Linux-Advocacy Digest #547, Volume #34 Wed, 16 May 01 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Stephen Cornell)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st ("Todd")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing? ("Todd")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better) (Chris Ahlstrom)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 16 May 2001 12:13:59 +0100
> > > Edward Rosten wrote:
> > >> If you have really firm evidence that homosexualtiy is genetic, I
> > >> suggest you publish.
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > Then you admit that it's a choice.
> Edward Rosten wrote:
> > Do you think ceberal paulsy a choice? Hint: it isn't genetic.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So, you admit that it's a result of a defect of some sort.
For some animals, sex is determined environmentally. If you are a
crocodile, being male is neither genetic nor a choice - do you
therefore believe that it is a defect?
--
Stephen Cornell [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:17:59 +0100
> Why does this have be done the hard way on Windows? why not just go,
> file, save, pdf (for file format), then click "save", thats how I do it
> on Wordperfect for Linux.Word really does need to catch up.
Cos word is a load of rubbish?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:19:35 +0100
>> Now I've got virtual screens, it's another thing I find I have no need
>> for, since I can edit in another virtual screen. All the fancy OLE
>> stuff and edit in place and all that seemes to be necessary under
>> Windows since it doesn't have a widely supported device independent
>> display format. Under UNIX, just export as a postscript file and
>> include that, and it works fine.
>
> How else would you edit an embedded document that you already have open?
Er...? If the embedded document is open, then you are editing it. I dont
think you meant that, so could you rephrase the question?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:22:26 +0100
> <> Then you admit that it's a choice.
> <>
> <>Do you think ceberal paulsy a choice? Hint: it isn't genetic.
>
> HMMM??? Are you claiming then that homosexual behavior is a
> disease????????
NO I'M BLOODY NOT!!!!!!!
I'm simply illustrating a non genetic thing that people have no choice
over. I cn't think of any others to hand since I'm not an expert on
medical matters. This is simply one I know about.
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:27:17 +0100
>> Easy: they don't choose. Go in to your local PC World to buy a prefab
>> computer. Do you have a chice in OS?
> What's PC World have to do with it? Are they the sole supplier of
> computers?
s/PC World/Time/
s/Time/Tiny/
s/Tiny/Gateway/
The majority of suppliers only supply with windows on. I have one
question for you: are you trying to be stupid or does it come naturally?
-Ed
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 13:27:45 +0100
> I prefer using Wordperfect. The Linux version I have been using for 3
> days is extremely stable and responsive. Maybe if businesses weren't so
> Corel-o-phobic, then Linux would actually make inroads onto the corp
> desktop market.
The best wordprocessor I used was WP for Win311 a long time ago. I
haven't used WP since, but even not, that old version kicks winword
around. Now I use TeX/LaTeX.
> btw. I can't stand WinWord either, that makes three of us :)
>
> Matthew Gardiner
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:29:31 GMT
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> All admin can be done through a browser, or if you are using Solaris on the
> client, use the special Java based admin program. Whats so hard about that?
> nothing. Aaron, also consider that Jan is a mear office clerk who uses Word and
> Windows, and because she can install Windows from scratch that somehow makes her
> an admin.
I thought Jan Johanson was a man <grin>:
http://www.kretsloop.se/ftg/ecomitech/janj-e.html
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Campaign: Microsoft Free by October 1st
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:41:03 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I basically agree with you.
I love W2k and I don't care much for Linux ( I don't think it begins to
compare ) ...
BUT
I really do resent MS for this product activation thing with XP. It is a
pain in the ass and why can't I put windows on two machines that only I use
at home ??
This is bullshit on MS' part and they are going to alienate their most
ardent supporters.
Hmmmm... maybe I will start to use Linux someday after...
-Todd
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You know, I've been a Windows user since 95 first came out. But more
> and more, the product, and the actions of Microsoft (MS) anger me more
> and more.
>
> Now with all I'm reading about XP, I've had enough and I'm checking
> out all my hardware and I'm putting linux on my machine. The more I
> learn about linux, the more I'm impressed.
>
> I feel though we should all encourage others to do the same. It would
> be negligence on our part to let MS's treatment of consumers to go
> unchallenged. To remain silent and not take action would be an
> endorsement of MS's actions.
>
> I think we should begin a simple campaign, encouraging people to be
> "Microsoft Free by October 1st" (the release date of WinXP).
>
> With this, people knowledgable in Linux should simply keep making
> themselves available to newbies like myself (everyone in the
> newsgroups, and in other user groups have been very helpful to me,
> thank you guys) who might have questions and need help along the way.
