Linux-Advocacy Digest #882, Volume #34 Thu, 31 May 01 22:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: ease and convenience (*long* and possibly boring;-) (Terry Porter)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Bill Gates on CNBC In Depth tonight - how come no mention of Linux? (Anonymous)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: ("Paolo Ciambotti")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Chris
Ahlstrom)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Terry
Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience (*long* and possibly boring;-)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Jun 2001 01:55:50 GMT
On Thu, 31 May 2001 19:02:03 +0800,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>> > You are comparing 9x with Linux in terms of robustness? Even I will
> admit
>> > that Linux *hands down* wins over the 9x 'OS' group any day.
>> Usability is the correct word I think ?
>
> I believe 9x platforms are still more usable than Linux - if you take that
> to mean 'ease-of-use'.
I actually believe that Linux is easier to install, easier to use, and
easier to maintain than Windows.
Oh ... and easier to afford :)
>
> However, given 9x crashes more than it should, you could argue that it isn't
> very usable at all. Hence I don't use it :)
Every single piece of digital electronics I've used or worked on has
crashed at some point, including Linux, so I suppose I that I'm used to it.
Win95 worked fine for me, but I couldn't afford the apps I needed back
in 1997, thats initially why I switched to Linux.
However the Windows paradigm of virii, update$, and user fear, don't endear
me to this OS much (thesedays).
<snip>
>> Hmm, I dunno. I maintain that a Linux box, set up for these people would
>> be easy to use.
>
> Well, it would definitely need to be preinstalled with all apps. as well so
> they wouldn't have to do anything except click the app. icon and start
> working.
I just couldn't agree more!
>
> If that was the case... it may be enough. But I still doubt it given that
> *if* you ever needed to *figure* out how to do something under Linux, it
> would be harder to do than if they were running Windows. (Assuming both
> Windows and Linux were capable of doing the task at hand)
I'd say that depends on the task at hand, and sure some things are easier
in Windows, some are easier in Linux. I'm converting my wifes Win98 box
to Linux soon,and I'll give as fair as a report on how it goes, here
on Cola. If she doesn't like Linux, I'll re install Windows, no problem.
<snip>
>> But you said 'technical people' and they need to *know* what the terms
> mean,
>> intuitive or not, and some names like 'magnetron' just do not explain
>> their functionality, so one must *read* relevant docs to know what a
>> magnetron does.
>
> So it should be in the system help, one search button away (as the ping
> example :)
I agree again, totally.
>
>> > Just like consumers want to use *applications* - they don't want to know
>> > that there is an OS (what's that???) actually below their apps.
>> I still think that what consumers want, and whats possible, are 2
>> different things.
>
> Certainly... but we need to be clear when discussing this what group we are
> talking about. Unfortunately for all of us, the majority of consumers are
> what the OS vendors need to target - so they can become the largest and 3rd
> parties right drivers/apps. for it.
Agreed.
>
> Unless all OSes standardize on the exact same APIs, there can never be more
> than 2 or 3 popular OSes... 3rd parties simply do not want to right their
> app. for more than 1-2 platforms. As sad as that is... personally, if all
> the same stuff were available for Mac OS X... I'd buy a PowerMac.
Hahaha, I'd love G4 Cube, 15"LCD display !
Naturally I'd have to run Linux on it, I can't do without a multiuser
facility now.
>
> Actually, I wish Apple would port OS X to i386 platforms.
Thats a good idea!
>> > Ok, I'm gonna try that for getting my DHCP working + sound card.
>> Great lets know how you go ?
>
> As soon as I get the time...
It's an interesting world, SO much to do!
>
>> > However, I feel that the help for an OS should be integrated fully with
> the
>> > OS.
>> Thats true, and most distos come with the how-to's, man pages, and
>> FAQ's on CD, but for those that don't, one must accessother means.
>
> I think it would be better if all that stuff was in one place - fully
> searchable as MS help is.
Agreed.
>> >> The Windows helpsystem is a simple thing, that fails to help anyone
>> >> above the level of clueless user.
>> >
>> > Well, I disagree slightly. I feel that it helps up to intermediate
> users
>> > which covers 90% of the people using Windows these days.
>> You could be right:)
>
> Probably :)
>
>> > There is a lot more documentation for more advanced stuff at
> microsoft.com
>> I know that, I suppose its a bitlike looking up www.linuxdoc.org ?
>
> Possibly :) But since MS controls Windows *and* their own site (of course),
> the documentation is probably better organized and more centralized (easier
> to find for the users).
Not easier than www.linuxdoc.org ?
>
> Ever check out the Win32 SDK *on-line* ? MS did a heck of a job with that.
