Linux-Advocacy Digest #466, Volume #25 Thu, 2 Mar 00 02:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Craig Kelley)
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Craig Kelley)
www: nodevice.com (Janet Rokosz)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Damien)
Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking? (Mario Klebsch)
Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Dell picks Linux over Windows 2000 for dellhost.com ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("Drestin Black")
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales ("Drestin Black")
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Peter Seebach)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (nldgr)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01 Mar 2000 21:28:30 -0700
"John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>> Personally, and not being sarcastic, if I could find one reason to
>> run Linux I would run it again - but I sat down one day and tried
>> to find one single thing I needed linux for. One thing that linux
>> did that W2K could not... When that failed I started to think of
>> anything that linux did easier? (that took less time) Finally I
>> deleted the partion, expanded my W2K into it and kept going
>> (without rebooting of course)
>
> Do you expect anybody to beleive this crap ?
Why not?
Linux isn't for everybody -- espcially Drestin.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 01 Mar 2000 21:33:00 -0700
Ron House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If Linux has an Achilles heel, it has now becomne clear what it is:
> binary incompatibilities.
>
> Can anyone explain what was so very important about glibc that
> required incompatibility with the previous calling convention? Or
> why, just a few months later, another incompatible change was made?
> Perhaps there is a very good reason, or perhaps it is a misguided
> quest for efficiency, but either way there are thousands of Linux
> systems out there failing to run Linux programs. Add to that the
> efforts of RedHat, who bung the latest stuff in their distributions
> before it has been tested adequately, and we have a recipe for
> snatching failure from the jaws of victory.
Read up on dependency checking in your favorite package manager.
Some "Achilles heel"...
> Work, serious work, is needed on overcoming the problems caused by
> these sorts of changes, or the potential user base will go
> elsewhere.
Who cares?
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Janet Rokosz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: www: nodevice.com
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 04:37:43 GMT
http://nodevice.com - Linux website for programmers.
Tutorials, documentation, access to the newsgroups, howtos,
faqs and similiar crap :)
Covers C/C++, Perl, Linux, shells, databases.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 14:47:14 +1000
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 06:18:42 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
> >> >> seen this happen.
> >> >
> >> >Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like
> >squake.
> >> >Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
> >>
> >> This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
> >> trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
> >> apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
> >
> >The issue being whether or not X could crash the system IIRC. It can.
>
> Except it's not X that is crashing the system.
>
> What's crashing the system is 'two X's' trying to bit bang the
> same hardware at once. That's a considerable difference.
So Linux can't handle switching between video modes very well ?
> >Despite your accusation of "contrived", it was something I stumbled upon
> >quite innocently switching between squake and X.
>
> The current version of quake is both fully supported and runs
> under X. Your example is still artificial and contrived.
Which would be relevant if I considered the current version of quake to be
as good as squake/quakeworld, but I don't.
> Mebbe if CivCTP or Heroes of Might and Magic used svgalib you
> might have a point.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 05:25:24 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Ron House would say:
>If Linux has an Achilles heel, it has now becomne clear what it is:
>binary incompatibilities.
>
>Can anyone explain what was so very important about glibc that required
>incompatibility with the previous calling convention? Or why, just a few
>months later, another incompatible change was made? Perhaps there is a
>very good reason, or perhaps it is a misguided quest for efficiency, but
>either way there are thousands of Linux systems out there failing to run
>Linux programs. Add to that the efforts of RedHat, who bung the latest
>stuff in their distributions before it has been tested adequately, and
>we have a recipe for snatching failure from the jaws of victory.
Wait, wait! There are other scary items forthcoming:
a) Resolution of the 2038 problem. 2^31-1 seconds from Jan 1, 1970
happens to be in 2038. Stuff Will Break Then.
