Linux-Advocacy Digest #631, Volume #25 Tue, 14 Mar 00 19:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! ("Stephen S.
Edwards II")
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Robert Morelli)
Re: which OS is best? (Bob Lyday)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail toW2K) ("Drestin
Black")
Re: Giving up on NT (Karel Jansens)
Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective) (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 14 Mar 2000 22:10:20 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 11 Mar 2000 23:31:56 GMT,
Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
> Comparing WordPerfect 6.0 for DOS (or, in a pinch, even 5.1) with
> WordPerfect 8 for Linux,
To be fair, you'd have to compare wether WP8 for DOS/Windows was
any better or worse, else the Winvocates will just launch into
another coughing spell ...
> For truly innovative things in wordprocessing, you better not look to
> the "Bloatware Trio", but try out something like LyX: a package that
> will actually _help_ to produce professional documents, and not
> jazzed-up marketing flyers.
Or even learn LaTeX. (Yep, to use a computer, and be it even just
for a game, one has *learn* the tricks of the trade. Else you'll
just be cannonfodder in Quake.)
> I still use WP8 though, 'cuz I've got all those function keys still in
> my fingers,
I hear that vim and Emacs do cope, if you tell them :-) And vim
starts up pretty fast, too. :-) (And you *can* get vim for Win32
machines. Although I would not recommend that to any ocacsional
user. Vim is a heavy duty tool, for 'power users', and thus must
be learned,[1] just like heavy machinery.
-Wolfgang
[1] To see some of the powers in even a basic vi, read
http://unlser1.unl.csi.cuny.edu/tutorials/unixworld_vi_tutorial.part1.html
and go WOW. (Can you name a WinXX editor which has that sort
of power?)
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: 14 Mar 2000 22:22:01 GMT
Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> blithered:
: > It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
: So is Intel. This news is better than a kick in the ass with a frozen
: boot, which is what m$ is getting. He didn't claim Corel Linux was the
: best thing since sliced bread, he said _Linux_ was the next desktop
: OS. Linux can be whatever anyone wants to make of it, as long as you're
: running a Linux kernel you've got Linux ! If Corel/Intel helps put
: Linux in stores and on desktops more power to em.
On three separate occasions, I've asked store clerks in both CompUSA, and
Best Buy how well Linux was selling... most of them stated that it wasn't
selling in but meager numbers. In fact, most of the boxed Linux
distributions at these retailers have a layer of dust on them. This
does not bode well for Linux at all, IMHO.
: You can't expect too much from desperate windoze lusers they'll likely
I have yet to find "desperate windoze lusers" who don't know how to post
properly. Perhaps you are another HaX0r wannabe, who runs Linux for
posterity, rather than for productivity... figures.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:32:39 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I'd guess that 7.0 is in fact a response to Caldera's install, trying
> >> to out-do them in user friendliness.
> >
> >It's not clear to me what your point is. The fact that Mandrake attempted to
> >respond to an appealing feature that Caldera had first, merits an endorsement
> >that Caldera itself doesn't get?
>
> Yes, it's called competition, and in the open-source world it moves
> very fast. As soon as any distribution makes a change, the others
> leapfrog them. But the real point is that you should not complain
> about any vendor's old product - especially when a new version
> is available for free download or on cheap knock-off CDs.
This is getting so skew to the main point as to be ridiculous. I'm not aware of any
concensus
that Mandrake actually leapfrogged Caldera. Even if they did, it could not be by any
dramatic
degree and it would hardly justify a sudden endorsement of Mandrake to the exclusion
of
Caldera. At best, I could see endorsing Mandrake and Caldera side by side. It's
even less
reasonable for a tools supplier to make a quick and definitive judgement like that.
All of this is just a way of prolonging your contention with me, without addressing
reasonable
grounds for that contention. And it's way outside the realm of plausibility.
> >That's kind of like how Microsoft copies a
> >competitor's idea, and is then hailed by the magazines it advertises in as
> >"revolutionary." Well that kind of thing turned my stomach back when Windows
> >mattered to me, and I sure don't want to see it happen again with Linux.
