Linux-Advocacy Digest #494, Volume #25 Fri, 3 Mar 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: My Windows 2000 experience ("John Hill")
Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux? (Jon Claerbout)
Re: Giving up on NT (George Marengo)
Re: Giving up on NT (Mike Timbol)
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bill Gates just cant win ("Robert Moir")
Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy. (Mig Mig)
Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers ("Francis Van Aeken")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: My Windows 2000 experience
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:15:48 -0000
Darwin Ou-Yang wrote in message <89nt8v$4ph$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In article <89hk8p$8su$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 5X3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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?
>
>Because it installs drivers, security DLLs, and all sorts of other
>sensitive stuff in order to be able to do things like mirror the display,
>circumvent Ctrl-Alt-Del and all sorts of other evil stuff.
>
>In some respects, PC Anywhere is no different from BackOrfice. :-)
>
>Windows 2000 System File Protection will protect you from an application
>overwriting or replacing system files
WOW - is it that advanced ? I've never sen a version of UNIX that didn't...
> , but SFP can do nothing if the
>application legitimately installs a driver, or registers a security
>extension DLL, or a GINA authentication interface -- all of which require
>administrator rights, and none of which involves overwriting a system
>file.
>
>Darwin Ouyang
------------------------------
From: Jon Claerbout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: prepare Income Tax under Linux?
Date: 3 Mar 2000 22:07:55 GMT
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Jon Claerbout wrote:
:> I tried Intuit,
:> but they tell me to make pdf work as as a Netscape plug-in.
:> I did not succeed with that.
: If all you need to do is view a pdf after clicking the link, netscape works
: fine.
: Go to Edit->Preferences->Navigator->applications
: New...
: desc: PDF file
: MIMEType: application/pdf
: Suffixes: pdf
: Application: <pathtoacroread> %s
: You should then be able to click a pdf link,
: and it'll fire off acroread to read it.
: Note: an example application line would be:
: /usr/local/bin/acrocread %s
: --
: Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
: answering machine message : "hi. e-mail me."
The tax software says it needs a plug in,
not simply a file download and fire off an acroread job.
Probable problem is the dynamic linking of netscape and pdf
use different libraries.
Thanks guys, I guess I'll have to rent a Windoze
machine for a couple days.
--
o ~
_-'\_ ~ Jon Claerbout: jon @ sep.stanford.edu
(*)<(*) ~ http://sepwww.stanford.edu/sep/jon/
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 22:17:20 GMT
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 17:00:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <89n6cb$v66$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<snip>
>Well I have 95, 98, and NT. Which scores slowest in realworld?
>NT. Next 95. The fastest is 98 because I hardly do anything with
>that sucker.
NT is the slowest in _your_ world, not the real world. On my computer,
which happens to have 64MB ram, I dual-boot Windows98 and NT.
NT is definitely faster, as well as being far more stable, and that's
why it's my primary OS. I have a Win98 dual-boot for some software
and hardware that doesn't run in NT.
>If you set the conditions right and you make sure it never has to swap
>memory and you do this and that and whatever it will run faster. Sorry,
>my world doesn't revolve around "if's and but's". I'm based in reality,
>not benchmarks.
All you have to do is give it enough ram. Depending on the apps
that you use (as always) it will need about 64megs to run faster
than Win98. If you use apps that need lots of ram just for themselves,
you'll need more ram before you see NT run better than 95/98.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Timbol)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 3 Mar 2000 22:36:38 GMT
In article <89opoq$lrh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>>I for one am not at all
>> sure that it needs more than a few colors.
>
>Which is your opinion. Fine. However, it does in no way negate the fact
>that because of some design flaw, 256 color mode only allows 16 color
>icons. Something that I don't seem to have a problem with on my Mac.
In case anyone actually cares, the reason for this (on Windows) is that
the 256 colors are not a fixed set of colors -- programs are allowed to
change the color palette to something more suitable to their needs.
In general, there are 16 "fixed" colors, which are supposed to be the
same in any color palette. These are the colors that are usually used
for the icons.
I'm not sure how the Mac works, because there's no guarantee that the
256 colors in one icon are going to be the same 256 colors used in the
other icons. On the other hand, maybe the 256 colors on the Mac are
fixed, and can't be changed, which means all the icons *would* use
the same palette.