This is the end-of-epoch that is the UNIX equivalent to the "Year 2000
cliff" that everyone worried last year about.
b) Resolution of the 2GB file problem on 32 bit architectures. This
is, again, a 32-bit-ism that is starting to bite people working with
today's Very Large Disk Drives. The comprehensive fix to this will
likely be synchronized with the 2038 problem, as resolutions for both
likely involve moving from 32 bit values to 64 bit values.
There will be some period of "inconvenience" at whatever point libraries,
filesystems, and kernels have to be synchronized together to fix this.
c) One of these days, someone may actually come up with a C++ ABI that
would be expected to interoperate widely. No approach for this is yet
available.
d) Many of the problems go away when you've got tools that automatically
recompile software using local tools thus maximizing compatibility, and
possibly even performance. The BSD Ports system provides this, and
Debian looks to be looking towards this. (Which has the further merit
of diminishing C++ ABI worries...)
>Work, serious work, is needed on overcoming the problems caused by these
>sorts of changes, or the potential user base will go elsewhere.
Have you written any test tools today?
(I only wrote a few lines worth, personally, but that's just me...)
Part of the problem Red Hat has had is that they didn't have anyone
truly responsible for system testing. Testing was generally "supposed
to be done," but without any pointed responsibility, this doesn't
necessarily happen. About six months ago, I'm told they hired
someone to be responsible for testing, which should lead to there
being some automated tests that should be helpful. The acquisition
of Cygnus is pretty interesting in that Cygnus has been collecting
test suites for compilers for rather a while now, hopefully providing
them with some expertise that might rub off.
--
There's no such thing as nonexistence.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 02 Mar 2000 05:28:19 GMT
On 2 Mar 2000 02:10:26 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >True. I here by propose we all switch to exclusivly Tex, ASCII, and
| >SGML file formats. All in favor, say aye.
|
| I agree with you modulo two provisos:
|
| (1) XML is also considered acceptable
XML is a subset of SGML (isn't it?)
| (2) SGML is not reall a "file format", it is a standard for designing formats
| which basically says that you use <tag> </tag> like you do in html.
| This means that SGML does not instantaneously solve all compatibility
| problems. I have already given an example here:
| <nasty-visual-basic-code>blah blah blah</>
| As you can see, this would still cause some problems.
I see, SGML can introduce incompatabilities. So maybe we should limit
ourselves to XML.
| However, at least the format will be parseable if its sgml or
| xml based.
--Damien "who believes data should be platform independent"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mario Klebsch)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Binary compatibility: what kind of crack are they smoking?
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 22:17:31 +0100
Gregory Neil Bastow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Just make sure you say GNU/Linux when you mean more than the kernel, boys
>and girls.
What the hell is GNU/Linux? YALD (Yet Another Linux Distribution)?
73, Mario
--
Mario Klebsch [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Linux Gets Worldwide Recognition
Date: 2 Mar 2000 05:50:56 GMT
On 02 Mar 2000 05:28:19 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On 2 Mar 2000 02:10:26 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| >True. I here by propose we all switch to exclusivly Tex, ASCII, and
>| >SGML file formats. All in favor, say aye.
>|
>| I agree with you modulo two provisos:
>|
>| (1) XML is also considered acceptable
>
>XML is a subset of SGML (isn't it?)
Yeah, I thinks so. XML is actually more parseable (I think) because it is
somewhat stricter. ( That would make it harder to write by hand but
easier to parse with a program )
>| <nasty-visual-basic-code>blah blah blah</>
>| As you can see, this would still cause some problems.
>
>I see, SGML can introduce incompatabilities. So maybe we should limit
>ourselves to XML.
Nope, you have exactly the same problem with XML. The problem is that if
the vendor uses nonstandard technology ( like visual basic ), it can only
help so much that they use xml for the actual format. In this case,
the format is standard enough but the rendering engine is tied to proprietary
stuff.