>
> Please explain your idea of how software should evolve. No one has
> ever gotten it right the first time and no company has ever
> kept innovations coming without being driven by competition from
> others. Microsoft was perfectly happy to go years and years without
> even adding the MSDOS 5.0 features - until someone else had them.
The issue has nothing to do with software being driven by competition. I never even
mentioned
that. The issue is inappropriately hailing a copyist's implementation above that of
the
innovator. You seem to be arguing that that is a good idea, possibly because you
make the
implicit assumption that a copyist always has a superior implementation. More
pointless
contention.
> >> Most people who aren't on a crusade first make an attempt to find
> >> out what they did wrong or which piece of hardware is incompatible
> >> with the software.
> >
> >Hmm, let's see. I install 2 different versions of Mandrake on three different
> >machines, in a couple of cases multiple times, and it fails every single time
> >within a week. I install Caldera and Red Hat on the same machines and have no
> >problem. And I'm supposed to blame the hardware in a laptop bought in 1995, a
> >different laptop bought in 1998, and a desktop bought in 1999, for giving
> >similar failures on only one of three distributions? Any ideas?
>
> The thing in common seems to be the user. Everyone else I know did
> not have any such failures, but they installed the available updates for
> the older version... I don't think any are necessary yet for 7.0.
With every installation, Caldera, Red Hat, and Mandrake, the user is me. With the
failures
the distro is Mandrake, and with the successes, the distros are Caldera and Red Hat.
But you
think that the thing in common with the failures is the user. Yeah, that makes
sense.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:30:39 -0800
From: Bob Lyday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Charles Kooy wrote:
>
> ATG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My list is even shorter;
> >
> > 2nd Best OS - WinXX
> > 1st Best OS - ANY OTHER OS!
> <Snip>
>
> LOL!
That's a good one!
--
Bob
@..@
(--)
(>__<)
""""
(frog)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 14 Mar 2000 22:28:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Noah Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter da Silva wrote:
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Noah Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Second major problem, NetBSD fdisk likes to fuck up partition tables.
> > Then don't use it. FreeBSD's plays nice with other operating systems, and
> > IIRC the ID numbers are the same so NetBSD should happily use them. But if
> > you're running FreeBSD's fdisk, why not install FreeBSD?
> Who said I was using FreeBSD's fdisk?
I was suggesting it as an alternative.
> And to answer your question, the NetBSD
> install runs fdisk automatically, and even if you choose not to alter the table,
> NetBSD changes it anyway.
Ah. I did not know that. That is harsh.
> And to answer your other question...I am lazy.
The easiest thing for a lazy fella would be to buy the CDROM from Walnut
Creek. The second easiest thing would be to download the floppy images, 2
disks worth, and let FreeBSD dial your ISP and download the rest as it
installs itself.
But just as a special favor...
I will be happy to mail you a FreeBSD CDROM... most releases from 2.2.8 through
3.4, or even 1.1 if you're feeling retro and adventurous... if you want. Just
send me a message in e-mail with your address. I have scads of the things, and
if you're going to badmouth the OS online you ought to know what you're talking
about.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug t� barr�g ar do mhact�re inniu?
'U` "Hint for long-term survival: be tasty, and farmable." -- Tanuki
"And that's the real message of 'The Matrix'." -- Abigail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: As Linux Dies a Slow Death.....Who's next?
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:42:00 GMT
On 14 Mar 2000 21:13:40 GMT, Wolfgang Weisselberg
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 22:49:39 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>
>> Linux?
>> Dead at the starting gate..Horse fell over...Don't bother...
>
>Fun that you should say that. I think Unix's death has been
>predicted semiannually since 1970 or so. I thins we get to see
>the "Linux is dead" claim quartally.
>
>However, Linux does not have to (or need to) fight Microsoft.
>Linux can very well stand on it's own. You may disagree ... but
>I am still right.
Microsoft is in a constant state of war against all
other available choices. This is merely a state of
things that any OS other than WinDOS has to deal with.