- Mike
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2000 22:43:35 GMT
On Fri, 03 Mar 2000 20:47:52 GMT, "Gooba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Refer to alt.os.linux. Check out how many posts there are regarding the
>shaky SBLive! support. It's a mainstream card that is very popular and not
>yet fully and reliably supported. I'd say any program or OS that doesn't
>support a brand-name card is pretty choosy. Even if support is coming, my
>point is not undermined by that fact because it isn't here yet.
It's really pathetic considering that Corel announced an alliance with
Creative to produce multimedia applications. Typical Linux smoke blowing.
>> > I'm a user of Linux and
>> Ok ..... if you *say* so.
>>
>
>One way or another, it doesn't matter much whether I use Linux or not. You
>presented yourself in a very bad light and I chose to comment on it. I could
>be a Solaris, Windows 9x/NT, DOS or BSD user and I'd have said the same to
>you.
>
>> >that's cool by me. I can choose my hardware based on what works with the
>> >software I want to run.
>> So does anyone else if they are wise.
>>
>
>You can't expect all new users to be "wise". That's not how "new" works. I'm
>sure when you first got your hands on a computer you pored over every manual
>and detail of the system and as a result have never had any problem, never
>misconfigured anything, and have never written a buggy program because you
>started out being "wise". Gimme a break. This is the elitist nonsense that
>has to stop.
Exactly. So how many of these "wise" folks have plunked down real money for
Windows pre-loaded computers that work right out of the box, are compatible
with the majority of hardware and software out there, are easily upgraded
and don't expect, or demand that the user step into some kind of computing
time-warp just for the joy of running Linux.
>> >
>> >Linux is not Windows. That statement is pretty obvious isn't it?
>> Is it ? You tell us ?
>>
>
>I already did tell you.
Linux has not even scratched the surface of what Windows 98 can do for the
home user and is still playing catch me if you can with Windows 2000. Linux
peers out from behind the 8-ball every now and then but usually ends up
scratching when it comes down to real comparisons. Like benchmarks for
example.
Where are Linux benchmarks?
IBM lost big time in the latest TPC tests. I don't hear them whining and
crying foul.
Linux was not even on the list. I wonder why? Maybe they couldn't get a
properly compiled and tweaked kernel to try.
>> > But it's
>> >not warranted in this context.
>> Only in your opinion.
>>
>
>The post you replied to was not about where Linux stands in relation to
>Windows. It was only about a crappy presentation of Linux. You felt the need
>to clarify for us that Linux and Windows are different things.
I've been to my share of crappy Linux presentations. Funny thing is I have
never been to a "seel the crowd" Windows presentation. There is no need for
that because it is the standard for Intel machines.
>> > Linux is competing with Windows.
>> No its not.
>>
>
>Again, if they run on the same hardware, are run by the same pool of users
>(i.e. the world population of computer users) and can't be run at the same
>time on the same hardware under normal circumstances, then some sort of
>competition is going on. For every computer that is currently running Linux,
>that is, currently booted into that OS, that's a machine that *isn't*
>running Windows.
Linux is competing with Windows WHEN the Linux advocates have a point to
make that favors their side. Other than that they will claim it is not
competing, and it really shouldn't even try because Windows wins with 2
hands tied behind it's back. They can't even get market share by giving the
POS away. That says it all.
>> > It may not
>> >be agressively competing with Windows, but it is competing. A giraffe and
>an
>> >elephant compete for the same waterhole, how often do you see them fight?
>> Linux and Windows aren't competing for anything.
>>
>
>Stick your head in the ground if you really like, but until Linux and
>Windows are as separate as Windows and Mac OS, they will be in direct
>competition for resources. In this case those resources are users, machines
>and developers. Users and developers don't have the sort of mutual
>exclusivity that a machine does, but they will have a preferred OS.
His head is not in the ground. It is in some equally dark place but not the
ground.
>> >Are you really cool with the idea of being the only remaining Linux user
>in
>> >the world?
>> Are you really serious ?
>>
>
>This is an extreme example, but it is valid. Should the Linux community as a
>whole start to fail, there will be fewer developers. Less developers leads
>to less coding. Less coding means less innovation, bug fixes, etc. Linux can
>stay where it is with even one user, but it can't advance anymore with a
>single user.
Mainstream folks are ignoring Linux. They will continue to do so until
there is a valid reason to switch. Up till now there is none and any move
to Linux would be considered going back to the stone age by some.
>Before you jump in about Linux being a single developer, remember he only
>started this thing. It wouldn't be where it is now without contributions
>from other parties.
