Linux-Advocacy Digest #700, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 19:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: I need Linux for Morons... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Chris Lee)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Chris Lee)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
Re: Giving up on NT (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Damien)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (Mark Hamstra)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I need Linux for Morons...
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:33:17 -0800
In article <8abhm0$snh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Sage Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I did it. I bit the bullet, and decided to run Linux, and installed
> Linux Mandrake 7.0 w/o problems on a computer that I made from leftover
> parts from the attic (Pentium 233, 256MB, 10GB HD, etc).
>
> Thank the Lord Network card was auto detected, and it works, but I am
> now sitting infront of this computer which has a "successful
> installation of Mandrake 7.0", but when I log in, it just throws two
> terminal windows on blue desktop, and I do not know what to do other
> than some very basic unix commands (telnet, ftp, quota, etc...).
>
> I managed to run natescape (by typing in "netscape", wow...). But at
> this point, I do not even know how to move or resize the netscape
> window. My question is, isn't there control panel utilities or anything
> of that nature that I can d/l and install to run on this manchine? So
> as subject states, I need something even more basic than "Linux for
> dummies". I did find some utility, but couldn't even figure out how to
> download it...
>
> Thank you for any helps,
>
> --
> -Sage
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Sounds like you installed Mandrake using the Server option. I did the same thing and
it appears the Server choice doesn't install some stuff. I did a reinstall and
everything was fine after that.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:39:07 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> Heck this is like real time chatting here Gary.
>
> You and the other person responded exactly as I had predicated and you
> can't accept the truth.
>
> Reading the LinoNuts is getting far too easy these days. I think I
> need a new hobby.
>
> Steve
>
So tell me, Steve, Heather or whatever you name of the day is, what is
the right way. There are only 3 ways to handle situations like this.
1. Statically link everything into one big module. This has the
following problems:
- huge amount of download time
- huge amount of disk space
- huge amount of memory required to run
- huge application startup time
2. Ship all of the required libraries with the application. This has
the following problems:
- huge amount of download time.
- huge amount of disk space.
- dll hell
3. List dependencies for the application and provide pointers to where
they can be obtained.
You apparently think 2 is better. I do not.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:53:02 GMT
On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 14:53:57 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: > What color is the sky in your world? For two months after MSFT bought
: > Hotmail, they tried in vain to do this. They've tried on at least two
: > other occasions that I know of. All miserable failures.
:
: Provide some proof of this. Any proof.
If you're looking for eye-witness accounts, I can't provide that. I can,
however, provide press coverage of their attempts.
http://www.vnunet.com/News/52704
Even if you discount the "source close to Hotmail", consider the statements
later in the article by Judy Gibbons, a higher-up at MSN:
"We looked at all the on-line mail services and Hotmail was far and away
the best. It has the most proven and scalable architecture."
: Then make her a power user. You've deliberately restricted her access then
: you're complaining when she can't do stuff. This is YOUR fault.
How is that "my fault"? There's a Microsoft Q article on it, so that's an
admission on MSFT's part that there's a defect.
: Well then, explain the steps to installing the latest Voodoo3 driver on your
: Linux system instead of using the stock one that comes with it.
1) Go to http://linux.3dfx.com/open_source/download/voodoo3_banshee.htm
2) Download the four files for my system
3) Install the X server, and two glide components (rpm -Uvh)
4) rpm --rebuild then install the device driver module
This one gets built from source because it has kernel dependencies.
It's STILL easier.
Besides, my choice, Mandrake 7.0, comes with the 3dfx provided X server
on the CD. It's the server that gets installed automatically when the
system detected the presence of the Voodoo3. You can't get much better
than vendor-supported drivers that are installed automatically.
--
Jason Costomiris <><
Technologist, cryptogeek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 19 Mar 2000 23:00:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
>
>Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >...The Linux code is pretty stable, but at
>> >least OpenBSD kills it in the security stakes,
>
>> Don't be too sure about claiming this. Remember RedHat will be
>> including tripwire with it's dist pretty soon and the other dists
>> will follow, and the RedHat 6.2 beta defaults with a lot of
>> things turned off that used to be turned on in the older RedHat
>> 5.0-6.0 dists.
>
>Among Unices, and linuxes, redhat is far from a security
>standout. I'd rank it close to the worst. While it is
>overcoming some of its past ills, it still does things like
>automatically start inet with telnet and ftp open with
>no hosts.deny entries.
Have you looked at the RedHat 6.2 beta? It for the most part no longer does
what you just said.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 23:01:04 GMT
Not being a programmer and only a programming ignorant simpleton
windows user I can't really say what the Linux solution is. All I can
say is that when I need a Windows program, they typically are not that
big and whatever libraries and so forth the download duplicates is
really a moot point. I suspect, and I may be wrong, that they depend
on the libraries installed with Windows.
