Linux-Advocacy Digest #279, Volume #27 Fri, 23 Jun 00 14:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Lost Cause Theater!!! ("2 + 2")
Re: Wintrolls in panic! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the (Cihl)
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Re: Wintrolls in panic!
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Adam Smith)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:59:08 GMT
In article <8it5q2$1pbg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> > "The tough"? Perhaps you meant the "two".
>
> Sorry, I learned to type phonetically.
Tough is said as "tuff" not "too".
> And prove yourself to be an utter moron to every single person who
> knows just a *little* bit about the way linux works. Even the ones
> who dont like it.
I am aware of the distinction that Linux and KDE are two seperate
objects. However, it does not seem unreasonable to me to lump the two
together as KDE is an example of a Windowing system on Linux.
As for calling me a moron, this is a typical response from a Linux
rent-a-gob. I see it all the time. Yawn, yawn, yawn.
> You dont know what youre talking about at ALL. You would do best to
> stay with windows.
But you guys are telling me Linux is so much better. The fact that I'm
trying to tell you were it isn't really pisses you off doesn't it. It
doesn't matter if I'm telling the truth, now does it? You label me a
moron simply because I don't agree with your statements.
> > My points still stand, your comments are merely
> > noise.
>
> I see. So KDE *is* linux, eh? Please, do go on...
Well, duh, of course KDE isn't Linux. But I'm using KDE with Linux.
Would you be happier if I titled this whole thread as "KDE, easy to
use?".
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:02:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
No-Spam wrote:
> You've had ******dozens****** and ignored them Goodwin, beat it
Wintroll.
Dozens huh. I've had a look at the few that appeared; nothing special.
Nothing actually posted by the Laughing-Linux-Gnome Charlie boy! It
would seem he needs others to post for him.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:04:58 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OH! I'm sorry Pete!
>
> Yes, I still recognize you as a Wintroll also!
>
> Sorry if I've been ignoring you lately.
Yes, you love to ignore people who try to pin you down, don't you,
Charlie boy. You let others post for you, with a few smatterings of
things you're talking about. How about backing up your statements next
time for a change.
Either that, or I guess I'll have to label you a Laughing-Linux-Gnome.
Ranting your way, hither and thither. Nobody takes you seriously, you
know!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:10:12 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:58:24 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:01:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In fact, I'd say that a majority of Unix programmers I know are
>>completely dumbfounded by the sight of assembly language on their native
>>machine.
>
>I'd say that a majority of programmers in general are dumbfounded by
>the sight of the assembly language of any machine. This is not a Unix
>specific disease (if it is a disease). Your trying to portray it as
>such is, well, silly.
Then again: not all assembly languages are created equal.
If one's primary experience with assembler is x86, then I
could certainly see why that programmer would be scarred for
life and have a horrible fright anytime they see assembler
of any kind.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:31:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a science journalist, one doesn't always get to write about what one
> knows about or get the time to walk 1000 miles in every relevant
> persons' moccasins. You solicit quotes about what the bottom of their
> moccasins look like, build a story out of those, and hope for the best.
> Yes, there's something to be said for not getting in over your head, and
> sometimes you can avoid it. My intuition is that I'll squeek by on this
> one. I don't have to get any more technical than I see fit, and as I
> appraise the mountain of my ignorance on this topic, I'd say I've stood
> in deeper doodoo before.
If you are writing a story about Linux vs. Windows, and you have some time,
I recommend also doing some research on the history of Unix. Linux did not
just come out of nowhere. It is important to note that Linus was standing on
the shoulders of giants who toiled and strived perfect Unix. This 30 years of
work by the brightest minds in computer science must be included in your mind
hours equation.
Also, if you are going to compare Linux and Windows be sure to look deaper than
just comparing them as desktop systems -- it is essential that you consider
servers and there role in businesses and organizations. For example, ask the question
why is the Linux/Apache Web server software combination considered so far superior
to the Windows NT/IIS Web server software combination? Why is Linux growing so
fast especially in the server market? Why are businesses increasingly looking to
Linux for mission critical applications?
And don't forget that Linux is not just the command line. There are widely used
Windows managers that are as user-friendly as Windows 98.
