Linux-Advocacy Digest #872, Volume #34 Thu, 31 May 01 11:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Bloody Viking)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (Nick Condon)
Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers? ("Peter
T. Breuer")
Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file? ("Jody")
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: Opera (flatfish+++)
Re: SourceForge hacked! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: What does XP stands for ??? (Martgian)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: 31 May 2001 14:10:17 GMT
Peter Seebach ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: That may be, but I feel obliged to point out rumors that 3M recently passed
: an internal edict that no Microsoft development platforms would be used for
: new internal products. If other companies that actually *use* computers
: start defecting, even half-heartedly, Microsoft could lose big.
It's safe to say that Microshit is in trouble with the server market. It's the
home user market that Microshit has the near-monopoly. Same with the office
LAN client computers. Just ask home users which OS they use, and it's always
Windows of some flavour. You might get lucky and find a Mac user or more rare,
a Linux user. I happen to be one of those rare Linux home users.
Linux is an OS that appeals to techie types, not normal home users in general.
The install can be a pain depending on equipment and distro used. At times,
you get to play "hacker" with the install, like on a stubborn laptop. Being a
Linux fan, I have to admit that it's not an OS for everyone, certainly not
yet.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
CUIDADO: Las Puertas Estan Listo Para Cerrar.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: 31 May 2001 14:19:28 GMT
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
>> one
>must
>> ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
>>
>Wrong question, the real question is why shouldn't an OS cost money?
>
>An OS should cost money, because it is derived from effort, which most
>humans expect to be paid for. Total up the amount of time that Linux
>has taken to develop, and then try and recover that cost. Linux of
>course is a special example, as it is allegedly developed by people on
>their "free" time. Of course, this doesn't include people who are paid
>to develop it (Linus by Transmeta, Alan Cox by Redhat). I don't see too
>many Linux companies actually making money - because they can't recover
>the costs of their effort.
Very little of the world's software is developed for resale. Most - perhaps
95% - of the world's software is developed in-house for it's use-value and
licensing is non-issue. Don't believe me? Take a look any publication that
advertises vacancies for developers. How many of them are software houses?
Maybe 1 in 20. Most of them are financial institutions.
>It's simple economics as to why an OS costs money.
Your description is not "simple economics", but "simplistic".
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Why does Linux / OSS community love mailing lists and hate news servers?
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:03:54 +0200
In comp.os.linux.misc wade blazingame <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I'm not just asking for myself; simplifying access to mailing lists
>>> makes Linux more friendly on the desktop to new users.
>>
>> Are you unable to get it? Route your mailing list to a news server if
>> you feel like it! There are plenty of news/mail gateways! I run a
>> three-way gateway on all my lists: news, mail and http.
> I think you're the one who's not getting it.
> How is Joe Bumfuck, who just installed Linux to try it out before
> upgrading to WinXP, supposed to have the faintest idea how to set up a
> news/mail gateway?
Umm ... well, he could join the berolist mailing list. But why is JBF
interested in routing his mail to a news server? Surely he gets one
mail a fortnight from Jill BF?
I was never interested enough. I simply set up the berolist software
and pointed it at my news server for the mailing lists I control,
so they go through there. Then I set up a cron job every half hour for
root to read the news and download new articles with tin and send them
to the mailing list. Avoiding the loop is the hard part (you can pay me
for that one .. uh, OK, there are two mailing list addresses, outgoing
and incoming. The news server sends to outgoing. People send to
incoming, which goes to the news, which the cronjob takes off and sends
to outgoing, which goes to the list addressees by mail).
Got it? I just have enough time to moderate the news articles.
Running this for purely your own benefit is a task left to the
imagination, involving a half hour with procmail and leafnode.
If you like - or pay me - I'll rustle a script up to allow you
to add a new gatewayed list, or remove one.