No I haven't I left Windows before any experimenting with Win32 became
neccessary for me :)
<snip>
>> > Here is the first page...
>> Ok you have succintly proved that point :)
>
> Thanks :) BTW, not sure if NT or 9x had that same kind of help -> w2k
> definitely has an excellent help system.
Good its about time, as I have nothing but distain for the totally useless
Win95 and Win95 help systems.
>> Yeah Pete Goodwin also had problems with DHCP, but many posters here
>> offered help, which he didnt seem interested in. I myself have never used
> DHCP.
>>
>> >
>> > Under W2k, it just installs and works without doing *anything*, not even
> a
>> > mouse click.
>> >
>> > I was surprised by that.
>> I would have been too.
>> But where does it get the ip address range from ?
>
> ?
>
> Are you referring to a DHCP *server* setup? I am referring to setting up
> Linux to use the DHCP *client* so I can plug it into my switch that has
> access to my cable modem.
Ahh I see, sorry I assumed it was for a in-house network.
>> Wonders never cease, Ms may be supplying something that actually does what
>> its supposed to with Win2k then ?
>
> At least regarding DHCP :)
Good to see!
<snip>
>> I came from a DOS and Windows background, and although I *initally* found
>> UNIX very wierd, I now know how much easier it is to do *real* work with
>> than Windows. Addmittedly I have never used anything beyond Win98, but I'm
>> not about to either, as Linux suits my needs.
>
> I started with Vic 20 :) But I used to use HP-UX quite a bit. Also Solaris
> a *long* time ago :)
Hahah I started with the National Semi 16 bit 'Pace' CPU on embedded systems.
> So UNIX wasn't unfamiliar, but setting it up for the first time is far too
> difficult still.
That's assuming there is something *easier* available ?
It seems that Linux is easier for somethings, Windows easier for others, and the
jury is still out on who's the winner.
>
> When Linux gets good at that, it will be interesting to see how far it gets
> into the consumer space.
In my observations, Linux has made huge inroads into consumer space, for
instance when I started using Linux in 1997, from memory there were only
a few ng's containg the word 'linux'. Now there are about 380 odd!
This does not indicate a *rise* in Linux problems,it indicates a rise
in the number of people, trying/using Linux.
>
> My personal opinion is that computers are going to become more like
> appliances:
I'm not so sure, but you could be right, time will tell.
>
> OS in ROM, quick turn on. Then the OS can't be overwritten.
Just like the first IBM PC! It had basic in rom, so if no boot
floopy was present, up came basic!
I have some old 360k rom ISA cards here,and have used them with
dosin the past, interestingy they still take a while to boot,
(POST tests etc) and the pc still locks up occasionally!
>
> Apps. simply install by a DVD player... and so forth.
I think this is the area of specialised embedded devices, I don't
think computers will ever make it here,theyre not reliable enough!
<snip>
>> > But you don't need to know as much to get an app. running and your
> system
>> > configured under Windows as you need to under Linux.
>> Many Linux distos have GUI rpm app managers that will install an app
>> at the click of a mouse button, and remove it as easily.
>
> When the RPM is properly done, and the support is there, yes.
Agreed, but lets remember that some 'install-shield' installs *do*
go horribly wrong.
>
> I have read though, that some people have trouble with this... ie. it isn't
> 'perfect' yet.
But neither is 'install-shield' ?
>
> Contrast that to the w2k installer... I think you will see a huge
> difference.
Unf I haven't seen it, but I'm happy to take your word for it.
Lets look at the install process, its not that different between
Windows and Linux, libaries/exacutables need to be installed etc.
There is nothing magical about the process, and if Linux is lagging
in this area (personally I don't feel it is, but then I have some
Linux experience) then Linux will eventually catch up.
> Since I only use RedHat, I can't comment on other distros. But the w2k
> installer is definitely better than RedHat's. And the w2k installation is
> all integrated with the add/remove apps., etc.
Ive been using Mandrake lately, and I find the initial blank HDD install
a breeze, and as I usually compile apps, I also find this easy, however
'joe sixpack' wont.
<snip>
>> Actually it doesn't bother me that some people try Linux and then forget
> it,
>> I know I did myself :)
>>
>> I first tried Linux in 1993, when I purchased a Yggdrassil Linux CD.
>> It installed just fine, found all my stuff inc SBpro audio and CD.
>> However I couldnt *do* anything with it, as the UNIX paradigm was just
>> too strange for me, coming as I was from a Windows background.
>>
>> I shelved Linux until Aug1997, when I switched to it full time, following
>> a Redhat4.2 install. How I wish I'd stuck with Yggdrassil now!
>
> I'd love it if Linux was easier to use, more stuff available for it (games
> and dev stuff) and it was more popular.