>
> Take action against monopolies and unfair treatment of consumers.
>
> (I know I sound silly, but I've just been pissed off at the latest
> articles I've been reading out MS and XP.)
>
>
> Comments? Flames? Hurrahs?
>
> ________________________________________________________
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.geocities.com/sugapablo
> (To email me, remove "Sugapablo-" from my email address)
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 11:42:14 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
> 5 9s is conservative?
>
> Show me any proof of such a rediculous claim. Show me ANY unix vendor
> promising 6 9s of uptime. ANY OS/ANY hardware. Show me.
Here's a little one from Novell:
http://www.techshows.com/Calgary/novell_technologies_seminar.htm
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Erik: What is Wordperfect missing?
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 19:45:29 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > > Under Linux? Lots. Embed a spereadsheet document into a
word
> > > > > > processing
> > > > > > > > document, for instance.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just did it then. Give me another challenge.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Really? You can in-place edit the spreadsheet from within the
word
> > > > > > processing document? I'd be quite surprised to see that on
Linux.
> > > > >
> > > > > Just imported a Access table into Paradox without any problems.
> > Quattro
> > > > > Pro is handling MS Excel with any formatting issues, and
Wordperfect
> > is
> > > > > as stable as the pope. Please, yet again I stress, where are the
> > > > > so-called features that MS Office has that Wordperfect hasn't.
> > > >
> > > > That's not what I said. I said, In-place edit an embedded
spreadsheet
> > > > within the word processing document. What you are doing is
converting
> > the
> > > > excel spreadsheet into a database format, which is something totally
> > > > different.
> > >
> > > what part of "Just imported a Access table into Paradox" don't you
> > > understand?
> >
> > What part of "Importing is not Embedding" don't you undersrtand?
Embedding
> > is Embedding the entire original document *IN IT'S ORIGINAL FORM* within
> > another document, then maintaining that that embedded document *WITH
IT'S
> > ORIGINAL PROGRAM* without exporting it first.
>
> Commonly called, "insert"
Your just pretending not to understand. If you really don't understand the
power of COM, please get a clue.
Linux *CAN NOT* "embed" documents... this is TOTALLY different than
importing data or whatever you call it.
You look silly trying to imply Linux can do this when it can NOT and Windows
CAN. Now what part of this don't you understand ?
-Todd
> Matthew Gardiner
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:04:10 GMT
On 16 May 2001 04:16:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 22:19:56 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> And BTW 20 years UNIX experience has nothing to do with Linux.
>
>Of all the tripe that I've heard,
>
>"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>
>utter over the years, that one is by far the most rediculous.
>From a users perspective, which is what the discussion is about
(ie:why T-Bone isn't using his Linux box) twenty years of *nix will
give him cli skills and an understanding of the principles of how and
why Linux is set up the way it is (filesystem etc).
If he is a programmer and using both systems like that I concede
things like Emacs, vi, Yacc, Bison etc will seem the same.
It won't help him at all when trying to use kde or gnome or any of the
other WM's excepting for maybe CDE.
Linux is NOT Unix.
>Its Windows that has NOTHING to do with UNIX. Linux
>is a UNIX ****clone*****.
He made statements about Linux's superiority and then throws 20 years
of Unix experience into the mix to justify it and the 2 have nothing
to do with each other.
That is my point.
flatfish
>
>
>>
>> flatfish
>
>
>--
>Kind Regards
>Terry
------------------------------
From: "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:06:03 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > But the most common vector is not vaginal sex but anal sex, when it
comes to
> > sex.
> >
> > Rich Soyack
>
> Aids is spreading like wild fire in India. Truckers go from village to
> village, fucking people as they go, unknowingly spreading aids. That is a
> fact. That is also the same case as what is happening in Africa.
I don't know about India, but in Africa heterosexual anal sex is more widely
practiced than in the United States.
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux posts #1 TPC-H result (W2K still better)
Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 12:07:45 GMT
Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >
> > Score one for Win 2K on the Unisys machine.
>
> <bowing>
ARE YOU REALLY TAKING CREDIT FOR THAT RESULT!?
> But it isn't and this has nothing to do with XP. The linux solution isn't
> available yet. The Windows 2000 solutions uses pre-SP1 (i.e., virgin release
> code) Advance Server, not even the latest code.
So what?
> > A non-point.
>
> I wonder what you'd say if the tables were turned... nevermind, I already
> know.
Then I'll not bother with you anymore, Mr. Know-It-All.