I somewhat suspect that anyone who needs to do this sees it as obvious,
so there isn't much call for tools to do it. I imagine they exist,
however. Someone who doesn't do it himself can tell you what they are.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Jody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
linux.redhat.misc,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.redhat,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Who to install a .gz.tar file?
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 10:18:38 -0400
"James Knott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Fred K Ollinger wrote:
> >
> > Scsi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > : Yeah ... why should I be penalized through levied taxes and
taxation because
> > : someone else downloads copyrighted materials? Too much
government = slavery.
> > : Down here in the US the government = big business and we have
all become
> > : robots and slaves to a group of captialist and greedy folks. Uh
... not all
> > : of us but 90% perhaps. So blind.
> >
> > : Scsi2
> >
> > : "James Knott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
in message
> > : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > : > Mladen Gogala wrote:
> > : > >
> > : > > Voila! Mkisofs is installed into /usr/local/bin.
> > : > > Make sure that you do not burn copyrighted music to your CDs
as it is
> > : > > bad for your soul and for the recording industry profits.
> > : >
> > : > FWIW, Canadians can now legally copy copyrighted music, for
their own
> > : > use. The copyright owners get reimbersed through a levy the
government
> > : > slapped on blank CDs, audio cassettes etc.
> >
> > Do the taxes apply to hard drives? You can always go over border
and buy
> > blank cds.
>
> No, just stuff blank CDs and tapes.
How do they actually apply this levy? I mean, how do they know Mr Joe
Blow is making copies of linda ronstadt or ugly kid joe?
Where does the levy taxes exactly go?
Jody
------------------------------
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: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:36:28 -0500
"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dan Pidcock wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 29 May 2001 06:27:12 GMT, Rex Ballard
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >JS \\ PL wrote:
> > >> and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to
the
> > >> hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
> > >
> > >Linux uses the X11 "center button" (or two buttons down at same time)
> > >to
> > >paste. It works very well, and you can cut/paste between different
> > >applications
> > >without having to load the binaries of multiple executables for each
> > >pasted document.
> >
> > The centre button to paste selection does not always work so great.
> > If I have some text in a document that is a URL and I want to paste it
> > into the address field of my browser window, I have to select the
> > current address in the browser to delete it so that becomes the
> > selection when I try to paste. So I have to delete it then go back to
> > the document select the browser and finally past. A real PITA.
> >
> > How well does X selection work with images, e.g. in GIMP & xv? I've
> > never really tried that.
> >
> > Dan
> > remove .hatespam to reply
>
> Did the geniuses who wrote X consider Trackballs of varying designs when
> they chose the 'middle button' cut & paste?? Probably not, because it's
> very unwieldy for me and my Logitech trackball.
Since when has usability ever been a consideration in X?
-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: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:37:04 -0500
"green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9f4uk0$crj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Dan Pidcock wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 May 2001 06:27:12 GMT, Rex Ballard
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >JS \\ PL wrote:
> > > >> and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed
> to the
> > > >> hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
> > > >
> > > >Linux uses the X11 "center button" (or two buttons down at same time)
> > > >to
> > > >paste. It works very well, and you can cut/paste between different
> > > >applications
> > > >without having to load the binaries of multiple executables for each
> > > >pasted document.
> > >
> > > The centre button to paste selection does not always work so great.
> > > If I have some text in a document that is a URL and I want to paste it
> > > into the address field of my browser window, I have to select the
> > > current address in the browser to delete it so that becomes the
> > > selection when I try to paste. So I have to delete it then go back to
> > > the document select the browser and finally past. A real PITA.
> > >
> > > How well does X selection work with images, e.g. in GIMP & xv? I've
> > > never really tried that.
> > >
> > > Dan
> > > remove .hatespam to reply
> >
> > Did the geniuses who wrote X consider Trackballs of varying designs when
> > they chose the 'middle button' cut & paste?? Probably not, because it's
> > very unwieldy for me and my Logitech trackball.
>
>
>
> Did Logiteck take in to account X when they designed your trackball Probably
> not,
> because they had windows in mind.