--
Neil
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.admin.networking,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lost Cause Theater!!!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:29:15 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Goodevening,
>
>Welcome to another episode of
> "LOST CAUSE THEATER!"
>
>
>This evening we will examine the comments of a man known to us
>only as Simon777.
>
>Simon777 has posted around 200 messages to COLA in the last say,
>3 weeks.
>
>Simon777 is a typical representation of the windows community today.
>
>They are fearful that Linux is taking over their PC world and
>rightfully so.
>
>Linux is beginning to take serious chuncks our of the Microsoft
>market, starting this year.
>
>Simon777 isn't the only Windows nut we have on COLA, we have others.
>
>Simon777 is the BEST reason to leave Windows and use Linux as I see
>it. Why else would somebody post over 200 messages to COLA in less
>than one month? Why?
>
>Is Simon777 a psyco destine to hurt some school kids in some
>school yard somewhere? Maybe rape some woman and cut her throat?
>
>Or do people like Simon777 really feel threatened by the Linux
>advance?
>
>I'm going to say they are fearfull of loosing Windows to
>Linux. After all, there have been no mass murderer's write
>to Cola in the past that anybody's aware of!!!
>
>Why ELSE would somebody post all these messages, over 200 in
>say just 3 weeks time over Linux. Why?
>
>The reason why is even the top windows supporters agree that
>Windows is dead. Why else would they spend their precious time
>and do this on COLA?
>
>If Windows is the operating system of the masses then why
>are we seeing more and more whiny butt Wintrolls in Cola?
>
>Over 200 in 3 weeks however, this is obsessive behavior for
>the Wintroll Simon777.
The only explanation I can think of is
that you have entered some kind of PARALLEL WORLD [<special Charley CAPS],
and this person is your [Charley's] other world "ALTER EGO,"
whatever that could be [assuming YOU are still CHARLEY].
Charley, have you been seeing a STRANGE BEING when you look in a mirror?
Is so, the only thing to do is to go quickly to ALT.PARANET.UFO and
get some good advice there.
2 + 2
p.s. perhaps you will be postin' more over there there in the future, no?
[with Simon777 in a TIGHT POSTING DUET]
<snip, but thanks for the long collectible>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:12:27 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Seriously, I envy the Sun keyboard.
Then get yourself one. I use a sun keyboard on my linux pc
at home. A friend made the adapter box for it. There's a
schematic for it on the web somewhere. If you are interested
I'll drop you the email address of the guy that made it for
me and he will tell you where it is. The sun keyboard is
by far the best I have used. The 'Open' key is the best
'panic button' I know of. :-)
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:34:46 GMT
Bracy wrote:
>
> In article <cai45.14699$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I remember hearing the same thing about the Amiga, OS/2 and Apples...
>
> So... you were trolling those newsgroups during your summers too?
>
> Bracy
Actually, the ones who are often trolling are the ones who like to
crosspost. Somehow everybody's linking coma, comna and cola these
days.
--
¨I live!¨
¨I hunger!¨
¨Run, coward!¨
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:03:52 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >We never did hear if you took any of the suggestions on tuning and
> >retried your tests. Or is this one of those Mindcraft type of
> >examples? Tune windows perfectly and let Linux sit with non-optimized
> >settings.
>
> I never tuned Windows, just as I never tuned Linux. I keep on saying this,
> but both are 'out of the box' installations - in that I never tinkered with
> any settings.
>
> >I don't agree that Linux is tree times faster than Windows, but for most
> >things it is somewhat faster. I'm not a benchmarking person, so I don't
> >have solid numbers, but I am interested in if you ever re-ran your test
> >with any of the suggestions that were given to you. This to me would be
> >the equivalent of running your test under Windows without loading the
> >proper drivers to your motherboard/IDE controller/vide card/etc. Tuning
> >and driver loading are essential to get a well optimized system.
>
> What tuning on Windows? Are you talking about fixing the page file to a
> specific size - I didn't do that. Are you talking about fiddling with
> parameters in SYSTEM.INI - I didn't do that either.