I wish you would install Visual TCL and Glade on your Linux box, and
then tell us what you think?
>
> I'm starting to get pissed at MS for this product activation shit and also
> their subscription stuff and licensing changes.
I suspect you're not alone.
>
> It all spells more anti-MS attitude for MS. Dumb move on their part.
Perhaps Ms have no choice,as their traditional money base is drying up?
<snip>
>> > TRUE! But, most CONSUMERS do not want to know how their computer
> works!!!!
>> Agreed, but computers require knowledge, regardless of the fact that
>> users don't want to know, or that Microsoft tells them, they dont 'need'
>> to know, because their computer will do their thinking for them.
>
> Well, I believe the majority wants the computer to be as easy to use as a
> TV.
Sure, but tv's are in the main *analogue* devices, and are much more
reliable than pc's. I think it will be a long time before the reliability
of a PC rivals that of a television.
>
> For scientific minded people or technical people, we *do* want to know about
> computers -> and with Linux, there is a whole LOT to learn :)
Sure, and the data is all there, and for free :)
>
>> > They just want to use the applications that run on top of it!
>> If only it were that simple, granted in many cases it is, but I see
>> Windows users all the time, who are afraid of virii, or crackers using
> Netbus
>> or similar, one even has had someone in her Windows pc, telling her he is
> there!
>
> Unfortunately, Windows isn't that good *yet*. It still requires a lot of
> knowledge to maintain it and use it to its fullest potential.
I think this is true for all things, and that nothing is truly *simple*.
It takes a great mind to see *complex* things in a simple way.
>
> But, then again, DOS required more knowledge as well. Each version of
> Windows gets better and better and easier and easier.
One would hope so, remember you're paying an increasing amount of money
for every Microsoft new OS.
>
> Windows XP will be a hell of a lot more stable than 9x. (I ran the XP beta
> for a couple weeks and it was solid)
>
> For the consumer, this is only good news.
That part of it is, I'm not so sure the increased stability is worth the
extra money and the new 'feature' of 'Locktivation' ?
>
> I mean, with XP you can edit movies... you couldn't *dream* of doing this
> with DOS.
I wouldnt dream of doing *anything with DOS* :)
>
> I plug in my digital camera to a USB port on W2k or XP and it
> *automatically* recognizes it and asks me what I want to do.
Definetly a good feature, tho I notice the Linux digital camera support
has a LOT of models on its list.
>
> This is *without* me having to install any drivers or apps. myself.
>
> Quite amazing if you ask me...
Yeah its def a good thing.
>
>> You see Windows users who don't want to know about their PC, I see Windows
>> users *afraid* of their pc, and very unhappy.
>
> hehe. Well, my dad was still running 95 (ugh) until a few months ago. Once
> I upgraded him to w2k he is surprised that "IE doesn't crash anymore".
>
> lol
Hahahahah!
But really, my browser of choice over the years 'Lynx' has never crashed on me
and I didnt have to upgrade orpas a cent for this. Nor did I have to submit
myself to endless bandwith wasting advertising!
Now I'm running Mandrake7.2, the supplied lynx is compiled with ncurses instead
of slang, and it sucks color wise, so Ive started using Mozilla 0.81, which has
crashed a few times. It will become more stable and 0.9 is even better.
>
> So yes, there are some users out there that are unhappy. I can see why if
> they need to run 9x.
In one IRC channel I used to frequent, they all used 95/98 and still do,
not one of them has Win2k, I suspect most of them didnt pay for their
present OS,and won't pay for anything.
>
> But times are quickly changing.
XP is coming ... ;-)
>
>> > For me and you, yes, I agree with your statement.
>> I'm not supprised, you sound like a reasonable and intelligent person!
>
> I find most people *interested* in computers are pretty intelligent. But
> not necessarily rational :)
HAHAHAHA!
<snip>
>> Hang on, you said above that it does find your 3com card, but DHCP
>> requires manual intervention ?
>
> I *think* my card is recognized, because when you boot up, I can see that
> the en0 device ? points to a 3com card.
Can you ping anything locally ?
>
> But, no network connectivity. I need to somehow configure the DHCP.
Sounds like it.
>
>> Soundblaster live is another matter, I read here that it installs for some
>> and not for others, but I cant help as I have a elcheapo ESS1688 that is
> found
>> under Redhat, but not under Mandrake7.2. However running 'sndconfig' sets
> it
>> up no problem.
>
> Hmmmm... maybe I'll check that out. Seems to me that a SB Live! should be
> automatically installed and configured... it is so popular.
Yeah one would think so,but then my ESS1688 isnt found by Mandrake7.2 at
install time, and needs manual intervention, which is just running
'sndconfig', no files need configuring. You listen to a voice and then
some music and answer y/n accordingly.
