Linux-Advocacy Digest #449, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Roy Culley)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Roy Culley)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Roy Culley)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? (Roy Culley)
Re: The Microsoft PATH. (Roy Culley)
Re: OT Movies ("mmnnoo")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. ("Brian Craft")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: OT Movies ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (James Philips)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Chad
Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:48:48 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 06:52:45 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>What does "less than steller" mean? Details! Details!
Blue screens.
>> Low latency is the big advantage for me.
>
>Ah yes, latency. Another area where DirectX sucks.
We are getting 2ms which is better than ASIO can manage and way better
than MME.
>> The drivers are stable under Win2k but so-so under Win98SE/ME.
>
>How are they so-so? Details!
Many people reporting blue screens, lockups and stuttering audio.
They run very smooth under Win2k for the most part.
Flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:20:41 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9dia3r$mnc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3afc9fcb$0$41634$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > 180 days? what a joke, I expect 900z like uptimes of 35 years, not this
>> > poofter 180 days or so.
>>
>> SAY! here is a thought. Unix has been around for 35 years right?
>>
>> Can you show me a unix system with an uptime of 35 years?
>> How about 30 years?
>> 25?
>> 20?
>> 10?
>>
>> Can't?? What?! You mean these puppies can't even stay up that long?
>>
>> I mean, W2K boxes have been up and running for as long as their has been a
>> "W2K" - Unix can't claim that?
>> Don't know of any linux boxes that have been running for 5 years do you?
> So,
>> they crash that often eh?
>>
>> (getting the picture are you finally?)
>
> LOL!
Grief, you people are pathetic. Microsoft has lost the Internet server
market. Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An
infamous record. It doesn't look any better this year. IIS is the worst
offender of all. Now they are sticking it in the kernel! Talk about
being desparate.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:57:30 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) writes:
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 17:59:46 +0200, Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>Mike wrote:
>>> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>>
>>>> So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
>>>> MS Office Pro?
>>>
>>> Wrong question, Matthew. Similar to asking what Win2k can do that Linux
>>> can't, it misses the point that Office is the dominant product today.
>>> The primary question you have to answer is why people use MS Office.
>>> Ignore the humorous answers ("Because they like looking at blue
>>> screens!") and the stupid ones ("Because they're stupid sheep who just
>>> do whatever Bill tells them to") and all the conspiracy theories, and
>>> you'll be left with a list of real reasons why people aren't flocking to
>>> the competition.
>>>
>>> You might not like the answer, but at least you'll know.
>>>
>>
>>Well, I do not use it myself, but the guy I´m working with does.
>>And he keeps telling me that for him the *only* reason is, that he
>>receives documents in Word-format and the people on the other end expect
>>from him to do likewise.
>>He himself despises MS for that shoddy product.
>>
>>Peter
>>
>
> Yep...that's the reason allright. The same applies to excel and powerpoint
> too. It's why most of the world is still using Office 97 and very few have
> even bothered switching to Office 2000 (unless it came with their computer).
> It's also the reason future sales of Office XP will be much harder to
> maintain.
This is what is really hurting Microsoft now. They can't keep hiding their
poor sales of W2K and Office behind income from non-core business investments.
They are getting desparate. I think 2001 is going to be the killer year for
Microsoft. It is all downhill from here.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:29:14 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Paolo Ciambotti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yeah, I just looked at the latest OS graphs on Attrition.org. No doubt
> about it, W2K and IIS are setting new records.
>
> http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/os-graphs.html
Especially considering that Microsoft are a distant second in Internet
web servers. Any company that uses Microsoft for their Internet services
deserves all they get.
Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:54:58 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mike wrote:
>> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> So, whats missing? Where is the huge gap between Wordperfect Suite and
>>> MS Office Pro?
>>
>> Wrong question, Matthew. Similar to asking what Win2k can do that Linux
>> can't, it misses the point that Office is the dominant product today.
>> The primary question you have to answer is why people use MS Office.