Ah yes, the "World should bend around Linux" defense.
Always amusing...
-c
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:38:02 GMT
On Wed, 30 May 2001 17:19:55 +0800, "Todd"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But many posts here say that Opera is causing a lot of crashes under
>Linux...
Last time I tried Opera under Linux it was very unstable for me. That
was about 6 months ago so things might have changed since then.
>IE under w2k has never crashed for me... and even NetScape 6.1 is pretty
>stable under w2k.
IE 5.00 with security patches runs rock solid for me under Win2k. IE
5.5, which I run under Win98SE is problematic though. For some reason
it will lose the connection (no dns found) and shutdown reboot is
needed. Very intermittent but annoying. I also find it subjectively
slower to me than 5.0.
I tried Netscape 6.x and that is one enormous pig of a browser!
The skins are nice and I tried to like it, but it just seems very slow
to me.
I am registered owner of Opera 5.02 for Windows so I don't get the
advertisements, but I don't really like it.
For now IE is the browser to beat, although if they follow in
Netscapes footsteps and throw in everything but the kitchen sink into
6.0 that may change.
>Only tried opera once and didn't like the GUI format nor the adverts.
>
>-Todd
>
>
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: 31 May 2001 10:44:45 -0400
I have to admit that I've never once heard of a security incident
regarding a MSFT-based service that provides shell access to 180,000
users.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:43:57 -0500
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Donn Miller wrote:
>
> >mlw wrote:
> >>
> >> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
> >> one must ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
> >
> >Tech support and media costs.
>
> Tech support does and should cost money, so does media. However, the
> question is why should an *OS* cost money? You can get an OS without
> incurring media or tech support costs. They are three seperate things.
In a model where you can download the OS for free and only recieve support
if you pay per incident or boxed set you get people that buy one copy, then
install 100, then use the single paid-for copies support for the other
issues they run into in the other copies. People simply aren't honest
enough for such a model to work.
------------------------------
From: Martgian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does XP stands for ???
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 14:52:57 GMT
Zsolt wrote:
> I've seen some rather good, although 'unofficial' explanations about the
> XP abbreviation in Windows XP. Let's try to collect them in this thread.
> Anybody, who has other good idead, please post them here!
>
> To kick-off the collection, some idea's I've seen so far on this
> newsgroup:
>
> eXPerimental
> eXtra Problems included
> eXtremely Pathetic
>
>
>
Since good Ol' Bill wants us to believe he is an intellectual.
XP means:
10th Pre-Beta.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 09:59:35 -0500
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Erik,
>
> I'd like your opinion on a few thoughts I have been having lately. I do
> think that XP is going to throw an enormous dent into Microsofts marketing
> efforts, and it might even be a direct cause of a loss of some
> marketshare. Here's why:
>
> 1. The major problems with Windows 9x are caused by the fact that it is
> essentially a single-user system, thus always running as
> root/administrator effectively, thus making it easier for one app to screw
> up the entire system (and therefore making viruses more destructive).
> These problems have tainted 9x's reputation to the point that even the
> most dedicated Microsoft advocate will call them crap.
Some of 9x's problems are caused by this, not all or most of them. Most of
9x's problems are based on the fact that it's memory protection between
processes is brittle. This is the result of it's original design goal or
running in 4MB (which it hasn't done for a while, but the architecture is
still based on that design limitaiton).
The other major problem is DLL Hell, which Win2k has greatly reduced with
it's file protection system.
> 2. XP will be a true multiuser system since it is basically NT for the
> consumer market. NT, whatever it's faults is a true multiuser system,
> making it impossible for a user-space app to fsck the system (if well set
> up of course).
Well, like Linux and most other systems, the word "impossible" is a bit
strong. Not very likely is a better term.
> 3. Microsoft has always sold Windows in the consumer market on the fact
> that it makes computing easier. Since everyone who has only the slightest
> bit of computer experience has used Windows, it is familiar to almost
> 100% of computer users.
