Linux-Advocacy Digest #876, Volume #34 Thu, 31 May 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Philip
Nicholls)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Philip
Nicholls)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (cjt & trefoil)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Philip
Nicholls)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Microsoft Helps Turn Britain's E-Government Vision Into Reality (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Chad Myers")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Shun Yan Cheung)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Donn Miller)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:17:34 -0500
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 14:17:21 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> If they're going to go to the trouble of +x'ing t, then they'll
> >> probably have a good idea of what it's about. Windows makes it easy
> >> for users to naively open a virus thinking it's a picture or
> >> something.
>
> >And we come back to my original point, it's user intelligence/experience.
> >
> >It's simply that people who Unix typically have more computer experience,
> >it's not the OS, it's the user.
> >
> >Thank you for proving my point yet again.
>
> As people with more experience on either OS will not open any virii,
> we can exclude them from the situation. As we are now dealing only
> with inexperienced people, the level of experience is constant on both
> OSes, so the factor of experience can be ommitted. Therefore, we are
> only dealing with OSes.
Incorrect, there is a horribly disproportionate number of inexperienced
people using Windows over Unix.
You can't dismiss it out of hand like that.
Virus writers know that if they write a virus for Unix, no one will
open it because the vast majority, if not all, are experienced
users and won't fall for such deception.
OTOH, many inexperienced or computer illiterates use Windows, so
they will fall for such tricks because they don't understand
the consequences.
It really has nothing to do with the OS.
-c
------------------------------
From: Philip Nicholls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:16:43 GMT
Burkhard Wölfel wrote:
>
>
> Philip Nicholls wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 28 May 2001 18:19:55 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Philip Nicholls wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Once installed, if you go off the beaten track things go downhill
>> >> quickly. Microsoft has made it very hard to go off the beaten track,
>> >> a wise move given the fact that most computer users don't know enough
>> >> about their systems to stray very far.
>> >
>> >I just helped a neighbor make a brochure in Windows. I asked him to
>> >bring me the electronic version of the brochure, and he couldn't
>> >figure out how to copy it to a floppy. He said "I know how to use
>> >the Internet, but it's been a long time since I had to copy something
>> >to a floppy."
>>
>> That is pretty sad. Now can you imagine this fellow trying to use a
>> install and use a linux system? This is my main point.
>
> That's it. M$ Windows makes the average computer user stupid, perhaps
> just to sell him Books on how to solve easiest problems step by step.
> Linux use and supplied documentation are far more educating.
No, the average computer user IS stupid. Well, perhaps I should said that
the average computer user doesn't really want to spend a lot of time
learning how a computer or operating system works. I read someplace that
the average computer owner can't even format a floppy disk.
As someone new to linux, I often find the documentation, especially the
HOWTO files, to be very cryptic. At the same time, most books on linux are
useless. I suppose the more I use it the less cryptic they will seem.
> OTOH the MSWin approach of "just click to install" is keeping the
> difficulties for beginners so low, thats cool for "average users".
Which as been my point. Give microsoft credit for that.
> I would go for Linux' reliability and attitude in communicating with the
> user combined with the choice of "just click"-wizards if you need them.
I will have to say now that I can do 90% of the things I did on windows
using linux. I even got my brain dead compaq color printer to work. I can
see a possible windowless future for myself, but not for my wife or
daughter.
> But once you got the idea of how everything is "howtoed", it gets easier
> and easier.
The learning curve is steep, however.
But I'm replying to this using knode, so I'm getting there.
--
Phil Nicholls
To ask a question, you must know most of the answer."
-- Robert Sheckley
------------------------------
From: Philip Nicholls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:18:24 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> Philip Nicholls wrote:
>> >
>> >Face it, Microsoft has the military bureaucrats absolutely snowed.
>>
>> The Navy made a choice to be snowed. Sorry, but as long as other
>> operating systems are out there, it is still about choice. Don't
>> complain because your boss made a choice you don't like. Well, no,
>> you can complain all you want I guess.
>
> Yeah, it's obvious to us that the NMCI contract is a bone thrown
> to EDS by some big military mucky-muck. Monarchy is hell on the
> peasants.
>
> Chris
>
Well, look on the bright side.
Three cheers for the National Security Agency!
Now there's something I thought I would never say.!
--
To ask a question, you must know most of the answer."