>> Ignore the humorous answers ("Because they like looking at blue
>> screens!") and the stupid ones ("Because they're stupid sheep who just
>> do whatever Bill tells them to") and all the conspiracy theories, and
>> you'll be left with a list of real reasons why people aren't flocking to
>> the competition.
>>
>> You might not like the answer, but at least you'll know.
>>
>
> Well, I do not use it myself, but the guy I´m working with does.
> And he keeps telling me that for him the *only* reason is, that he
> receives documents in Word-format and the people on the other end expect
> from him to do likewise.
> He himself despises MS for that shoddy product.
What's worse is that each new version of office would by default save
files in a format not compatible with previous versions. The effect of
course was forcing people to upgrade for no other reason than to be able
to read documents produced by newer versions of office. This got so bad
at my current company that they spent a huge amount of time and money to
have a standard desktop for everyone (over 20,000 hosts). They did this
in 2000 and won't be upgrading to a newer Microsoft OS and office suite
for several years. This is Microsofts big problem today. Companies have
had enough of the continual Microsoft upgrade bandwagon. Hence the
following:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18884.html
They are trying to force corporate customers to upgrade now. They are
desparate and the future looks very bleak for Microsoft.
Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't looking
any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:38:13 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett) writes:
> On Sat, 12 May 2001 01:08:24 +1200, Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I have to agree on this ... the average consumer does not know about
>>> linux.
>>> The average consumer does not know about VM.
>>> The average consumer does not know about VMS.
>>> The average consumer does not know about Sun OS or other UNIX variants.
>>> When the average consumer goes into the usual store, like Wal-mart, they
>>> see MicroSoft oriented equipment.
>>> The average consumer is not made aware of alternatives.
>>>
>>> --
>>> V
>>The average person is a complete moron also, one only needs to look at
>>the number of people who like to what programmes like "when stunts go
>>bad" as a respresentation of moroness in the community.
>>
>>Matthew Gardiner
>
> According to statistics, the average person has average intelligence.
> Morons and smart people both occupy opposite ends of the bell-curve.
But when do adults have their IQ tested? Most IQ tests are done while
at school which is supposed to be a learning environment. When most
people leave school and start a mundane job their thinking ability
just isn't used. Over time their ability to think drops dramatically.
How else can you explain the likes of GW becoming president? :-)
------------------------------
From: "mmnnoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:52:45 GMT
Well that's nice that you work in such lovely datacenters but surely you
agree that movies *never* capture the real appeal of technical work (for
instance the complexity mentioned by the original poster).
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 22:18:04 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>I would love, just once, a movie show a real data center. Cluttered
>>wires, non-color coordinated boxes. Things impossible to find, not
>>because of security, but because of simple complexity.
>
> I don't see data centers like that. Where do you work?
>
> I'm in Chase Bank, Computer Associates, Barnes and Nobel, Sloan
> Kettering, Canon, Arrow, the IRS, FAA, etc and I don't see stuff like
> that.
>
> Things are quite organized in fact. Of course Linux is mostly non
> existant as well but real UNIX is alive and kicking. Not too much NT
> there either except on the desktops.
>
>
>
>>That would be cool.
>
>
> What would be cool would be actually seeing an IBM 3420 Tape Drive
> running a tape in the correct direction for a change.
>
>>Like I always say, poor science fiction is due to bad writers. A good
>>mystery writer would not dare describe a gun or a poison without a lot
>>of research. Why do we give writers that use technical complications as
>>part of the plot such leeway into stupidity?
>
> Maybe you could point them to all of these defect data centers you seem
> to know of?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:55:09 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 07:04:35 GMT, "Tom Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I asked the question before, and I will again...
>Seriously, what applications do you need and what are their requirements?
Sonar. Cakewalk, Cubase, SoundForge, CD Architect, Acid, Vegas, and
all of the plugins that go with them.
Requirements are 24bit audio and very low latency along with stability
and the ability to utilize common MIDI interfaces. An easy to use gui
is a must and they must all be able to integrate with each other
seamless. For example SoundForge shows up in Sonar's tool bar so I can
select a waveform in Sonar, edit it in SoundForge and then put the
edited version right back into Sonar just by clicking on the
Soundforge selection.