Having said all that, using XML or SGML is certainly a step in the right
direction. BTW, Koffice seems to be doing this -- a koffice document is
a tarball with xml files and supporting files ( like images and things )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 05:53:56 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:27:30 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Hmm. I don't really use WordPad either, but as I recall, it's pretty
>comparable to Ted. Maybe a bit more advanced in some way, but I never
>really noticed the difference.
The big problem with Linux wordprocessors comes when you try to do WYSIWYG
printing. This in general does not work reliably. This comes from very
deeply seated problems in the way UNIX handles fonts ( namely, it is not
that easy to write code that can reliably display a font and print the
same font. This is the kind of thing that should be trivial but UNIX makes
this quite hard because the designers of X weren't thinking about WYSIWYG. )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 06:03:29 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:21:07 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>* WYSIWYG printing.
>
>I have yet to see this on any platform, unless you allow for pretty good
>approximations,
Windows does this quite well, Mac does it better. You can at least print
and display the same fonts.
> in which case, I'm willing to give Lyx credit for matching
>my expectations.
Lyx is not "WYSIWYG". Not even close. For example, the fonts don't match up.
The line lengths probably don't match up. The reason is that you're using
TeX as the typesetting engine but not as the display/layout engine.
You are deliberately trying to distort things by trying to push the (bogus)
claim that other platforms don't do WYSIWYG, then holding up something that
is not even close as an equal on the grounds that they are "all approximate".
I put it to you that Lyx is much more "approximate" than other WYSIWYG
applications.
>>* Any word processor
>
>Lyx?
No. Lyx is a front end to a professional typesetting/publishing application.
>>* A decent web browser ( Mozilla doesn't count until it's out of alpha )
>
>Lynx.
Sure, it's decent, but you're going to have a really hard time selling it
to the average user.
My point still stands -- it's no replacement for the GUI browsers such as NS
and MSIE.
>>* A decent 3D game. Just one.
>
>Quake is now available in source, no?
Quake was developed as a proprietary application, and Id made most of their
money through licensing the engine. Quake is *not* an example of an OpenSource
success story.
>I think you've missed a key point: If there were no copyright law, that
>doesn't mean all software not currently opensource would never have been
>written, it means everything would have happened at different times in
>different ways. We might well have, say, professional quality music
>applications. They'd have been organized and funded differently, but we
>might have them.
Maybe, maybe not. Of course, if we allow both models to coexist, it doesn't
matter, because this way, software developers and consumers can get things
done by whatever means the market and the developers prefer.
IMO, we ultimately get the best of both worlds by allowing different
software models to coexist and compete.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Dell picks Linux over Windows 2000 for dellhost.com
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:04:01 GMT
In a stunning blow to Microsoft, Dell has picked Linux over
Windows 2000 for dellhost.com
Windows advocates like to point to Dell as an example of a successful
e-business running on Windows 2000. (What these Winvocates don't tell
you is that Microsoft paid Dell to get them to switch from Apple's
WebObjects to Microsoft technology.)
What does Dell really thing of Windows 2000? Dell's choice of Linux
for dellhost.com is very telling.
Source: Dell advertisement in major newspapers, March 1, 2000
Dell has four web hosting solutions:
1. Basic web hosting solution ($17.95/mo) Oper. System: undisclosed
2. E-Commerce solution ($99.95/mo) Operating System: undisclosed
3. Dedicated server D3100 ($299/mo) Operating System: RED HAT LINUX
4. Dedicated server D3300 ($575/mo) Operating System: RED HAT LINUX
What does this say about Dell's confidence in Windows 2000?
On the low end systems Dell may be using Windows, but Dell apparently
doesn't think they should advertise that fact!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 06:13:57 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:24:51 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>If the people who make the sequencer I use for MIDI stuff were unable to use
>copyright to protect their work, there are a few possibilities:
>
>1. They would never release anything but binaries, and they would make a
>living selling hardware keys for specific versions of their software for
>specific platforms. This is very close to their business model right now.
