Linux-Advocacy Digest #72, Volume #35 Sat, 9 Jun 01 08:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: So what software is the NYSE running ? ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Chris Hedley)
Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer ("Matthew
Gardiner")
Re: KDE and Gnome are totally 80s ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("You've got MALE..
sex organs!")
Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: UI Importance ("Stuart Fox")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Kenny Chaffin)
Re: Linux on Itanium (Kenny Chaffin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Why should an OS cost money? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: KDE and Gnome are totally 80s (mlw)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Terry Porter)
Desktop Linux (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: So what software is the NYSE running ?
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:00:44 +1200
I'm not too sure about the NYSE, but I think the NASDAQ, unfortunately, runs
on Windows.
Matthew Gardiner
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:84aU6.9834$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3%9U6.1335$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <3b212110$0$94312$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers
> says...
> > >
> > >
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED] dripot> wrote in message
> > >news:CP8U6.1221$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> What's the skinny ?
> > >
> > >What software are they running for what?
> > >
> >
> > Haven't heard about the fiasco today ?
> >
> > I'm talking about what they use for managing trades.
>
> Well, their web site runs under AIX, so one would assume that they're
> probably a big IBM shop, and are probably running trades under AIX and/or
> OS/390.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Hedley)
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:50:18 +0100
According to Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Do I expect Microsoft to behave any differently? Or any other company in
> their position? No. That doesn't change the fact that your analogy stinks
> on ice.
I disagree. If it was actually Microsoft building the computers, that
might be seen as reasonable (albeit not necessarily good customer
relations) but it's not; they're the supplier of just one part rather
than the manufacturer and, as such, shouldn't be in a position to
dictate how the end-product is packaged. After all, the PC manufacturers
are supposed to be providing a product that the customer wants, not
servicing Microsoft's whims; the customer doesn't necessarily *want*
Microsoft software installed, but seems resigned to the fallacy that
Microsoft is somehow synonymous with personal computing so that's what
they get, whether they like it or not.
Chris.
--
//USENET01 JOB (CBH,ISA),'TALKING BOLLOCKS',REGION=4000K,CLASS=F,
// MSGCLASS=A,PASSWORD=WIBBLE,USER=CBH,COND=(04,LT)
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:06:31 +1200
I am also surprised that they didn't include the number of people getting
physical with their computer because of Mr Clip'it, constantly jumping in
going, "ooo, looks like you writing a letter". I would hate to see the AI
version replying to a thesis, "well, I don't exactly agree with points a &
b" etc etc :)
Matthew Gardiner
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dave Martel wrote:
> >
> > Too funny to bury in the earlier subthread on user mistakes:
> >
> > <http://www.novatech.co.uk/NOVATECH/SurveyOutcome.html>
> >
> > "We were surprised by the number of people who confessed to physically
> > attacking their computers - 25 per cent. But looking at some of the
> > answers, it's clear that in many cases people were actually frustrated
> > at their own lack of know-how."
>
> It doesn't mention how many people were physically attacked by their
> computers.
>
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE and Gnome are totally 80s
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:08:21 +1200
Can you say, N-U-T-S-C-R-A-P-E-6, the whole interface in XML, and look where
that has ended up doing to the browser. 30Meg memory print for every window,
which peaks at around 60mb when using the mail program.
Matthew gardiner
"Corpus Callosum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <flame>
>
> Why are KDE and Gnome both attempting to replicate Microsoft Windows
> when technologies like XML and CORBA would make something so much
> more elegant possible?
>
> Why are they still coding user interfaces in C or C++ when XML would
> be so much better?
>
> Consider this: Imagine an XML markup language for defining user
> interfaces using GTK or QT. Tags might look something like this:
>
> <button name="cancel" inheritThemes="yes" text="Cancel"
> onClick="some::kind::of::object:address()"/>
>
> Then every user interface including the desktop could be declared
> in XML. Users could customize interfaces or write.. get this.. whole
> new ones that draw upon the functionality of multiple applications!
>
> Imagine being able to write your own XML interface definition to
> merge, say, a seperate mailreader and web browser together! Or a
> code editor and a debugger? Don't like how the menus work in
> your application? Open a text editor and change them!
>
> It would also be much easier and more flexible for app authors since
> they literally would not have to worry about the pains of X and GUI
> programming... they could just write their XML to call their event
> functions through an ORB of some kind. Applications could even
> be controlled over the network via CORBA or something similar.