>Make these sorts of things known and you just might interest someone willing
>and able to provide a solution. Programmers, the good ones anyway, generally
>love a challenge. Not all Linux software offerings are "CS-Student Project
>Quality". VMWare is a great example of a quality commercial offering. Samba
>and Apache are widely acknowledged examples of quality Open Source. Make
>your demands known in detail and they just may be met.
Linux is discussed all the time in the audio groups but the software
companies refuse to listen. Cubase and Logic announced development
plans for Linux about a year ago and then scuttled the projects.
>Personally, I thought of doing a ProTools-like application for Linux
>sometime down the road. It's abilities at multitasking seem tailor-made to
>that sort of thing and I have musician friends who'd die to have those
>features on a stable platform and with it,.I can cover-up the fact that my
>guitar playing is lousy. (Time and prior commitments keep pushing this
>farther and farther into the future, though...<grrr> )
Exactly!
flatfish
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 15:10:29 +0100
>
> Clusters actually tend to show LOWER uptimes because it averages the
> uptimes
> of all the machines in the cluster. Netcraft doesn't simply check if the
> server is up every so often, it actually determines the machines actual
> uptime from the machines packet signature.
>
If this is true then look at which Win2k sites report the highest uptimes -
they are all run by MS so is there any thing to stop them making their
systems return false uptime data to fiddle the figures?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:56:54 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 13:23:55 GMT, "Tom Wilson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Attempting to do so leads to heartache 99.99 percent of the time.
>(I've done it twice and had to re-load within a week each time)
>Damned sloppy way to do things, IMO...
Sure is, but at least MS had the good sense to let us know beforehand
:)
Of course it would have been nicer for them to have an un-install
program.
Oh well!
That's what Drive image is for.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Brian Craft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:58:39 GMT
In article <9daq5c$9bs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chaparral"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We can all say what we want about how Windows sucks and that Linux is
> the end-all-be-all, but after trying almost every Linux version to date,
> the bottom line folks is that Mr Gates has made operating a home
> computer easy enough for my great uncle to run. The Penguin still
> doesnt come close!
>
> What Linux is VERY good at is the handling of servers... this is stuff
> that you are expected to fiddle with and fine tune. Home users don't
> want to fart around all day trying to figure out what to click and then
> having barely predictable responses.
>
> So, Linux sucks hard for the home user but beats the hell out of
> WinBlows on the server farm... especially when you can tell a client
> that full-blown server software will only cost him $75 compared to $2000
> plus for 2000Server!
>
> Microsoft will rule the home front for many years I think, but their
> exorbitant pricing and draconian licensing policies will soon cause the
> server market to dry up.
>
> Im done now.
>
>
He's either a Troll, or an unexperienced Windoze user without enough
brains to use Linux.
Brian
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:36:29 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Then why isn't there a mass movement from UNIX towards Win2k? and how
> come SUN has been having some fab quarters? so much for a dying OS.
Slow acceptance rate due to MS' past reputation, mainly, give it time.
In addition to "we will use what we know" sympthom.
And Unix isn't a dying OS, and I've never said such a thing.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:40:36 +0200
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > 180 days? what a joke, I expect 900z like uptimes of 35 years, not
this
> > > poofter 180 days or so.
> >
> > SAY! here is a thought. Unix has been around for 35 years right?
> >
> > Can you show me a unix system with an uptime of 35 years?
> > How about 30 years?
> > 25?
> > 20?
> > 10?
> >
> > Can't?? What?! You mean these puppies can't even stay up that long?
> >
> > I mean, W2K boxes have been up and running for as long as their has been
a
> > "W2K" - Unix can't claim that?
> > Don't know of any linux boxes that have been running for 5 years do you?
So,
> > they crash that often eh?
> >
> > (getting the picture are you finally?)
