Linux-Advocacy Digest #947, Volume #34 Mon, 4 Jun 01 00:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (The Queen of
Cans and Jars)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Terry Porter)
Microsoft Office Pricing (Lars Poulsen)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Terry Porter)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux is shit (Terry Porter)
Re: UI Importance ("Robert Morelli")
Re: Linux is shit (Terry Porter)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (.)
Re: MS - AOL breakdown... ("fmc")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 Jun 2001 03:42:44 GMT
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:54:54 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 03 Jun 2001 04:15:32 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 04:46:30 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>> "The Newsreader FORTE AGENT has a "killfile" capability.
>>>> You can actually select *to read* the writing of
>>>> certain authors, and automatically screen out the rest.
>>>> Also, you may read all but certain writers."
>>>
>>> Now *that* is a useful capability.
>>> It would certainly refuce STN ratio around here.
>
>>It would, however most Windows advocates use Free Agent,
>>which lacks this capability.
>>
>>Agent is not free.
>
> I use it for free, so you must be wrong.
Bzzzzzzzzt, now you've sent my untruth-o-meter of it's scale!!!
Norti!
--
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: The Queen of Cans and Jars <[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: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:45:12 -0700
Bryan C wrote:
>
I wonder what kind of hardware requirements are
> necessary to successfully support this feature if nothing is being
> saved to non-volatile memory as you suggest.
>
Reportedly, the hardware requirements for XP, at least in terms of
memory, are double those of Win 2K. I assume the HD and CPU
requirements are also doubled.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 Jun 2001 03:46:39 GMT
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 19:57:09 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <9fct5c$ne$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> What's with the
>>
>> "SourceFogre uses SSH... hmm...?"
>>
>> Look slike you're trying to imply something about SSH. It was not a
>> problem with SSH. It was no coincidence that almost everyone interpreted
>> the post in that way. You dressed it up to make it look like it was an
>> Apache/SSH problem (for one thing, if it wasn't, why post it?).
>>
>> This is a classic example of what I have accused you of.
>
> I give you an inch and you run a mile with it. What exactly can you imply
> from what I wrote? Almost anything you might want to say. It is not _my_
> fault you and others inferred what you did. I was merely musing.
Then you'll be needing a "<musing>" header as we don't get a lot of muses in
here.
>
> In any case, it is nothing like what you've accused me of. You accused me
> of snipping inappropriately, and I've done none of that.
I also accused you of that Pete!
> That you have
> misinterpreted what I've said is not my fault, but yours. You see what
> you want to see.
This is the perfect method to NEVER solve anything Pete, you're so convinced
that it's *everyone else* who's wrong.
Let me ask you this one question ?
Have you ever admitted to being mistaken/wrong ?
>
> --
> Pete
--
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 **
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:52:40 -0700
From: Lars Poulsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Microsoft Office Pricing
MS Office comes in several "trim levels". If I remember correctly,
the pricing is more or less as follows:
Version Upgrade Fullpack
Standard (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outhouse) USD 230 USD 500
Small Business (Std + Publisher) USD 330 USD 600
Professional (Std + Access) USD 330 USD 600
Premium (Professional + Publisher) USD 430 USD 700
In Office 2000 (as well as in '97), the standard and small business
versions did not include PowerPoint, so most business users needed
the "Professional" package. Since Access is available by itself
for USD 100, the Professional package is now rather pointless.
(As is the Word-only product: Word 2000 upgrade costs about the
same as the "Works Bundle" fullpack which includes Word for less
than half of the Word-only fullpack.)
However, I am fairly certain that XP is no longer "purchase"
(perpetual license), but a "rental", expiring after at most
3 years. In fact, I hear that the corporate volume licensing
and support package after October 2001 will cost around USD
330 per desktop per year, and the license expires when the
support contract does.
I bet a lot of business customers will get off the upgrade
train this year. I will be training our new uses on StarOffice,
and putting the "Word Viewer", "Excel Viewer" and "PowerPoint
Viewer" in an easily accessible place.
If this thread was ever relevant to comp.arch, it isn't anymore.