Yup.
> 4. Here comes the first hitch: On 9x installing an app was just a matter
> of clicking setup and follow the wizards. On XP, you will have to log in
> as administrator just to install software. So MS breaks the paradigm of
> 'just sit down and work' by requiring its users to now manage at least
> two user-IDs per computer (admin and regular user).
No, Consumer XP will default to allowing users to install apps. It has a
new method of managing users which seems pretty intuitive and easy to use.
I guess we'll see how well users take to it.
> 5. Of course, we all know that most consumers just will run XP as admin
> to avoid the hassle, thereby bringing back all the original problems of
> 9x (see point 1 above).
Only some of the original problems. Again, file protection exists to
prevent many problems, and virus software will still need to be used. Your
primary confusion is that you think running as administrator is the cause of
all the problems. It's not. Unlike Unix/Linux, running as admin doesn't
give the programs you run automatic access to everything on the system (many
things, yes, but not everything).
> Effectively, XP is only an improvement if you administer it well, thus
> increasing it's complexity, otherwise it will appear no different to 9x,
> and creating the perception in people that its launch *was* all hype.
No, XP is a vast improvement whether or not you administer it well.
Administering it well gives even greater improvement.
Like Windows 98, most people will probably not notice most of the changes
because they're under the covers, but when they go back to 9x after having
used XP for a while, it will become painfully obvious how different they
are. I mean really, do most people really notice the difference between
kernel 2.2 and 2.4? Does that mean nothing changed? Of course not.
> Thoughts anyone?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 31 May 2001 15:08:06 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 00:16:05 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > 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.
It wasn't really mean to prove my point in
a syllogistic sense; it was meant to illustrate it.
> > 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.
I assure you, I was not surprised- I've seen it before.
GIMP for Win32 is much worse about this.
It appears to be the path of least resistance for
Unix apps- they implement their controls internally,
anyway, so just make the drawing engine portable
and you can be running on Windows in a jiffy.
But it's a quality issue. These apps aren't
as good as those which do use the local widget
set.
Even cross platform apps *can* if they
put in the effort- MS Office uses Macintosh
widgets on the Mac, for instance.
> > 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.
To quibble, OS/2's API is so close to Windows it
is not even funny. Using the native widgets on both is
not really that hard.
It is the Macintosh and Unix that make life
interesting for portable apps.
> > 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.
I don't agree. *Most* desktop platforms do offer
a standard file manager you can integrate with-
Macintoshes have the Finder, OS/2 offers WPS,
and so on.
"Cross platform" doesn't have to include Unix;
if you do include Unix, *that* is when you have
to deal with Unix's deficiencies compared to other
platforms (not just Windows)
"Integrate with each of (WPS, Finder, Explorer) if
present" is much easier than implementing any
one of those three.
> 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.
I think part of the problem is that some of
the functionality that these apps would like
to use is just not there in Unix.
It's not just a cross-platform thing; this
app was written in the way that makes
the most sense for Unix- and it brings
all that baggage to other platforms.
A better product could have been had by
exploiting the local featureset when
available, and only implementing it
internally on platforms where it must be
(which means Unix, basically)
That would probably have been more
difficult though.
> Modern toolkits like those underlying Gnome and
> KDE are really quite good,
Gnome is not ready to be deployed from
what I've seen. KDE is much less ambitious,
though you've got to wonder why they
did not use such services as it does offer.
I do wonder why they did not use
KDE for what it can do, though.
> but StarOffice doesn't use them just like it
> does not use the native Windows toolkit.
MS Office, on the other hand, uses the native widgets
on every platform it runs on. (both of them! :D )
> > 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.
It does not seem to have a lot to recommend
it over MS Office, except the price tag.
Sure, $0 is an attractive price. But you
can get a better user interface and a
stabler product if your spring for
Office.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