>
> If you're talking about installing correct drivers, how is that tuning? I
> let both systems detect the driver. In Windows case, I replaced the NVidia
> driver because I wanted UT to work better. In Linux case, it is not running
> with X Windows therefore the video driver tuning is not relevant (unless
> console mode is _particularly_ slow!).
>
> --
> ------------
> Pete Goodwin
I am just saying that by default many Linux distributions do what many
Windows installs do. They install the lowest common denominator of
driver that will work. My earlier assumption was that you just loaded
up all the latest and greatest drivers for Windows, and ignored Linux's
driver/tuning. In Linux, I still get much better performance than
Windows with most of my hardware, but perhaps you have a situation where
that isn't the case. I do know that I had to add a couple of lines to a
boot script to get DMA mode on my Linux box (as DMA mode will lock up
some older drives) and then the performance jumped by about 3x over
default Linux performance. But, that is just one example of what I am
talking about.
As for my earlier arguments, sorry. I was getting a little sick of
going through the newsgroup and constantly seeing people like
Simon/Steve/Whatever saying that Linux always sucks no matter what and
Windows always rules no matter what. My assumption was that you came
here to prove Linux sux (as some of your posts seem to have that vibe to
them). The best way to do that is to tune Windows and not tune Linux.
Knowing what I know of both systems I can (if I were so inclined) make
Linux run like absolute shit compared to Windows, or do exactly the
opposite. But, if you did an out of box load for both, then forgive my
assumption. I responded in haste.
As for why you see slower performance, I can't say. I would have to see
every detail of the machine myself to understand it. Some video cards
perform better on Linux, some on Windows. Most hardware is this way.
Some work better on one, some on the other.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:16:38 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 16:38:02 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian George Leroy Tyrebiter, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>>I disagree. I think that in a lot of cases, what you have is not
>>>"voluntary, informed consent". I think Microsoft have thrown their
>>>wieghht around and used coercion, and I believe the evidence presented
>>>in the trial makes this pretty clear.
>
>> Andy Grove of Intel was apparently furious when MS muscled Intel into
>> killing off their program to make JAVA run much faster on Intel CPUs.
>
>Notice the use of loaded language here... "muscled". Please explain
>how the CEO of MS has more power over Intel than the CEO of Intel.
>If this is really true, Andy Grove should be immediately fired for
>incompetence.
Microsoft probably made noises about moving the focus of their
business from the product which Intel sells, and which is the
largest chunk of Intel's business, and to another one sold by
Irix, Motorola, or DEC.
Theoretically, Intel is more replacable than Microsoft: even
for Intel itself.
[deletia]
"leverage" as Hubbard would put it.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:18:23 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 16:40:21 GMT, Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>>But "using your weight" isn't really a crime, or shouldn't be.
>
>> Abuse of power should certainly be a crime.
>
>Which is why I think the judge in this case should be jailed for
>crimes against freedom of contract. Because if he can interfere
What America (or EU) have you been living in?
Your comments are competely out of touch with American jurisprudence
going back clear to the Articles of Confederation and ultimately
even pre-dating the magna carta.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:27:32 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:07:13 GMT, MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:40:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
>wrote:
>
[deletia]
>
>>The desired result of improved
>>competiton might have happened regardless of the final outcome, but I
>>would not count that as a reason not to pursue anti-trust cases.
>
>I would -- if competitors did not have this substitute for competition on merit
>in their legal arsenal, they'd be less likely to fool themselves and they would
This is an extremely misleading bit of rhetoric. It presumes that
the market as it is now will allow for effective competition based
on merit. This is a reflection of the circular arugmentation that
if a company is successful it must have gotten that way due to merit
rather than other factors and thus those other factors won't be an
issue in 'out-competiting it'.
>HAVE to compete in marketplace rather than in court. They would not have any
>other option.
Microsoft is a marginally better 'business for the sake of business'
entity than it's immediate rivals who have typically tried to exceed
by making better product. This has led to Microsoft more successfully
exploiting network effects to the detriment of it's rivals and leading
to a situation where none of it's rivals have that same benefit. Also,
the 'default' aspect of WinDOS as product also gives Microsoft another
advantage in terms of being able to lose money on new ventures not
related to anything else they sell.