> There is a guarantee by IBM of 35 years of no hardware failures on their
> mainframe line. Also, unlike Microsofts hacked up Desktop OS, os/390
> and os/900 have been built specifically for Mainframes, hence, these OS
> donot have to handle foreign, unstable hardware, they are designed to be
> run on only IBM hardware, ensuring the maximum level of quality.
It is not the same as 35 years with no reboot, isn't it? :-D
And, pardon me, how is it different from MS' Win2K DataCenter, which run on
quality hardware, with special drivers for it?
Not to mentioned that it's tweaked specifically to the hardware it run on.
It's been mentioned a day ago that this is somehow a bad thing.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:43:24 +0200
"Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Do you believe that if you say this enough times it will come true?
No. I know it's true.
> Classic apps under Mac OS X perform at very close to their speeds under
> Mac OS 9. (granted, the UI is a bit slower, but that's true for Cocoa
> apps, too, so it's not a Classic issue). So where is this vaunted
> inefficiency you're talking about. By any reasonable standard, Classic
> is a very efficient way to run legacy apps.
Requiring *twice* the RAM to run Classic is *not* efficent.
Benchmark Mac OS X while running Classic and while not running Classic, can
you *feel* (numbers doesn't mean much in UI enviroment, you usually don't
notice them) the difference?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:46:15 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9dis2j$bia$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > And WINE sucks. Badly. Run some windows apps with it.
>
> That's because the Windows API is buggy and poorly documented. IIRC
> Linux/PPC can run MacOS programs rather beter than Wine can run Windows
> programs.
> -Ed
>
Linux/PPC does the same thing as OS X (IE, load the Mac OS to run its
application).
An API can't be buggy.
And the Windows API is very well documented, it's just *very* big.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:54:34 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9diq73$b0k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> - .LNK bodgery. Why not use soft/symbolic links like everyone else?
> >> If I open a .LNK file from within a program, I get -- a .LNK file.
> >> Whoopee. And you can forget about the hard stuff.
> >> (One has to use "The Shell" to do it right.)
> >
> > Because they had to get some way to have shortcuts on a FAT system?
>
>
> Wll, hard links are possible (surely you've had a cross linked filesystem
> before :-).
No, I thought that hard links were for the same file system only, aren't
they?
>Also, if they put the code at a much lower level, ie belop
> the API layer, then the soft links would work transparently.
But would you be able to use that from DOS? *Old* DOS?
That was a major thing that they had to remember, anything that they did had
to be usable from DOS as well.
See how they managed to fit > 8.3 file names, for an example of being tied
up by backward compatability.
(And how they were idiotic enough to put it on *NTFS*, bah!)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:00:12 GMT
On Sat, 12 May 2001 11:38:09 +0100, pip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Maybe that's because large companies have to much money. There is little
>technical difference. I like the phrase "mostly" - so even in these
>bastions of "real Unix", Linux has quietly crept in. It probably being
>used by the techies who like getting tools they need actually included
>instead of with their expensive "real unix" box.
Anything is possible these days!
flatfish
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:57:11 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:mA3L6.16052$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9dhtmj$ddf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > > So don't buy licensed software who's terms you don't agree with.
> > > Simple.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That would be a reasonable statement in a legally competitive
> > > > > environment where the user would have a choice about the
> > > > > matter. We all know that doesn't exist.
> > > >
> > > > Unless you live in an alternate reality from the one the rest of us
> live
> > > > in - you have more than a few choices.
> > > >
> > > > Use Linux if you don't like the licensing deals other software
offer.
> > Then
> > > > again even Linux has the GPL but apparentely communism is prefered
> over
> > > > capitalism with that bunch...
> > >
> > > As far as the OS itself goes, we could all get along fine with Linux
or
> > > the less-restricted freebsd. However, for this to work all the
major
> > > applications vendors would have to treat the platforms equally,
> including
> > > the one(s) illegally intimate with MS-Windows.
> >
> > *Less* restricted FreeBSD? In what way Linux is less restricted then
> > FreeBSD?