>
> That would be like, totally 2001 man!
>
> But instead the KDE and Gnome teams are sitting there listening
> to Totally 80s trying to duplicate Windoze and coding UIs in
> C and C++ that look and feel like Windoze when even M$ is
> gradually moving towards something like I mentioned above.
>
> Taaaaake onnnnn meeee.... take on me.... taaaake meeeeee
> ooooon! ... I'lll beeee goooone...
>
> Love shack! Baby, Love shack!
>
> </flame>
>
------------------------------
From: "You've got MALE.. sex organs!" <[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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:46:02 -0600
Definitely - KEEP the sig. It reaffirms your fuckhead mentality.
Demonstrating what a fucking idiot you are, and the sort of
stupidity that YOU think is "neat"..
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Mafoo wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> >
> > [snip rest of sig]
> >
> > Yeah, that's all very well, but it is considered polite to have a
> > reasonably short sig, ie one which is not over a page long.
>
> Annoys the fuck out of you, doesn't it.
>
> >
> > Please shorten it, or the penguins will get you.
>
> Make me.
>
> >
> > --
> > Matthew Slowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
> > One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
> > In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 25% of computer users have physically attacked their computer
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:32:32 +0200
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Dave Martel wrote:
>
> > > > "We were surprised by the number of people who confessed to
physically
> > > > attacking their computers - 25 per cent.
>
> > > It doesn't mention how many people were physically attacked by their
> > > computers.
> >
> > Nor how many people has been psycologically attacked by their computers.
>
> Or, how about the number people who went berserk because a window
> popped up in their face while they were (intently) using another
> program? This happens a lot on Windows, although Window Maker has
> such a feature as well (that you can turn off). If it happens often
> enough, one can be pushed over the edge. 8-0
Get TweakUI, it lets you disable it.
I believe that Win2K has it disable by default.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:39:50 +0200
"Marada C. Shradrakaii" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Can you open any Windows logo compliant application and embed a
StarOffice
> >wordprocessing document in it?
> >
>
> Unless "windows logo compliant" applies to only a very narrow swath of
> software, that's a silly question at best. Why would one want to put a
> wordprocessing document in, for example, a web browser
So I can click on a .doc document and have the word proccesor open it for
me?
Word can do that.
Acrobat can do that with PDF as well.
>, or a mailer (assuming
> you're acting in good faith about email being for text),
No idea, but I'm sure that there are applications that can use it.
> or a diagnostic or
> data-gathering package?
So you can view the information?
> More importantly, what would you embed them INTO?
Into a web browser seems to be the most common occurance.
But embedding a data gathering package into a Power Point presentation is
just as useful.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 13:47:04 +0200
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fshcc$9ed$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > And here we get to the other wall.
> > Pointers. Just like some people can't get directories, some people just
> > *can't get pointers*.
> >
> >
> >
> It took me some time, yes. But I came from 6502 assembly programming when
> I first saw C on my brothers Amiga, and all of a sudden it clicked:
> pointers == indexed adressing. I had my share of headaches before I
> grokked that. Of course the next 10 years I wouldn't see a computer up
> close, so I'm having to learn all this all over again. Grrr.
>
Indexed adressing?
I think about RAM as one big array, with pointer as indexes for it.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:55:44 +1200
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fsitv$ap5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fsg1c$314d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>
> "To ensure that Visual Basic developers can use regular expressions, the
> VBScript regular expression engine has been implemented as a COM "
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/languages/clinic/scripting051099.asp
>
> I'm not sure if there was first the VBS RegExp, or the COM, but it seems
> that it's a COM object nonetheless.
Interesting. I read that as "We've exposed the VB Script Regexp method as a
COM object". Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Kenny Chaffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 05:00:32 -0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Ian Pulsford wrote:
.....
>
> When computers become a matured product, you can really buy one with OS
> and apps installed, turn it on, and give the service a maintainance
> login every year or so (during which the computer is perhaps rebooted
> *once*).
>
>
ROTFLMAO
KAC
--
Kenny A. Chaffin
KAC Website Design - http://www.kacweb.com
Custom/Contract Programming, Graphics, Design
Poetry Page: http://www.kacweb.com/poems/
------------------------------
From: Kenny Chaffin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Linux on Itanium
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 05:03:43 -0600
In article <9fshcd$9ed$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> "cjt & trefoil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > Microsoft Bob
>
> That is dead and buried, isn't it?