If an older dll file is being copied I have the option of picking
which one I want.
I click setup.exe and it works.
Why it works I don't know. But it does every time.
Example:MusicMatchJukeBox a fine mp3/cd player burner etc. It is 4.57
meg compressed for the version I have. I click on it and it works.
Windows updates are the same can of soup.
My point is that I don't have to worry about any dependencies at all
and still the files are much smaller under Windows.
In the past dll hell was a real problem and I don't deny that but
currently prompts are offered that allow choice of files to replace,
if any.
I find updating Linux to be more often than not a hodge podge of
technospeak that requires an interpreter who speaks geek to translate.
Windows by contrast is fast and easy.
Here's another example: You visit a webpage that requires a plug-in to
view it properly, let's say shockwave for example. Under Windows you
say yes, update my browser and it works every time. Under Linux? God
only knows. Is there a version of Shockwave for Linux? I see
FlashPlayer 6.0, an outdated variety. Will it work? I don't know.
Depends on what version was used to create the page. What I DO know is
that my Windows based browser will be updated accordingly and WILL
work.
Again Linux fails to offer current versions of software, or plugins
and requires hoop jumping in order to run an outdated version.
Bottom line is the way to handle this is the easiest way possible for
the end user and my research has shown me that Windows provides this.
However they do it, and I don't know or care, but it works and it
works very well.
Steve
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:39:07 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> Heck this is like real time chatting here Gary.
>>
>> You and the other person responded exactly as I had predicated and you
>> can't accept the truth.
>>
>> Reading the LinoNuts is getting far too easy these days. I think I
>> need a new hobby.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>So tell me, Steve, Heather or whatever you name of the day is, what is
>the right way. There are only 3 ways to handle situations like this.
>
> 1. Statically link everything into one big module. This has the
>following problems:
> - huge amount of download time
> - huge amount of disk space
> - huge amount of memory required to run
> - huge application startup time
>
> 2. Ship all of the required libraries with the application. This has
>the following problems:
> - huge amount of download time.
> - huge amount of disk space.
> - dll hell
>
> 3. List dependencies for the application and provide pointers to where
>they can be obtained.
>
>You apparently think 2 is better. I do not.
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Lee)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: 19 Mar 2000 23:08:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net says...
>
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:10:02 -0500, Gary Hallock
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>>
>>> Welcome to Linux :(
>>>
>>> Answers you will get from the Linux community, in no special order:
>>>
>>> 1. Didn't you try the RPM? Took ME 5 seconds.
>>
>>So, what's wrong with that answer? The RPM file is very obvious and easy
>>to find on the gnucash web page. For someone who wants easy installation
>>it is the obvious choice.
>
>Assuming they satisfy all of the dependencies and that is usually not
>the case in my experience.
Just because you're an ignorant fool, don't make the mistake of assuming
everyone is also.....
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:17:42 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> Not being a programmer and only a programming ignorant simpleton
> windows user I can't really say what the Linux solution is. All I can
> say is that when I need a Windows program, they typically are not that
> big and whatever libraries and so forth the download duplicates is
> really a moot point. I suspect, and I may be wrong, that they depend
> on the libraries installed with Windows.
> If an older dll file is being copied I have the option of picking
> which one I want.
And how do you know which one to pick? How do you know that something else
won't break if you make the wrong decision? What do you do a few weeks
after the install when you run a program you haven't used in a while and it
fails. Will you know enough to figure out that it must have been the dll
installed a few weeks earlier?
>
>
> I click setup.exe and it works.
> Why it works I don't know. But it does every time.
Yes, the newly installed program works. Under the covers you could easily
have broken half a dozen other applications. I would rather have more work
up front installing a new app than worry about what might break later.
>
>
> Example:MusicMatchJukeBox a fine mp3/cd player burner etc. It is 4.57
> meg compressed for the version I have. I click on it and it works.
> Windows updates are the same can of soup.
> My point is that I don't have to worry about any dependencies at all
> and still the files are much smaller under Windows.
>
> In the past dll hell was a real problem and I don't deny that but
> currently prompts are offered that allow choice of files to replace,
> if any.
>
And then you have to know enough to make the right decision, if there even is
a right decision.
>
> I find updating Linux to be more often than not a hodge podge of
> technospeak that requires an interpreter who speaks geek to translate.