-- Robert Sheckley
------------------------------
From: cjt & trefoil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:21:37 -0500
Yes. It's almost as easy as opening the CD when it comes in the mail.
drsquare wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2001 14:37:45 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shun Yan Cheung)) wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Bernd Paysan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Ah, and BTW: Installing Linux with current distribution doesn't even
> >>give the slightest kick of "hacker achievement" as it did in Slackware's
> >>time.
>
> >Yeah, they have made it too darn easy to install Linux now...
> >For that matter, even Solaris installation has become too easy...
> >I used to dread OS upgrades, now I just pop in a CD and let it rip...
>
> Is it any easier than downloading it?
------------------------------
From: Philip Nicholls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:26:06 GMT
Burkhard Wölfel wrote:
>
>
> Philip Nicholls wrote:
>> snipsnipsnip>
>> Can the average Joe or Jane off the street do this with your free
>> software? Would the average Joe or Jane off the street even WANT to
>> do any of this?
>
> I know many Joes n Janes, esp. older People, who are convinced that
> computers are unpredictable and crashing. A Linux outta the box,
> configuring automatically or preconfigured would be a threat to
> Windoughs. I am sure of that.
> But anyway, I see it going into that direction and I am looking forward
> to it.
> I don't know how long it will take. I guess it won't be _that_ long.
> Windoughs will still be unpredictable and crashing for those people by
> then.
>
> Let's see.
I have used Windows 98 ( not SE, not ME) for two years and I rarely have
problems. We I do, it is usually something I did. Now, I maintain my
system -- defrag, delete useless files, run Nortin Windoctor, etc., on a
regular basis.
Here is what I am afraid of . I have just started using Linux and I think
that the more you automate installation you lose flexibility. Why play
microsoft's game? Let those who want to know more use Linux. Let those
who don't car sick with Windows.
To ask a question, you must know most of the answer."
-- Robert Sheckley
------------------------------
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 21:32:05 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 May 2001 15:08:06 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I assure you, I was not surprised- I've seen it before.
> > GIMP for Win32 is much worse about this.
>
> Never tried it on Win32. It is fine in it's native habitat.
I would hope it's less egregious there. I don't think
it was ever intended to be ported really. I don't think
it came through the experience very well.
> > It appears to be the path of least resistance for
> > Unix apps- they implement their controls internally,
> > anyway,
>
> Really? They don't use Motif or Qt or GTK or Athena? Interesting, I
> didn't know that all Unix GUI apps were written directly on xlib.
Well, things like Motif can be dynamically linked, yes. That
is true of almost anything in plain C, though.
However, there is typically no layer between
xlib and the framework you use. You do not see
(say) Qt implemented on top of Motif; Qt
implements its own widgets.
This is a substantial difference both in theory
and in practice. It is the reason why there is
no X-Windows equivalent of Kaldioscope or
WindowBlinds. It is the reason why thee
user interface Unix systems present is so
uncoordinated.
> > But it's a quality issue. These apps aren't
> > as good as those which do use the local widget
> > set.
>
> Depends on how you define "good". They may not implement the native
> look and feel as much as you would like. They may function perfectly
> fine.
It depends on how the customers define good. But
inter-application consistancy is widely seen as
a good thing.
> > It is the Macintosh and Unix that make life
> > interesting for portable apps.
>
> What else are "desktop" apps going to be ported to? Besides all the
> variants of Win32 I mean.
Oh, there are always oddities like BeOS I guess.
> > "Integrate with each of (WPS, Finder, Explorer) if
> > present" is much easier than implementing any
> > one of those three.
>
> So just add "konqueror" to the list.
What if your users are not using konqueror?
That's probably why the StarOffice
people *didn't* just add konquerer.
> > 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.
>
> I know, you said that already. My contention is that you can't say
> much about the quality of Unix apps running on Unix by looking at
> Windows versions of a couple of them. By that logic, I ought to base my
> opinions about Win32 on an evaluation of MSIE on Solaris.
I did say that already. You seem to be trying
to interpret my comments on StarOffice as some
sort of sylogism. It's not; StarOffice is just one app
and can't prove things like that.
When I say that functionality is missing,
I am presenting that as a fact, because it *is*
a fact. There is no real dispute on the point.
I'm proposing that the way StarOffice is,
is a consequence of this fact.
If I had to show you that Unix is missing
functionality that Windows has, I would
go about it quite differentlt- I would
point out specific things Windows has
and Unix has not.
> > > Modern toolkits like those underlying Gnome and
> > > KDE are really quite good,
> >
> > Gnome is not ready to be deployed from
> > what I've seen.