>
>As has been said before: "Linux is not in a war against
>Microsoft. War is about people making loosing choices, trying to
>lose last. Linux is about free choices and winning."
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:45:41 GMT
On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:48:43 -0600, Kar-Han Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> >> They could ride the 'hype wave' by releasing qtlib with
>> >> minimal effort and cover all their bases at the same time.
>> >
>> >You know, MS doesn't need 'hype waves' to market their products. Others
>> >ride the hype waves created by MS, or the 'anti-MS waves' created.
>>
>> We weren't talking about MS. Although, they have a hype wave
>> of their own that they've been riding since IBM graced us
>> with their first microcomputer. MS has been surfing it since.
>
>I see.. I thought we were discussing why IE Solaris need a win32 library
>to go along.
Funny, the name of an Apple OS actually seems to be in the subject line.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 22:44:11 GMT
On 14 Mar 2000 22:22:01 GMT, Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Multi_OS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> blithered:
>
>: > It is not good news for Linux, Corel Linux is the worst of breed.
>
>: So is Intel. This news is better than a kick in the ass with a frozen
>: boot, which is what m$ is getting. He didn't claim Corel Linux was the
>: best thing since sliced bread, he said _Linux_ was the next desktop
>: OS. Linux can be whatever anyone wants to make of it, as long as you're
>: running a Linux kernel you've got Linux ! If Corel/Intel helps put
>: Linux in stores and on desktops more power to em.
>
>On three separate occasions, I've asked store clerks in both CompUSA, and
>Best Buy how well Linux was selling... most of them stated that it wasn't
>selling in but meager numbers. In fact, most of the boxed Linux
>distributions at these retailers have a layer of dust on them. This
>does not bode well for Linux at all, IMHO.
That's funny, I see the endcaps in CompUSA decimated. The number
of titles being sold in CompUSA is on the rise as is the number
of titles in BestBuy.
This is not consistent with lukewarm sales results.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:14:23 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8alnte$tas$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Christopher Browne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:sdYx4.70996$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Drestin Black would
> say:
> > > >"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> > > >news:8a6phv$dpt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
> > > >> I/T Architect, MIS Director
> > > >> http://www.open4success.com
> > > >> Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
> > > >> and growing at over 1%/week!
> > > >
> > > >holy shit - what is this? a *** 5 0 % *** drop in
> > > >linux growth?! DAMN!
> > > > Looks
> > > >like a HUGE slow down has occured in Linux growth.
>
> Nope. Just being a bit more conservative in my estimates.
> There is more revenue but the revenue growth rate is only
> about 225%/year. The 2%/month would be a growth rate of
> 180%/year. But since guys like Drestin have a hard time
> dealing with triple-digit growth rates - I cut
> down the growth rate estimates.
EXCUSE ME? This is such a crock!
You claim to report accurately this growth rate but, lemme get this
straight, since a NT advocate has "a hard time dealing" with something, you
just make up another set of figures to perhaps slip it under my BS tolerate
detector limit? I mean, look, if you have solid numbers and are documented
certain of them, you should NEVER have to fear to post them no matter how
they frighten the other guys, in fact, for that reasons. But, what you
wrote... that is just ludicrous. I mean, I'm not looking at TPC benchmarks
67% faster than Unix at 1/3 the cost and thinking: whoa those are just TOO
good, so I'll only claim 40% faster at 1/2 the cost so no one is upset...
HA!
W2K is 67% faster for 1/3rd the cost of the best IBM/SUN Oracle combo ever
(running the TPC-C benchmark). I'v nothing to fear in writing the documented
truth.
>
> SEC Filings for COBT, RHAT, ESFT, LNUX, and CORL average out
> at about 200% revenue growth rates. Some of them are even
> running in the black.
wow, some even in the black? So, how much did they give back to the
developers of the product they make their meal tickets from? And how that
has any bearing at all on how many users are downloading free copies of
linux is unknown.
>
oh ... yawn... forget it.
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fairness to Winvocates (was Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail toW2K)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:16:45 -0500
"Matt Gaia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : When I want to tinker, I do it at home, not at work. Perhaps this is
> : why none of the linux companies are making money?