I've already raised objections to this scheme. The main one is that it
creates a rat race between crackers and those designing security schemes.
It also causes a headache for users ( have you used mathematica before ? )
>2. They would try to find some alternative funding scheme. If they were
>successful, they might, for instance, get into the business of selling support
>contracts
The problem is that anyone can compete on a more or less
level playing field. For this kind of model to work, the support money
has to substantially exceed the development costs. Not the case with end
user applications, but it could ( indeed does ) work well for custom
applications or complex business applications.
What I'd be interested in hearing about is this -- has anyone set up some
kind of succesful business using such an "alternative funding scheme" ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:16:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The big problem with Linux wordprocessors comes when you try to do WYSIWYG
>printing. This in general does not work reliably. This comes from very
>deeply seated problems in the way UNIX handles fonts ( namely, it is not
>that easy to write code that can reliably display a font and print the
>same font. This is the kind of thing that should be trivial but UNIX makes
>this quite hard because the designers of X weren't thinking about WYSIWYG. )
There's a couple layers of disconnect here; in particular, X has some of the
underlying features you need (awareness of DPI, for instance) fairly well
down, but, unfortunately, the default fonts may not be the same.
That said, I get just as good results with StarOffice or WordPerfect on my
NetBSD laptop as I have with word processors on my Mac. Now, those aren't
open source, but they are running on Unix, so it can't be impossible...
Really, though, Unix doesn't handle fonts; X does, but X is an add-on; another
way to describe the problem is that Unix really needs a good GUI layer some
day. True enough, but I can wait a while for it. In the mean time, I haven't
had any trouble at all with WYSIWYG printing from Unix, but I admit I'm hardly
a "power user".
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:10:04 -0500
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 15:55:24 -0500, Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 2 Mar 2000 04:10:11 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:89ic0f$1dn1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > "5X3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> But the bug is also in Windows 2000 because it allowed a
> >> >> >> >> buggy application to crash the OS. If pcAnywhere modifies
> >> >> >> >> system files, installs device drivers etc then Windows 2000
> >> >> >> >> should not even have allowed pcAnywhere to install. At least
> >> >> >> >> that's what Microsoft lead me to believe "System File
> >> >> >> >> Protection" does for me.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Hey, moron, it doesn't modify system files. It installs itself
> >> >> >> > as a driver. It's not modifying system files, and therefore
> >> >> >> > there's no system files to protect.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Then how in the world does it crash such an advanced operating
> >> >> >> system?
> >> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > Similar to how X can hang Linux requiring a hard reboot?
> >> >>
> >> >> See, everyone keeps saying this and I actually have never once
> >> >> seen this happen.
> >> >
> >> >Fire up X with a reasonably complex WM and some svgalib program like
> >squake.
> >> >Flick between the X and squake VTs until the machine locks.
> >>
> >> This is a contrived example that merely demonstrates that
> >> trying to bit bang the same hardware with two root mode
> >> apps concurrently is a stupid idea.
> >
> >it may be contrived but it does demonstrate linux hanging - just a quicky
> >way to demonstrate that this is in fact possible. There are others...
>
> Demonstrate on.
>
> Hopefully they will not be an example of two applications
> trying to do low level manipluation on the same hardware
> at the same time.
But why is it that suddenly linux is afforded the luxory of saying: "oh, it
never crashes and you can't include instances of this or that" or "that type
of crash doesn't count." When we explain that pcA v8 crashing is not a
Windows "bug" it's poo-pooed - but, an example is given where linux hangs
solid and suddenly: that doesn't count.
I will not play within double standards.
>
> Ever get 2 DirectX games running on NT at once?
sure, what's the big deal? UT and TA - one minimized while the other is
running... yawn...
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:06:07 -0500
"John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89kktf$bgo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> >Personally, and not being sarcastic, if I could find one reason to run
> Linux
> >I would run it again - but I sat down one day and tried to find one
single
> >thing I needed linux for. One thing that linux did that W2K could not...