> > > And, what's this? The linux solution uses 16x700 Mhz PIIIs and the W2K
> > > result uses 8x700 Mhz PIIIs.
> >
> > Nice to see Linux scaling so nicely!
>
> Now THAT was funny! And, in fact, it's not scaling well, it didn't double
> the performance with twice the processors like W2K has done.
In general, scalability is not linear.
> > "Plain jane" scsi? Where'd you come up with that one?
>
> US slang - figure it out.
I'm glad to hear that SCSI is plain jane -- might as well just
buy an IDE drive.
> > It would have been nice to see the slower adapter on the linux box,
> > and to have a better breakdown of the bottlenecks on both systems.
>
> why - to lower the results on the linux box? weird...
You are really a dense person.
> > As happened here... $317 for Linux (why did they cost it as four copies?)
> > versus $2400 for Win 2000 Advanced Server.
>
> because there were four machines in the cluster. redhat requires one
> licensed copy per server.
Bullshit. Show me where the $79 version of RedHat requires a license.
> yes, that is true. Unix servers cost more than wintel servers, we already
> knew this.
And, of course, you tried to hide the fact in your gallimaufric
rhodomontade.
> > The total cost of software in the SGI system is essentially due to the
> > cost of IBM's DB2 software. That's about $316000 plus $50000 versus
> > $16,000 plus $10000 for the Unisys solution.
>
> but that's what they ran... and that's what it cost. If they had a cheaper
> solution, why didn't they use it?
Don't ask me! I assume they are more concerned with performance
or with vendor relationships than with cost.
> I'm not, necessarily, but finally it's dawning that the cost of the OS is
> insignificant. A "free" OS means squat when the hardware and other software
> makes up the lion share of the price.
We already knew this.
> Are you starting to see why I
> mentioned this? Linux being "free" means nothing. Zippo.
Bull shit. For example, a PostgreSQL solution on Linux might
be completely adequate for one's needs. Then the cost of
the OS means something.
>
> >
> > > So lets see, the 10/31/01 clustered result is going head to head against
> > > last years result using advanced server without clustering. Anyone wanna
> > > take bets on what a Datacenter driven, clustered W2K/SQL2K result using
> the
> > > same number of processors is going to do to that score?? I will...
> (hint:
> > > check out the TPC-C results for BOTH raw performance and
> price/performance).
> >
> > I sure would check them out, if I could find the comparable setup. Can
> > you provide the link so we know we're looking at the same data? Thanks.
> > I'd rather look at the specs myself than have to filter out your
> > ejaculatory verbiage.
>
> I posted the link to the TPC-H. You can easily navigate to the TPC-C results
> from there too. Just start at www.tpc.org and have fun. it's not my job to
> help you perform some basic clicks (but, what the heck, here you go: TPC-C
> by performance: http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_perf_results.asp and
> TPC-C by price/performance:
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_price_perf_results.asp)
I found those links, dude. But they don't show comparable measurements.
The units are different, and there's no comparison between the SGI solution
and W2K in units of tpmC. So you're blowing smoke as far as I can tell.
> I totally and completely agree with you 100% The cost of the OS is trivial.
> I will remind you that we agree on this every time someone says "but linux
> is free!"
Linux is free. DB2 and SQL Server are not. SQL Server may be a lot
cheaper. However, then I'm tempted to throw back the same phrase that
gets thrown out when talking about free software: You get what you
pay for. If that logic holds, then DB2 is the preferred solution.
But who says logic holds?
If SQL Server is really as good as DB2, then Microsoft is either giving
a hell of a deal, or dumping the software to penetrate the server
market.
> > Can't see how this is a comparison of two operating systems, but I do
> > agree that it puts SGI and IBM in a somewhat bad light.
>
> Again I agree but I'm posting something being reported on every pro-Linux
> news site and even ZDNet now. The very first appearence of a system running
> linux in a major official independent benchmark. And it didn't do too well
> (when comparing apples to apples that is).
Actually, we don't know, because there is no valid way to transform
the SGI results to results on the UNISYS hardware, and vice versa.
Personally, I'd be curious to see a purely free database system benchmarked.
But I doubt there are many takers in free software willing to pay
the $1500 per annum fee for associate membership, let alone the $9500
for full voting membership. In any case, associate membership is restricted:
Associate Membership costs $1500 per calendar
year and is only available to the following
types of organizations: non-profit, educational
institutions, market researchers,
publishers, consultants, governments, businesses
who do not create, market or sell computer
products or services
Chris
--
Free the Software!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