>
> Maybe linux companies aren't in it for the simply making money. They (and
> developers) are in it to simply make a better product. So would you
> rather get stuff from someone who wants to make money or someone who wants
> to make a better product?
>
and... you... actually... believe... that???
Oh my god.
ahh... pine... .edu...
kids...
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: 14 Mar 2000 23:29:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
> On 11 Mar 2000 23:31:56 GMT,
> Karel Jansens <jansens_at_ibm_dot_net> wrote:
>
> > Comparing WordPerfect 6.0 for DOS (or, in a pinch, even 5.1) with
> > WordPerfect 8 for Linux,
>
> To be fair, you'd have to compare wether WP8 for DOS/Windows was
> any better or worse, else the Winvocates will just launch into
> another coughing spell ...
>
According to Corel's blurb on the box, it "... delivers the same
exceptional word-processing capabilities as the Windows (R) version,
plus many features available only for Linux."
So the Linux version is actually _better_ than the Windows (R)
version! Still, we knew that already...
Don't misunderstand me, I actually happen to quite like WP8Linux:
fast, relatively easy on resources (compared to StarOffice, that is,
not to ApplixWare), stable (sofar, except for the odd Applix Words
conversion) and exhibiting that exquisite level of control over our
output only rivaled by true DTP programs.
The bloat comes from the philosophy that apparently these days a
wordprocessing program should require no training, a preposterous
notion if one thinks about it.
> > For truly innovative things in wordprocessing, you better not look to
> > the "Bloatware Trio", but try out something like LyX: a package that
> > will actually _help_ to produce professional documents, and not
> > jazzed-up marketing flyers.
>
> Or even learn LaTeX. (Yep, to use a computer, and be it even just
> for a game, one has *learn* the tricks of the trade. Else you'll
> just be cannonfodder in Quake.)
>
Were I to have been exposed to Un*x earlier in my life, I would
probably have taken the time to become proficient in LaTex (it's not
that difficult to learn). As it stands now, there's too much to learn
and too little time <snif>.
> > I still use WP8 though, 'cuz I've got all those function keys still in
> > my fingers,
>
> I hear that vim and Emacs do cope, if you tell them :-) And vim
> starts up pretty fast, too. :-) (And you *can* get vim for Win32
> machines. Although I would not recommend that to any ocacsional
> user. Vim is a heavy duty tool, for 'power users', and thus must
> be learned,[1] just like heavy machinery.
>
> -Wolfgang
>
> [1] To see some of the powers in even a basic vi, read
> http://unlser1.unl.csi.cuny.edu/tutorials/unixworld_vi_tutorial.part1.html
> and go WOW. (Can you name a WinXX editor which has that sort
> of power?)
Vi(m) is high on my list of things to learn. I heard vim has some sort
of WP-emulation, which would be cool. Emacs just seems too... well,
_huge_.
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
"How to make God laugh?"
"Tell Him your plans."
(paraphrased from "Foundation's Fear" - Gregory Benford)
========================================================
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What might really help Linux (a developer's perspective)
Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2000 18:34:22 -0500
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> "Mr. Rupert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > mlw wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I am, in fact a Windows refugee. However, I respect UNIX for what it is,
> > > so I do not blindly want to add things that Windows had, simply to have
> > > them. The one thing that UNIX really really needs, is the notion of a
> > > DLL. A shared library is not a dll.
> >
> > Could you please elaborate the differences of a DLL and a shared
> > library? This is an honest question.
>
> There is no difference. I don't know what Mark is talking about.
There is a huge difference.
A .DLL is a self contain module. It has its own notion of external
links. It may use different and conflicting versions of a .DLL than what
the parent app uses. As long as the .dll abstracts its internal
components, the parent app knows nothing of the .dll's external linkage.
A .dll is a very good design for distributing "black box" processing
modules where common library versions may differ. Only what you
explicitly "export" is seen by the parent app. With an .so, it acts more
like a regular code library where links are resolved and fixed up to the
parent app's environment. This makes UNIX shared libraries too dependent
on the parent apps environment.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