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
--
/ Lars Poulsen - http://www.cmc.com/lars - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
125 South Ontare Road, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 - +1-805-569-5277
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 Jun 2001 03:51:31 GMT
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 20:26:27 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know this is off topic, but there's the
> Web site I cobbled together for the Charleston
> Battery soccer team's official supporter's
> club:
>
> http://www.charlestonbattery.com/Regiment/Reg2001/index.html
>
> As you can see, it's fairly straightforward. We
> concentrate currently on simple news, humor, and
> pictures.
Looks good under Netscape and even reads with lynx:)
Nice job Chris!
--
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] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 03:57:15 GMT
In article <9feu1j$p84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>> As I said, I didn't make up my mind yet, but I think that the public
>> can demand from a company that wants to use publicly funded code in
>> their software to contribute back to the public.
>
>But what about *their* code?
>If they improved the PD code, by all means release it to the public, that is
>what Apple did with BSD.
>But why should they be forced to release *their* code?
>
To keep it public perhaps?
Wasn't that the ORIGINAL GOAL with FREE PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE?
GOD DAMN YOU ARE JUST SIMPLY STUPID!!!!!
You say we DON'T NEED the GPL license!
That PUBLIC DOMAIN CODE is GOOD ENOUGH to keep the CODE FREE!
Then you ARGUE that why should ANYONE be FORCED to release their
code which is BASED ON PUBLIC SOFTWARE!
>> As contributing back
>> in form of sources is within the GPL model which seems to work fine in
>> that respect, I cannot see any reason not to GPLize publicly funded
>> code.
>
>But the GPL is much more than just give the source that you changed back.
>
No it IS NOT! That's exactly what it is.
If you use GPL'D code to develop something you give the
source code back to the community so other will build upon it!
This is exactly why Balmer knows Linux and the GPL will bury
his ass! It's the ultimate public domain license which requires
it's users to actually contribute something back to the gene pool!
>> Executive summary: GPLize publicly funded code until a license pops up
>> that performs better in terms of public benefit.
>
>Okay, let me try and give an example.
>The goverment fund a new FS (I'm getting tired of protocols examples).
>And release it under the GPL.
>
>Apple want to use it, so it takes the code, port it to Mac OSX, and put it
>there.
>Then the FSF comes and says, "Hi, this is code is being called by the kernel
>and the I/O layers, so you must GPL the kernel"
>So Apple GPL the kernel and all the I/O layers.
>Then the FSF comes are says, "Hi, this code makes calls to the kernel, and
>*this* one makes calls to the I/O layer."
>And they keep doing it until only GPL code remain in Mac OS X.
>
>(There might be some things that are wrong here, but I'm making an *example*
>here, not delving on technicalities.)
>
>You see the problem here?
>Because of the propogating effects of the GPL, Apple wouldn't be able to use
>it, depriving its users from that better FS.
>If it was released under a free-er license, they would be able to use it.
>
>
>As a side point, does anyone know of a license that says that "if you use my
>code, you must release the changes to my code back, but can do whatever you
>want to do with you code" ?
>
>
Your ENTIRE assumption is based on the principle that it should
ALWAYS be the RIGHT of BIG COMPANIES to STEAL our CODE then copyright
it for their own uses then NEVER share it with the community.
As you said, "Why should THEY be forced to release THEIR CODE"..
You got it wrong anyway. The question is "Why should THEY be
forced to release the PUBLICS CODE".
But you couldn't even place this in your argument.
So all your trying to do is bitch about why it's not legal
for corporations to just STEAL CODE and not return anything
back to the public system.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is shit
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 Jun 2001 03:58:39 GMT
On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 15:44:57 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It really is. I'm sticking to windows. You can't even install a printer
>>> for christs sake.
>>
>> Don't you mean *you* can't install a printer ?
>>
>> It's not hard, but of course not all printers work with Linux, ie
>> Winprinters, which are cheap and nasty junk, that require the PC CPU to
>> do the things that any decent printer has an embedded microprocessor to
>> do.
>>
>> Personally I use a nice second hand IBM 4029 Postscript laser printer
>> that cost me $70.