>
>> > Having to code new drivers for yourself?
>> Sure
>> > Reverse engineer or
>> If needed, np.
>>
>
>You're crazier than I thought. Do you honestly expect to be able to reverse
>engineer *all* the hardware on your system and write drivers for it all
>without external support or information?
Classic Linux Lamer response. Write your own, implying of course that you
are stupid if you can't. Beg the manufacturer for support. I stopped
begging after I got married.
>> >apply for licenses for every new piece of hardware?
>> No Free Software does NOT do deals with proprietary information owners.
>> If you had more than a passing introduction with it, you'd know that.
>>
>
>Talk to Daryll Strauss who brought us support of the 3Dfx chipsets. Free
>software DOES do deals with proprietary information owners. It does so to
>its own ends, but it still does deal with them.
>
>> > I think not, this is why
>> >Linux needs to compete, it needs a certain base number of
>users/developers
>> >to remain a viable, modern OS.
>> Your totally, completely 100% *incorrect*.
>>
>
>Do you truly believe that Linux will continue to develop at the same pace
>regardless of how small a pool of users it has? It may run on a back-end
>server that hasn't changed it's hardware for 10 years, but it's not going to
>be the up and coming thing.
This is the truth. These folks are kidding themselves big time. Linux is
going absolutely no where. It's threat to the desktop is so insignificant
that Microsoft has not even addressed it. Server maybe. Desktop, forget it.
>By the by, *you're* incorrect.
>
>> >
>> >In short, we might not need to attack Windows, but we would do best to
>keep
>> We ????
>>
>
>Yes, we. Like it or not, Linux users are a group, though not necessarily as
>cohesive as would be nice, but we are a group. I am one, so are you.
>Something like humanity, no matter how much you dislike us, you're still one
>of us.
>
>> >an eye on it.
>> >
>> >I would appreciate it if you didn't post anymore.
>> Sorry I don't do requests for Linux newbies or windows trolls.
>>
>
>I'm not a newbie, nor am I a windows troll. You're seeking support for
>yourself by calling me names which will trigger people's knee jerk
>reactions. Knock it off.
Works for me.
>> >For those who don't
>> >realize you're an individual making yourself look bad, you're making
>Linux
>> >users look bad.
>> Hey thats your interpetration. Windows is about ***looks***, Free software
>is
>> about doing, not looks.
>>
>
>In a market, of any sort, first impressions are important. Whether it be the
>color of the car that catches your eye initially to the body of the woman
>you see across the bar, something has to initially inspire you to look
>deeper. If Linux is presented badly, no one is going to investigate further.
And Linux dies at the starting gate the first time someone lays eyes on how
shitty Netscrape looks, not to mention how buggy it is.
>>
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Terry
>> --
>> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
>> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
>> up 1 week 5 days 10 hours 46 minutes
>> ** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
>
>How odd..a day ago your post said it was up for one day...
>
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Bill Gates just cant win
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 22:57:49 -0000
Meethune <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> did you even read my post? It had nothing to do with how much
> money bill makes or the fact that he's on top. IT WAS A JOKE.
That would be why Donn and I made jokey comments in return.
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is it's own worst enemy.
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 00:00:51 +0100
proculous wrote a bunch of crap:
> I notice that the Linux advocacy group seems to have much more traffic
> than any of the Windows advocacy groups. Simple reason is that Windows,
> along with the Mac sell themselves and don't need a band of loonytunes
> around to wave the flag.
>Now that Linux has become somewhat of the
> darling of the computer press the chips are out on the table for
> prospective users and supporters to try and decide for themselves if
> Linux is worth the fuss.
Well the loonyes around here making noise seem to be like you... NON LINUX
users
> My opinon is that Linux in and of itself fizzles and burns out on the
> launchpad before it even gets into orbit. Joe computer user weaned on
> Windows needs a hell of a lot more than a free operating system in
> order to even consider switching from Windows. Why should he switch?
Yes.. why should he? Who cares if he switches.. i certainly dont.
> Graphics? Doubtful considering X-Windows blurry, distorted and hard on
> the eyes method of displying fonts.Don't tell me about rendering for
> Titanic I know the entire story. Linux was like the GroundsKeepers at a
> ballgame. Necessary, but nobody comes to see them.
I got the same truetype fonts working here as in Windows...
> Free Web Access? Try again. Most of those free CD's that come in the
> mail don't work with Linux. AOL has a huge user base and to the best of
> my knowledge does not work with Linux. Multimedia?