> >When that failed I started to think of anything that linux did easier?
> (that
> >took less time) Finally I deleted the partion, expanded my W2K into it
and
> >kept going (without rebooting of course)
>
> Do you expect anybody to beleive this crap ?
Absolutely. And why not? What is unbelivable?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Absolute failure of Linux dead ahead?
Date: 2 Mar 2000 06:19:38 GMT
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:57:35 +0000, Ron House wrote:
>Work, serious work, is needed on overcoming the problems caused by these
>sorts of changes, or the potential user base will go elsewhere.
Make all the threats you like on behalf of the "potential user base". But
the existing trends seem to go against what you're saying.
By the way, what do you mean, "the potential user base will go elsewhere" ?
You make it sound like they will be migrating, neglecting the fact that any
migrating they do will be most likely *towards* linux.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2000 01:07:30 -0500
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Drestin Black wrote in message ...
>
> >> Personally, and not being sarcastic, if I could find one reason to
> >> run Linux I would run it again - but I sat down one day and tried
> >> to find one single thing I needed linux for. One thing that linux
> >> did that W2K could not... When that failed I started to think of
> >> anything that linux did easier? (that took less time) Finally I
> >> deleted the partion, expanded my W2K into it and kept going
> >> (without rebooting of course)
> >
> > Do you expect anybody to beleive this crap ?
>
> Why not?
>
> Linux isn't for everybody -- espcially Drestin.
I tried it - it did nothing for me. Nothing I didn't already have, easier,
faster and better supported with more apps.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Seebach)
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:23:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 03:21:07 GMT, Peter Seebach wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>* WYSIWYG printing.
>>I have yet to see this on any platform, unless you allow for pretty good
>>approximations,
>Windows does this quite well, Mac does it better. You can at least print
>and display the same fonts.
They're good approximations, certainly. I've had some fairly impressive
disconnects occasionally.
Still, I'm not sure how much worse Ted is than anything else. I just took a
sample RTF file (not created in Ted, mind you), and asked Ted to print it.
The output looks fine to me. Is it WYSIWYG? Not if you expect the on-screen
"jaggies" to be reproduced to scale on a laser printer. :)
>You are deliberately trying to distort things by trying to push the (bogus)
>claim that other platforms don't do WYSIWYG, then holding up something that
>is not even close as an equal on the grounds that they are "all approximate".
No, I'm just pointing out that WYSIWYG is a pretty ill-defined term at the
best of times, and it's hard to tell what exactly your expectations are that
aren't being met.
>>>* Any word processor
>>
>>Lyx?
>No. Lyx is a front end to a professional typesetting/publishing application.
I don't care what you call it, it has the attributes I associate with a word
processor. You enter text in paragraphs, and the program does the formatting;
that's about what I expect of a word processor.
>>>* A decent web browser ( Mozilla doesn't count until it's out of alpha )
>>Lynx.
>Sure, it's decent, but you're going to have a really hard time selling it
>to the average user.
>My point still stands -- it's no replacement for the GUI browsers such as NS
>and MSIE.
But your claim was that no "decent" browser *existed*, as I understood it.
>Quake was developed as a proprietary application, and Id made most of their
>money through licensing the engine. Quake is *not* an example of an OpenSource
>success story.
So?
>IMO, we ultimately get the best of both worlds by allowing different
>software models to coexist and compete.
I agree.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
------------------------------
From: nldgr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000 06:23:15 GMT
mlw wrote:
>
> As for the people looking at you funny? I would not bet that it is
> because you said Linux.
At times, after mentioning Linux to some people, first they tell me I
pronounce it wrong, they don't use it of course; while at about the same
time they start to quiver or shake and their faces turn a palish color.
Knowledge is power, and some people are afraid of it.
I've also heard people's voices crack like they were going to cry on the
telephone after I mentioned the 'L' word.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