>
> $70 PS laser printer? Wow! is it any good?
Yep, its second hand of course!
I bought 4 in total, this one has printed about 50,000 pages but
has 8 megs ram and understands postscript, pcl, hpgl, and text.
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
>
> --
> (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>
> /d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
> r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
> d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 10:04:12 -0600
In article <9fda7d$o8l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://joel.editthispage.com/stories/storyReader$51 A good article
> about why people think so highly about UI. It's a good approach, I
> believe.
> Any comments?
>
Wouldn't it be great if people from the Linux/UNIX world
had the kind of common sense and competence that
Windows programmers like the author of this article has.
I actually have strong feelings about this issue because I think
the neglect of UI is a serious bottleneck in the progress of
Linux. Unfortunately, a lot of Linux/UNIX people are still
trying to understand the GUI revolution that took place 20
years ago. It's really a terrible shame because the payoffs
could be so tremendous. Think of where we'd be today if
Linux had the technology to be a decent end user OS.
Instead of confronting the challenge, UNIX people try to
disparage UI by spouting vague bullshit about
supposedly more serious aspects of programming.
I have a PhD in mathematics and I don't like vague
bullshit, so that kind of thing pisses me off. If there's
some fancy, deep, complex technology Linux
programmers have been doing that's more important
than UI, I'd like to hear about it.
To my mind, a programmer who disparages UI is as ridiculous
as a programmer who says he doesn't understand for-loops, or
doesn't "get" syntax, etc. The purpose of software is to create
a bridge between a human user and computer hardware. At
the bottom, low level software interacts directly with the hardware.
At the top, application software interacts directly with a
human user. Other software sits between. Each layer of
software performs some services, and interfaces
layers below it, above it, and also at the same level.
It takes intelligence and competence to design the interfaces
at all levels well. I'm very skeptical of the idea that there are
programmers who can program well but can't do UI well. The
same programmer who doesn't provide feedback on errors to the
user, will probably be just as sloppy in any other programming
task. If he's writing a class library, he'll probably fail to pass
exceptions properly to its clients. The same programmer who
doesn't study UI seriously and reinvents the wheel in some
aspect of the user interface, creating something weird and
nonstandard, will probably create something weird and
nonstandard in any other programming task. Etc.
I also get very leary of the typical Linux programmer who
can't put two coherent sentences together to document their
software. That's just plain incompetent.
Of course, there're going to be people who take this an
unwarranted attack on Linux. That's not my purpose.
In my opinion, we ought to be thinking long term. The
short term battle is progressing well. Linux has made
incredible gains. Linux is overtaking Windows in some
server markets and it's knocking the wind out of MS in
the embedded market. But Linux can't win the whole game
in the short term. The technology just isn't there to knock
Microsoft out on the desktop. Some people have gotton
discouraged by some of the setbacks on the desktop. My
attitude is, what did you expect? You can't expect progress
there without good technology. Long term, I think it's possible
and even inevitable that Linux will spell the destruction of
Microsoft there too, provided the Linux community
faces up to the challenges instead of just spouting
bullshit.
So what do I think we need to do? If you write code, do
your homework and gain competence in everything,
including UI. If you use code, don't respect code with
shabby UI and shabby documentation. Expect Linux
programmers to strive for the same quality that Windows
programmers produce. If you expect that, the capable
programmers will step up to the challenge. Remember,
OSS programmers are paid in respect, not dollars.
If you don't respect the crap that most Linux
programmers produce, it's like you're not paying
them. On the other hand, you've got to be very
encouraging for what's good, or else they're going
to go looking for a "higher paying" job.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is shit
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 04 Jun 2001 04:00:19 GMT
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 20:20:22 -0400,
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 01:55:07 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> It really is. I'm sticking to windows. You can't even install a
>>> printer for christs sake.
>>
>> Don't you mean *you* can't install a printer ?
>>
>> It's not hard, but of course not all printers work
>> with Linux, ie Winprinters, which are cheap and nasty
>> junk, that require the PC CPU to do the things that
>> any decent printer has an embedded microprocessor
>> to do.