Thats a valid point until AOL makes a CD for Linux.
CD's by ISP's just setup your DUN , update IE and mostly configure OE.
Thats it... allt his can be done in 5-10 min in Linux as long as you have
your data... Hell im even capable of doing a onlineregistration through
Linux and netscape... this is easy.
>Sure, you can run an
> obsolete version of RealPlayer if you wish. DVD? maybe in the future.
I use the same version on Linux as in Windows
> Scanners and printers that ordinary folks can afford (non postscript or
> in the case of scanners non scsi), that by the way work great under
> Windows, not to mention all the free software like Adobe for instance
> that comes with most of them.
I dont have either at home... but i can print on all network printers from
Linux at work just as easy as with Windows.. No problems at all. Offcourse
these are high quality printers and not Winprinters for homeusers. But
whats the deal.... If im going to buy a printer its not going to be a
Winprinter.
>Easy one stop GUI mail/news programs?
You gotta be kidding :-) These exist in "huge" numbers for Linux as well
and are of better quality. OE sucks both in news (lacks functionallity and
is slow threading and displaying messages) and mail ( lots of problems with
attached files and corrupted Inbox/Outbox etc).
I still havent had the "oppurtunity" to delete a message files on Linux
as i have to with Outlook Express in order to be able to send messages.
> Network kits that install right out of the box so the clueless can
> install them and have a simple home network up in minutes? Try again.
You gotta be kidding again :-) This is easy stuff..... every distro i ever
tryed got my machines on the corporate network first time.
> Hardware support for today's hardware not some 5 year old soundboard?
Dont know much about that... the soundcard i have works fine.
> Mixed bag.
> Ease of use? Well Linux with a good gui like Gnome is certainly easy
> enough to used if it pre-loaded. The problem arises when the user wants
> to update.
> This lib, that lib all around the lib we go. It's like a fsking library
> merry-go-round only the names keep changing. Oh you didn't know that
> XYZ.lib is part of the ABC.lib package? Silly you for not reading, and
> reading,and reading and then reading some more. Then you find that
> ABC.lib has some requirements of it's own and back you go. All I want
> to do is instal a friggin program, and don't give me that RPM crap
> because 7 times out of 10 (and yes I did count) I never seem to have
> what is needed. This is a pure waste of time.
Probably.... just stick with Windows.. its much better for you ...Debian
distro does not have this problem im told... Im using RedHat and if i miss
a lib i just download it.. and VUPTI everything works fine.. I like RPM. :-)
> Ok so binary files are the answer. Or are they? Do you have the right
> kernel version? Are you able to edit makefiles to change SMPCheck and
> other housekeeping checks just so the damm thing works? Seen vi lately?
Maybe.... i have used Linux for years.. and never had to edit makefales..
Not once... and i have compiled programs if the appropriate binary didnt
exist for my distro
> beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeppppppppppp....What the fsk is that awful
> beeping? Do people actually use this garbage?
I do .. its not garbage.. it works flawlesly... Offcourse it demands that
the one using it knows how to use an editor as powerfull as vi... But
hey... there are editors for fools like yourself... for instance KEdit and
Kwrite... there's probably a Gnome one like them too.
> Anyway, that's my rant. One only needs to try Linux to see how much it
> lacks for normal folks. Keep it in the geek realm where it can fester
> and provide joy and enlightenment.
I enjoy Linux a lot... a great part of the fun is to know that "normal
folks" like yourself are incapable of using it and stay away... in fact
"normal folks" like yourslef are incapable of using Windows effectively.. I
know.. i support Windows users for a living
> Linux is as doomed as the Titanic when it comes to normal folks. Leave
> it in some geeks server farm where it belongs, and rightfully so.
I agree with you..
>I love my kernel. I really do. I hate my girlfriend.I love only Linux.
I think you need to have more sex ( it does not include touching yourself)
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 3 out of 4 PCs do not need browsers
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 19:47:28 -0300
Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Like, you trust someone (aka their code), which makes you trust
> people you wouldn't trust in any other way. I mean, you'd let me
> happily move your mouse and hack on your keyboard while using your
> banking software? Without you being able to look? Well ...
I guess you're talking about security breaches in ActiveX, Java, ...
rather than about the principle of active contents itself.
I was talking about the principle. Code and creators can be linked
using certification mechanisms, etc.
Francis.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