IOW they can merely 'bleed' longer.
I don't want the products available to me determined by who can
'bleed' the longest. That is not capitalism.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:38:27 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:12:27 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Seriously, I envy the Sun keyboard.
>
>Then get yourself one. I use a sun keyboard on my linux pc
>at home. A friend made the adapter box for it. There's a
>schematic for it on the web somewhere. If you are interested
Does Sun make a USB version?
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:27:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Work on a high throughput database, and get back to us.
Yes, done that. Your point? I still didn't need to know anything about
how the scheduler works then.
At the time, it was more interesting to me to know how to present 50,000
records to the user in such a way that he didn't have to wait for ages
loading _all_ the records, but only the first 20 or 30 and then grabbing
the next page. All done on a Windows GUI.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 17:32:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I agree that it is important, particularly for MP, but I would also
argue
> that knowing assembly language is at least ten times as important to
> knowing how to effectively program. Ironically, I have met MANY Unix
> programmers who do not know assembly language for the machine they
work
> on. In fact, I'd say that a majority of Unix programmers I know are
> completely dumbfounded by the sight of assembly language on their
native
> machine. The excuse is usually some cruft about how assembly language
> isn't portable, which has nothing to do with the ability to read it
...
> (and the scheduler is not portable either of course).
>
I fail to see the logic that I need to know how the scheduler works on
any system when I'm an applications developer. It's a bit like saying I
should know how the internal combustion engine works in order to drive a
car! Sure, I might be interested if I was _servicing_ said car, but
driving it?!?
I mean, do I really need to know how a line is drawn graphically on a
GUI system if I'm writing an application for it? Am I going to be that
interested? Is it going to help my job? I doubt it, unless I'm trying to
write a video driver.
My current job is in writing device drivers. I don't know Intel
assembler, but I have learnt assembly language of other processors so
its not such a foreign language to me. However, I rarely need to
understand assembly language as I write in C++.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Adam Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: 23 Jun 2000 17:47:00 GMT
KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Okay, the subject line definitely sounded like flamebait, but its not.
> I don't consider GNU/Linux a great OS, just marginally better that
> everything else I have used, at least for my needs.
> A true advocate would have to admit:
> * that the Unix model doesn't extend well into the graphical user
> interface
As others have asked, what are you comparing it to? I think the unix
model extends itself to a GUI at least as well as anything else out
there at the moment. (Apple certainly seems to think so.) I would
certainly argue that since unix was a multi-tasking OS from the
(non-GUI) beginning, it extends into a multitasking GUI environment
much better than an OS that started as a single-tasker, such as
MS-DOS. (But I guess that's not what you're arguing.)
Now I would certainly admit that in some respects X is starting to
show its age. If the berlin project (http://berlin.sourceforge.net/)
achieves its goals, X may be gone in five years or so. (And IMHO if
berlin delivers on its promises, it will outclass any other GUI out
there.)
> * that having two competing desktop enviroments will be causing
> inconveniance to users for years.
If you're referring to Gnome vs KDE, it's a very minor inconvenience,
since G-apps can be run under KDE and vice versa provided you have the
libraries installed. Really, it's only a matter of choosing which one
you want to be dominant on your desktop. I agree with the poster who
said that the competition would be more likely to improve both
environments.
But again, if berlin turns out to be For Real, we may be looking at
some X-vs-berlin pains a few years down the road, especially if
there's no X-compatibility layer for berlin.
> * that perhaps we need to get rid of these middle-level C-like languages
> that make it easier for even great programmers to introduce memory leaks and
> core dumps into large applications that we depend on.
I'm really not qualified to argue this, since I'm only an amateur
programmer at best. But could you give me an example of a language
with C-like functionality and power that prevents memory leaks and
core dumps?
> * that there are so many ways in which GNU/Linux can be improved that it
> would be useful to start over from scratch and design a new OS light years
> ahead of what we have now.