>>
>
> You are not completely correct - if you look at www.linuxprinting.org you
> will notice that most Cheap&nasty Winprinters are supported as well.
I stand corrected then, thanks Nigel :)
>
> Linux also has the advantage of not needing to hunt for the driver disk
> when you change to a new printer as most drivers are installed with the
> operating system - my father recently bought a cheap shop-clearance Canon
> BJC2000 printer (without drivers or manual) which I tested for him. On my
> Mandrake system I just used the CUPS WWW admin tool to add the printer and
> test it, to get it working on his Windows machine I had to download 3mb of
> driver from canon's website.
>
>
--
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: Windows makes good coasters
Date: 4 Jun 2001 04:07:38 GMT
drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3 Jun 2001 21:11:55 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)) wrote:
>>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I understand Forte Agent perfectly well.
>>
>>I understand it better than you, because I figured out filtering inside
>>Forte Agent. And I figured it out in under five minutes. How long did
>>take you? Whats that? Still figuring it out?
> I haven't even started to try and figure it out. Unlike you, I have
> better things to do than to work out obscure features of programs I
> hardly use.
I see. 25 posts per day to this newsgroup alone using Agent, and you hardly
use it.
My god man. And you somehow remember to breathe.
>>>>are loathe to read instructions. The fact is, you have no idea WHAT
>>>>the gimp can do, because you are retarded and useless.
>>
>>> I doubt anyones retardedness is the reason the GIMP isn't as good as
>>> Paint shop pro, apart from the GIMP programmers.
>>
>>Again, you are not aware of what GIMP can actually do, so your opinion
>>is utterly worthless.
> Again, you are not aware of how GIMP is inferior to PSP, so you
> opinion is utterly worthless.
I use them both actually, and have for some time. I know exactly what the
pros and cons of each are. You obviously ahve *never* used the GIMP, or
are irretrievably stupid. Either way, your opinion on this and all other
matters is worthless.
>>>>There are those of us out there who hold stations in life in which it is not
>>>>wise to crack every single piece of software we want.
>>
>>> Any reasons perhaps?
>>
>>Yes, business reasons. All of my business software is legit, period.
>>
>>Makes tax time a bit more lucerative and it keeps adobe off my back.
> How are they going to find out anyway?
Apparantly you dont have alot of experience with this sort of thing (not
surprising). The fact is that they do find out, and they find out often,
and especially quickly if you happen to use their product in an exceedingly
public way.
Idiot.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS - AOL breakdown...
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 04:09:24 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <XjAS6.6380$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >No, Charlie has no mind to work in the first place, he just seems to type
> >randomly.
> >
> >"fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:pOtS6.20843$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> The article said nothing about an AOL copyright, in fact it referred to
> >> "Microsoft's Windows Media Player format " and "Speculation that AOL
would
> >> shift allegiances to Windows Media Player ", but you still managed to
> >come
> >> to the conclusion that Microsoft stole it from AOL. Interesting, how
the
> >> mind works, isn't it?.
> >>
> >> fm
>
> Let's see here. He says I have no mind to work in the first place
> and I just seem to type randomly.
>
> Humm.
>
> And this other guys says AOL copyright on Media player isn't mentioned
> in article and that somehow the article really meant that Microsoft
> invented the player and somehow AOL was trying to steal it.
Considering that no AOL copyright is mentioned in the article, I gladly
take credit for having said so. And of course it's evident to anyone who
reads my first post (quoted above in full) that I didn't say anything about
AOL trying to steal it from Microsoft.
You've pulled a 180 in both cases. Did you get trapped in Bizarro World?
Or does E.F. have you pegged for a random typist?
fm
>
> Yet the article clearly states MS was attempting to gain unlimited
> control over the Media Player from AOL.
Sure it does...
"One sticking point is whether AOL's software will support Microsoft's
Windows Media Player in addition to its current support for RealNetworks'
RealPlayer format."
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-6168880.html
Maybe Hooked on Phonics will work for you.
fm
>
>
> Well,
>
> That's two brain tumors! fm and Erik fukenbush.
>
> That's very interesting.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