>
> Neither was Win95, but it got deployed anyway. I suspect that what
> you've seen of Gnome is fairly limited as well.
Hmmm.
So, ignoring the silly crack about Win95, you
are saying that GNOME is done; it is ready
for deployment now.
Is that right?
> > I do wonder why they did not use
> > KDE for what it can do, though.
>
> Maybe because it was written before KDE became popular.
Why does this matter? They can ship the needed
libs with the product, can they not?
> I guess OpenOffice is going with the Gnome libraries.
Oh?
> > MS Office, on the other hand, uses the native widgets
> > on every platform it runs on. (both of them! :D )
>
> My understanding is that MS Office for Windows and Mac are almost two
> separate products.
I believe they do share some code. But it's certainly
not like StarOffice, where most of the UI code can be
shared.
Having to rewrite big hunks of code is no fun; but
it's rather difficult to manage a good quality port
without doing that.
[snip]
> > It does not seem to have a lot to recommend
> > it over MS Office, except the price tag.
>
> Well, that adds up pretty fast so it isn't something you can dismiss
> out of hand.
I do not mean to dismiss it. For some people it
matters quite a lot. But you can't expect to
overturn MS Office on this advantage alone;
MS can always lower prices if they must.
I don't mean to be too negative; forcing MS
to lower prices is a *good* thing.
> The other thing it will offer, when OpenOffice becomes
> more mature, is an open file format with a reference implementation that
> you can borrow from. That is far more important in the long run.
IHMO, nobody cares about this except for people who
have it in for MS anyway; everybody else just uses Word
format or Excel format or whatever, and does not care if it
is "open" or not.
I do not see that it has any importance at all.
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 21:42:20 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...
How many of these installs use samba servers as their domain controllers?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Helps Turn Britain's E-Government Vision Into Reality
Date: 31 May 2001 21:46:00 GMT
: Government Gateway, due to issues with the support for digital
: certificates in this new version. You can find out which version of the
: browser version you are currently using, by clicking on Help, then
: About…, in the menu bar of your browser. The name and version number of
: your browser is displayed."
Where is the menu bar of my browser? I'm using lynx. Or are these people so
braindead that they haven't heard of this? Why doesn't Britain use their
intelligence to make a x-platform browser which you can download and use?
That way they can be sure. Otherwise they are trusting MS. How about one
day Britain and MS get into a fight and MS says 'ok, pulling plug now.' And
shuts down Britain's web site? Is this the same country which once ruled the
world. Wow, I once had respect for British Intelligence, but now I see that
they are pretty stupid, kind of like our own gov't which ran much of it's
sensitive software on windows. If the people who run our countries are this
dumb, then things are looking up with anyone with a modicrum of intelligence
at all. :)
Future's looking up.
BTW, I wonder what happens when one changes their user agent? Does this rely
on some 'secret' protocols? I wonder how long ports for other browsers come out
which give these web server the right answers so that you can download that
text file. I think that someone is making things overly complicated out there
on the world wide web.
Fred
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[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: Thu, 31 May 2001 16:57:38 -0500
"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > > Boo hoo... so it's ok to complain about patches on unix boxes but not SPs
on
> > > windows eh? At least patches on Solaris work every time!
> >
> > That remains to be seen.
>
> Speaking from experience.. I can say it's true.
Nope, wrong.
After installing patches (the list can be found in the NS 6 Solaris install
readme), about 10 groups or 50 in all, the next reboot the I get:
INIT: Cannot create /var/adm/utmp or /var/adm/utmpx
INIT: SINGLE USER MODE
ENTER RUN LEVEL (0-6, s or S):
Nothing seems to work. I guess installing patches in Solaris is bad
as it hoses the OS.
I'll have to reinstall... again (since last time Netscape's cache
filled the root partition when I downloaded the 500+MB Oracle 817
install package and the system wouldn't boot anymore).
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Shun Yan Cheung)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: 31 May 2001 18:06:58 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Is it any easier than downloading it?
Downloading is just a way to obtain the binary, but what happens
after getting the binary has improved tremedously. It used to be
that you have to find out exactly what kind of hardware (disks,
video cards, etc) you have inside your computer to do the installation.
Configuring the Xserver was particularly a royal pain in the butt...
you had to fond the resolution, refresh rate, and on and on and on....
--
``Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly''
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 18:07:13 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Chad Myers wrote:
> OTOH, many inexperienced or computer illiterates use Windows, so
> they will fall for such tricks because they don't understand
> the consequences.
Which is why you use Windows, right?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
