Wow!! Debian Linux does *everything* at once.
> But you are either pretending not to know this, or haven't *really* used
> Windows Update (under w2k.)
I did a fresh W2K install on a machine about two months
ago. Installing all of the updates plus the video drivers and directX
(needed for the vid drivers) took a total of five downloads and five
reboots. Who are you trying to kid??
> HOWEVER -> I have had problems simply getting my ethernet card to WORK under
> Linux using DHCP.
>
> Sounds easy? Under W2k, simply PUT IN the network card and TURN ON the
> system. It AUTOMATICALLY installs drivers, configures DHCP and gets you on
> the net.
>
> Under Red Hat Linux 7.0 ? My computer is still without a connection after
> numerous attempts just to find simple documention on what will probably be a
> bunch of editing files and other stuff.
>
> Windows is *FAR* easier and more intuitive than Linux.
You've got a network card that happens to be supported on the W2K CD
and not on the Linux CD , that's all. I've had numerous experiences
that have gone the other way.
I replaced my motherboard and saw nothing but BSOD's untill
reinstalling W2K (then download/rebooting 3 more times for the updates
and IE 5.5). Linux booted on the new MB first time with no sweat.
Bought an ATI Radeon card and got very poor 3D on W2K untill
resintalling again, download/rebooting 3 more times for the updates
once agian, and then downloading and installing directX and ATI's
drivers. That's a reinstall plus total of five download/reboots just
for a new video card. With the Radeon on Linux I simply followed the
DRI instructions. Although they were rather complicated, I followed
them verbatim step for step and was playing quake within an hour. And
that was an alpha quality driver. In the next release of Debian,
apt-get (i.e. the same tool that installs the updates and newsreader
of your choice in one command) will install the driver automitacally.
>> Few could use Windows at all without the help of 1) OEM
>> preinstalls and 2) technical people to ask for help with problems.
>
> I am technical and am still trying to figure out how to get BASIC stuff to
> work in Linux.
You're technical??? But you think Windows help is usefull, so how can
you be technical?? Let me guess. You bought a W2k preinstall, and
you've mastered 'control panel' and 'administrative tools' and now you
think you're a guru:)
> Ridicule me if you like, but the fact is, Linux is just too hard to make it
> worth the trouble for people that *value* their time.
>
I'm not here to ridicule you, Todd. But do you have the same depth of
knowledge of Linux that you have of Windows? They are two completely
different paradigms. If you are used to one paradigm and not the other
then naturallly you see the other as more difficult. But that doesn't
mean it really is. Open your mind. Have you used apt-get?? How do you
know how easy or hard it is??? What experience to you really have to
make valid comparisons??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: 31 May 2001 03:53:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 30 May 2001 02:10:36 GMT,
Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 13:47:05 +0800,
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> Because he wants to have a *choice* as to what newsreader to use.
>>
>> So *choose* the one with IE :)
> Thats an oxymoron.
More like he's a moron :)
Perry
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