>
>
>
Yeah and the paperclip retired.
KAC
--
Kenny A. Chaffin
KAC Website Design - http://www.kacweb.com
Custom/Contract Programming, Graphics, Design
Poetry Page: http://www.kacweb.com/poems/
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:03:59 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Terry Porter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:33:10 +0200, Mart van de Wege
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> My shiny new 2nd hand laptop (an IBM Thinkpad 600x) immediately got
>> kernel 2.4.5 on it. Reboot and 'What's that kernel process doing,
>> eating up some 25% of cpu time?'
>> Turns out that the 2.4 series have something called "kapmidled" which
>> does nothing but IDLE calls to the CPU in the kernel's idle loop, in
>> order to save power.
>
> How can it 'save power'when its using 25% cpu ??
>
AFAICT,
The IDLE instruction in the x86 instruction set will put the processor in
a low-power mode. So calling IDLE in the kernel idle loop would cut power
consumption. It is a cycle used for nothing else nonetheless, so the
Gnome CPU/Mem usage applet registers it as CPU utilization. Funny innit?
BTW, if I do some task, no matter how insignifcant, the idle daemon stops
immediately. Running gtop for example, consumes about 2% CPU, but it
stops the idle thread dead in its tracks.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:06:59 +0200
In article <9fsuqh$n0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9fshcc$9ed$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> > And here we get to the other wall.
>> > Pointers. Just like some people can't get directories, some people
>> > just *can't get pointers*.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> It took me some time, yes. But I came from 6502 assembly programming
>> when I first saw C on my brothers Amiga, and all of a sudden it
>> clicked: pointers == indexed adressing. I had my share of headaches
>> before I grokked that. Of course the next 10 years I wouldn't see a
>> computer up close, so I'm having to learn all this all over again.
>> Grrr.
>>
>>
> Indexed adressing?
> I think about RAM as one big array, with pointer as indexes for it.
>
>
>
I should have said indirect indexed adressing, but that is what those
adressing modes do on the 6502, use 2 zero page adresses as a pointer to
a RAM adress and use either the X or the Y index register as an offset.
Basically the same as a C array.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001 23:20:53 +1200
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9fsgr9$31c3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> >> Selling support contracts, CDs, even just books, is more than
sufficient
> >> to make developing an OS cost-effective. Developing an OS only takes
> >> time the first time, and, no, it doesn't really take that much. Linux
> >> advocates did it as a hobby, for example.
> >
> >Given that situation then, why can't Redhat et al make money.
> >
>
> RedHat is making money and turning a profit.
>
> It's absolutely stupid to pretend their not.
That's interesting, especially given this information :
http://www.corporate-ir.net/media_files/nsd/rhat/reports/RHAT_010112.pdf
It shows a Net loss up until Nov 00, that's as far as the figures go. If I
read some of Redhats other information, it shows that they think they might
make a tiny profit next year.
Redhat is not making money and turning a profit. It's absolutely stupid to
pretend **they're** making a profit. (For your future reference - their
indicates possession, they're is short for they are).
>
>
> >
> >If company A is paying programmer A to develop their OS, they need to
have a
> >viable business model to recover the cost of programmer A. So far none
of
> >the linux companies have proved that their model is viable.
> >
>
> Then I guess this is why all of them are now out of business,
> as predicted by the absolute dick heads at Microsoft last year.
None of them have made any money yet, it's only a matter of time before they
go under. Until they come up with a viable business model, they will
continue to lose money. Selling support and media is *not* a viable model.
It's stupid to pretend otherwise.
>
> If you go to a COMP USA, you will see that Linux distros
> pretty well DOMINATE the OS isle.
Fortunately, I don't live in the USA. Over here, Linux distros are few and
far between.
>
> >
> >Microsoft make a profit regardless of whether their competitors have been
> >cleared out.
> >
> >
>
> It's also true MS is making a profit.
>
> But it's also true that MS dominated by the
> notion that closed source has a future.