>
> FreeBSD is the less-restricted one. You can add anything you want to
> code with the BSD license and distribute it anyway that is still
> compatible with the additions. Linux allows binary kernel modules
> that are not GPL'd but does not encourage them by freezing the
> interface, so it may turn out to be a dead end in software if more
> hardware requires proprietary-licensed drivers and the vendors
> aren't interested in supplying them for system that changes on a
> whim.
Yeah, I mis-read you, apperantly.
I don't understand Linux attidue toward the kernel modules.
Linux users constantly complain about not having drivers, but they also give
the drivers company no *choice* in the matter, because they would've to
support a driver for every change in the interface.
Any idea why Linux doesn't have a unified driver model?
Most other OS has, AFAIK.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 04:57:41 +0200
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:K23L6.54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3afb334d$0$78413$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Use Linux if you don't like the licensing deals other software offer.
Then
> > again even Linux has the GPL but apparentely communism is prefered over
> > capitalism with that bunch...
>
> That statement is just a bit too foolish to take seriously
And since *when* did that stopped anyone?
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Philips)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 14:02:05 GMT
Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> James Philips wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>>>
>>> But I don´t understand what you´re complaining about.
>>> Sure, Aaron Kookis is a jerk who should be autokillfiled.
>>> But above quote is correct. You certainly don´t have any experience
>>> with the newer distros, say SuSE7.1 or RedHat7.
>>> These are *easier* to set up than a windows-box for an unexperienced
>>> newcomer, not harder. Two years ago that would have been a different
>>> story.
>>
>> It's true that Linux is very easy to install, as long as the
>> distribution can detect and configure all the installed hardware. If
>> the user doesn't ever upgrade hardware or install new software then they
>> probably wouldn't have any problems using the system thanks to
>> KDE/GNOME. But most users do add new hardware and most do want to play
>> with new software. I think that it's fair to say that even in the most
>> easy to use Linux distributions, fairly simply tasks like that are
>> usually significantly more complicated
>> than they are in Windows. I can't see how anyone can really use Linux
>> productively without learning something about it, while many people
>> manage to use Mac OS and Windows for years and stay almost totally
>> computer illiterate.
>>
>
> I have to disagree.
> First, in my experience linux finds hardware it knows about better than
> windows.
During the Linux installation maybe, but it's a different situation when
new hardware is added later. Also, installing new apps is a lot more
complicated in Linux, compare the install instructions of just about any
Windows app with just about any Linux app.
Case in point: A notebook with pcmcia-network-card.
> Under windows (win98SE) a quite difficult task to just install it.
> Under Linux it worked already during the initial install!
> Sure, you find more and easier drivers for cards in windows. But it is
> changing very fast.
> Second: The users. I have *never* ever seen one almost computer
> illiterate who stayed that way for long or who did not need massive
> amounts of pampering while using windows.
> I really cannot see any difference here.
My experience is very different. I know plenty of people who have used
Windows happily for years without having to learn anything but how to use
the GUI. Compare basic things like getting on the Internet using Linux
rather than Windows, even with kppp it requires a lot more knowledge than
just downloading a setup app from the ISP that does it all for you. I have
seen a couple of Linux newbies give up at that stage when their ISP of
choice wouldn't help them to connect using Linux.
I find that most Windows users can get a system set up for word processing,
games and internet access without needing to know anything much about the
system. I find it hard to see how you can claim that the same is true for
Linux.
James
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 13:50:48 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 11 May 2001 21:38:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > > > > Maybe because I'm using the new telnet server that MS provided with
> > > > > their new OS. Or does it not understand window resizing either?
>
> > go ahead, amaze us with why you wanted to use a text interface?
>
> Having trouble with reading comprehension again Jan? You still haven't
> answered the question about window resizing either.
You know, I was using Solaris 2.7 and bash just yesterday and I resized the
window and nothing seemed to be affected. I was using vi and it didn't
detect the resize.
Perhaps some apps detect resizing, but most don't. Please remind me how
this is better than Windows again?
> I know that MS puts "features" into their products that do not actually
> work.
So must Sun then.
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