Well, there are such projects going on as we speak, albeit some of
them are aimed at more specific targets. Be is an attempt to design a
high-speed multimedia OS, though it's closed-source. GNU/Hurd is
aimed at designing an OS for multiprocessor machines (IIRC); it seems
to be based on the thinking that in 5-10 years everyone will be buying
machines with two or more processors. The intent seems to be for Hurd
to eventually replace *nix.
But as someone pointed out, it takes at least 5-10 years for an OS to
grow to maturity. There's a lot of time invested in Linux, and
anything that wants to unseat it as the king of the open-source OSes
is going to have to play quite a bit of catch-up.
> I guess I am asking, do you really think GNU/Linux is a great OS or do you
> think there is enough room for improvement for work on a new, largely
> incompatible, OS be worthwhile?
Perhaps; I'm not qualified to judge. But I do know that anything
started now probably won't see widespread use before 2005 at the very
earliest.
--
Adam Smith
Boston University
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
"In theory there's no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice there is."
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 07:55:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>With the IDE's I have used (a boreland one and VC++), IIRC the windows
>opened are internal to the IDE only. On Linux, they're root windows.
>Personally I prefer the latter. Also, if one crashes (for whatever
>reason), the rest stay alive.
The seperate processes are usually disconnected. With VC++ and the Borland
Delphi IDE, there is a sense of connection between them (more so in
Delphi). You can CTRL-click on a keyword and jump to the file it is defined
in, and back again. With seperate processes this information needs to be
shared, with threads its a little easier.
I've rarely seen VC++ or Delphi crash. In fact, Delphi traps exceptions and
does a reasonable job of continuing.
>True, windows processes are heavier than UNIX ones. It uses threads.
>processes are more robust, though, since one thread can kill the whole
>program.
That's why with Netscape I switched to using seperate news (Xnews) and mail
clients ("The Bat", not Outlook!). Netscape is incredibly buggy and crashes
frequently.
>I also have things like updatedb firing off once per day in the
>background, which perform very useful tasks. Most of the many process I
>run, I run for a reason. Another reason that UNIX needs more processes
>avaliable than Windows is piping. Can't do it under windows (without
>using a temporary file), can under UNIX, and each command requires a
>seperate process.
Pipes do exist on Windows. You can even do crude piping in a DOS prompt,
but the Unix version is much better at it. However, I rarely use the
command prompt anymore, so pipes are an interesting curiousity and nothing
more.
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:11:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote in
<8iqao5$oic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>and in need of a lot of help.
>
>Actually, it works very well right now.
Works is true, but "very well"? Maybe at the console level, but not at the
GUI level. That still leaves a lot to be desired.
For instance, you have two kfm processes running. You want to copy the text
from one t'other. CTRl-C CTRL-V is a standard key sequence (no, it wasn't
created by Windows!) and kfm doesn't recognise it. Even clicking on the
buttons doesn't work!
Most applications cling to their startup directory like glue. Obviously the
concept of CWD (current working directory) hasn't sunk in yet. Open a file
dialog and I get /home/goodwin. I move to a different directory, pick a
file. I do it again... and I'm back at /home/goodwin. Oh jeez!
>GNU/Linux/OSS software, on the other hand, uses industry
>standard, open protocols, runs on many types of computers
>in addition to Intel, and also scales easily to very
>powerful machines. Its source code is publicly available,
>so if the author of a program doesn't fix a problem in it,
>other people can; they can also enhance it and pass the
>improvements on to everyone else.
>
>Microsoft products have none of these advantages, and are
>also designed to coerce and gouge the customer in many
>different ways. They are definitely the second rate ones
>compared to GNU/Linux/Open-Source software.
Open Source does not mean good. There's a definate 'look and feel' behind
Windows that is way ahead of Linux. Whilst corporations charge money for
software, you at least get the feeling of some kind of coordination behind
them. Linux appears to be a real mess of differing bits and pieces that
haven't quite pulled together yet.
>I have, and so have many others:
>
>Linux Was Already On The Desktops In 10% Of Companies One Year Ago!
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=636626636
>
>According to the survey mentioned, Linux is probably now
>used in desktop and workstation computers in 30% of all
>businesses.
One survey says 0.3% is Linux, another says 14%. Take your pick!
--
============
Pete Goodwin
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