>
Microsoft is still making money, open source companies are not. Microsoft
have deep pockets, open source companies do not.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE and Gnome are totally 80s
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 07:45:58 -0400
Corpus Callosum wrote:
>
> <flame>
>
> Why are KDE and Gnome both attempting to replicate Microsoft Windows
> when technologies like XML and CORBA would make something so much
> more elegant possible?
>
> Why are they still coding user interfaces in C or C++ when XML would
> be so much better?
Obviously you know nothing about how computers work. XML is a declarative
language. It is not a programming language.
C and C++ are the best way to go about doing such a development. The only thing
XML would be good for is defining the various settings, there still needs to
have actually software behind it.
>
> Consider this: Imagine an XML markup language for defining user
> interfaces using GTK or QT. Tags might look something like this:
>
> <button name="cancel" inheritThemes="yes" text="Cancel"
> onClick="some::kind::of::object:address()"/>
OK, you have declared an action, but you have not coded the actual brains
behind the user interface, only the highest level "if this happens do this."
Currently, while not XML, much of this is quite easy to configure. The vastness
that is both KDE and GNOME are the guts which make this happen.
[XML rant snipped]
XML is nothing more than an over glorified .ini file. Get over it. People who
rant and rave about XML as some sort of enabling technology are generally
clueless. It is not a programming language, it is not an object language, it is
a fairly flexible data transfer language, and nothing more.
> But instead the KDE and Gnome teams are sitting there listening
> to Totally 80s trying to duplicate Windoze and coding UIs in
> C and C++ that look and feel like Windoze when even M$ is
> gradually moving towards something like I mentioned above.
They are coding the lower level functions and core code required to enable a
desktop to be defined by a declarative language.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 09 Jun 2001 11:54:44 GMT
On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:03:59 +0200, Mart van de Wege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Terry Porter"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 11:33:10 +0200, Mart van de Wege
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> My shiny new 2nd hand laptop (an IBM Thinkpad 600x) immediately got
>>> kernel 2.4.5 on it. Reboot and 'What's that kernel process doing,
>>> eating up some 25% of cpu time?'
>>> Turns out that the 2.4 series have something called "kapmidled" which
>>> does nothing but IDLE calls to the CPU in the kernel's idle loop, in
>>> order to save power.
>>
>> How can it 'save power'when its using 25% cpu ??
>>
> AFAICT,
>
> The IDLE instruction in the x86 instruction set will put the processor in
> a low-power mode. So calling IDLE in the kernel idle loop would cut power
> consumption. It is a cycle used for nothing else nonetheless, so the
> Gnome CPU/Mem usage applet registers it as CPU utilization. Funny innit?
> BTW, if I do some task, no matter how insignifcant, the idle daemon stops
> immediately. Running gtop for example, consumes about 2% CPU, but it
> stops the idle thread dead in its tracks.
>
> Mart
How interesting,I suppose thsy should exclude the idle instruction
from the overall CPU utiliZation calculations ?
I did my Win95/Linux CPU utilization comparo by removing the heatsink
and timing how long it was till my finger started smoking while touching
the CPU.
Linux doing nothing : never
Win95 doing nothing : 1 second !
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Desktop Linux
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 08:13:04 -0400
There is a lot of crap being said about Linux being "ready" for the desktop.
This is interesting because everyone assumes everything is necessary for the
desktop. Everything from video capture, multistream video editing, multisource
sound editing, 3d realistic gaming, and on and on.
The reality is somewhat different. Yes, these are nice features and Linux can
do many of them, but admittedly, the applications may lag a bit.
The average joe sixpack user does not, will not, at this point in time, know
what most of that is.
Except for the gamers, and I am not sure what percentage of the end users that
covers, Linux is almost the perfect desktop. Were one to purchase a computer,
fully configured with all the software installed and working, as they would
with a Windows box, they would probably be very happy.
At work, most of the people have Windows, and every last one of them has had to
have Windows reinstalled at least once, even the developers. What's even sadder
is that the Windows users are not using anything that requires "Windows."
Simple email, word processing, light diagramming, spreadsheet, a presentation,
a little HTML editing, web browsing, etc.
They get office viruses from people in other companies, they send office
viruses along before they know what's happening. They lose work when the soap
bubble that is Windows pops and they must reboot. It is damn pathetic.
The issue isn't "IF" the Linux is ready for the desktop, it is "When" will
companies recognize the amount of lost work and expense of this complete sham
of a product named Windows.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