>
>> > I have to do something. Why?
>> Perhaps your machine/card/disto just don't live happily together ?
>
> Not sure. I think Linux needs to get better in this regard though.
Again ones experience differs, there are a plethoria of machine/hardware
combos about.
>
> Linux fragmenting into different Distros can't be good either... imagine
> 3rd parties needing to support their app. on all of these different distros.
The source Luke, the source!
Seriously, I have to support diversification, as I believe it is good in
the long run.
<snip>
> Well, somebody told me the new Mandrake is the best so far. I may try to
> find that and give it a go instead of bothering with RedHat.
The copy I'm using came of a magazine for about $16.
<snip>
>> > The question for *me* is, do I want to pour a lot of time into figuring
> out
>> > how to simply get Linux up and running, when I have w2k that does all of
>> > that for me?
>> Thats a sensible question, and unless you need Linux for a tangible reason
>> (in my case it was apps) then perhaps Win2k may be all you need ?
>
> What apps. do you use that Win2k doesn't have? Just curious.
We need to qualify the answer I suppose, for instance the app must be
1/ Free Software or at least 'Open Source'.
2/ capable of remote GUI
And with these provisos, they are
1/ Schematic capture
2/ Pcb CAD
3/ C development environment with Concurrent Versioning System
4/ Document Processing
Linux completley fulfills my needs in these areas, I honestly
could not be more satisfied.
>
>> > I'd rather be developing apps. or playing games.
>> What kind of apps ?
>
> Currently working on an internet 'scanner'...
Port scanner ?
> and I love playing Tribes 2
I saw that tribes has been released for Linux?
> and CounterStrike.
I used to play a lot of Quake thru my ISp and that was FUN!
These days I don't play many games, as I find development as
much fun ( I know I'm a sick puppy;-) and it pays a LOT better:)
Always a pleasure talking to you Todd. Even if you're
a Winadvocate ;-)
--
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: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 02:01:09 GMT
Philip Nicholls wrote:
>
> Well, look on the bright side.
> Three cheers for the National Security Agency!
>
> Now there's something I thought I would never say.!
<chris EXPRESSION="looking vaguely worried">
Uh, yeah, uh, 3 cheers for the NSA.
</chris>
--
Please enter your Microsoft Client Access Code now,
or rat on your system administrator
at http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/report.phtml or
at http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/reporting/
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 22:01:34 -0400
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates on CNBC In Depth tonight - how come no mention of Linux?
From: Anonymous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
> I don't suppose it would have anything to do with MSFT being a technology
> partner and investor in CNBC, would it?
I thought that was MSNBC.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 02:02:30 GMT
Philip Nicholls wrote:
>
> 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.
I think the HOWTOs are generally useful, and most of the many Linux
books I've read are great!
Chris
--
Please enter your Microsoft Client Access Code now,
or rat on your system administrator
at http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/report.phtml or
at http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/reporting/
------------------------------
From: "Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Date: Thu, 31 May 2001 19:07:27 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If he wanted to invoke Godwin's MISINTERPRETED law, he would have
> fucking called you Adolph Hitler.
>
> Anything less does NOT invoke Godwin's law, you idiot.
>
> Now, say goodnight, Herman
Sometimes you can be so Hitleresque with your responses.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 02:04:47 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Every device now needs to conform to X's ass-backwards way of doing things.
>
> You have a disability and can't hit the middle mouse button? Too friggin'
> bad! You have to conform!
>
> No, the software should be flexible to allow devices to function in
> their own form for whatever purpose they serve. Defaults are fine,
> but there should be no assumption anywhere that "middle button = copy/paste".
>
> For being customizability hounds and bashing on MS, you guys really
> have no concept of accessibility. Not everyone is a white male that
> can walk, talk, hear, see, has 10 fingers and toes, and can speak
> English.
This is very true. And some in Linux are addressing this issue.
Chris
--
Please enter your Microsoft Client Access Code now,
or rat on your system administrator
at http://www.bsa.org/intnatl/report.phtml or
at http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/reporting/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Jun 2001 02:04:40 GMT
On Thu, 31 May 2001 21:16:43 GMT,
Philip Nicholls <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
> As someone new to linux, I often find the documentation, especially the
> HOWTO files, to be very cryptic.
I find the How-to's to be easy to understand, and the Man pages to
be cryptic, but them the man pages are supposed to be cryptic.
> At the same time, most books on linux are
> useless.
Have you ever read "Running Linux" ?
I found this book excellent when I was a total Linux newbie.
> I suppose the more I use it the less cryptic they will seem.
Absolutely!
<snip>
Good luck with Linux Philip, you sound like you're well on
the way :)
--
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
******************************