You must then be unable to program your VCR. Installing an application on
Linux is trivial. I find it quite easy with Redhat. But, from what I
understand, Debian is even easier since it will go out to the web and grab
dependencies if you ask it to.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 20 Mar 2000 00:25:02 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
>No, Bob, text editing DOESN'T have to be this difficult. Cutting and pasting
>DOESN'T have to involve 20 key strokes!.
>
It's not that complicated, and you know it.
SHIFT-ArrowDown to start marking a block has become CTRL-SPACE.
SHIFT-Del (or CTRL-X the windows-way) to cut it has become CTRL-W.
SHIFT-Ins (or CTRL-V the windows-way) to paste it has become CTRL-Y.
Yes, Emacs has a steeper learning-curve. But when when you learn the basic
commands it's just as easy as other editors, faster and if you want to
go into the more complicated commands, more powerful.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] � http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ � [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Untagged tagline.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 19 Mar 2000 23:45:05 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 18:05:59 GMT, in alt.microsoft.sucks,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
| >>6. Hit Enter/Click okay a bunch of times when Windows tells you to.
| >>7. Make a cup of coffee. Keep hitting enter/clicking okay
|
| >"Hit Enter/Click okay a bunch of times"... "Keep hitting enter/clicking
| >okay"... If this is so simple why isn't it automated?
|
| It can be, fairly easily. In fact, the installation of your video
| driver and the configuration you are doing can also be. It requires
| enough pre-install work as to not be really effective for a single
| install.
|
| >Why do you have to babysit the machine?
|
| You don't -- do you suppose Gateway pays people to sit there and click
| "OK" all day?
No. They do it once and then clone the drives.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Mar 2000 07:49:33 +0800
On Fri, 17 Mar 2000 03:53:55 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>On 16 Mar 2000 23:47:12 GMT, Steve Mading
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>: If someone tells a business owner that he has to learn a lot
>>: in order to use Linux, the business owner will lose interest
>>: on Linux right away. Business owners are only interested
>>: in getting their daily jobs done taking computers as tools.
>>
>>True. And if someone tells a business owner that he will
>>be able to switch from *any* OS to *any* OS without having
>>to learn a lot, then that someone is lying. (Assuming we
>>are talking about an actual OS switch here and not just a switch
>>between flavors of the same OS (like WinNT to Win2000, or RedHat
>>to Debian). )
>
>This is of course true.
>
>>In other words, while you think you've found a problem with Linux
>>you haven't. You've found a problem with changing OSes in general.
>>It's an expensive effort to switch. Thus if you want someone to
>>swtich to a new OS, it isn't enough to just be a bit better. You've
>>got to be a *lot* better to overcome the expensive cost of switching
>>things around. The more expensive the effort is to switch, the greater
>>incentive there is in the marketplace to accept a monopoly so people
>>don't have to switch often. When it comes to computer OS'es the effort
>>to switch is more expensive than the cost of the entire system, so the
>>incentive toward monopoly is huge. MS happens to have been in the
>>right place at the right time when that incentive started getting
>>powerful. They got lucky.
>
>I mostly agree with this, especially the fact that MS has the market
>share and it is indeed difficult to get already entrenched business to
>switch even if the OS IS far superior.
>
<snip of more Steve nonsense>
>QextMDI? Yet another library that I am certain is needed somewhere and
>for something.
>
>This stuff is scary..It reminds me of stuff I used back in the mid
>1980's to tweak my IBMPC, like NumLockOff.
Hahahah, you definetly rate as Mr Clueless, 1997-2000 Steve.
>
>Absolute FlintStone period.
You should know Steve, your trollism on COLA goes back to the stone age.
>
>BTW this was taken off the http://www.freshmeat.net page today.
>
>>: If someone tells a business owner that he has to buy
>>: new computers in order to get Linux up and running,
>>: the business owner will give up on Linux since preserving
>>: current technology investment is business owners' high priority.
>
>Absolute truth and the main reason why for small business owners Linux
>is not an option.
Who's telling small business owners this Steve ???
I'm a small business, I run Linux, on OLD hardware.
According to Steve-of-the-broken-promises (hes leaving COLA) Linux only runs
on OLD hardware, now its Linux needs NEW hardware to run ?
Which is it Steve the troll ???
>
>Steve
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 5 days 16 hours 36 minutes
** homepage http://www.odyssey.apana.org.au/~tjporter **
------------------------------
From: Mark Hamstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 19 Mar 2000 18:46:50 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> In article <8b3afr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david
>parsons) wrote:
> > In article <8auahk$ils$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Visual C++ has a command line compiler, which is called by the IDE. You
> >>> don't need to use the IDE or MFC to use this. You don't seem to know what
> >>> you're talking about.
> >>
> >>I think its very sweet that you use Visual C++. Just dont mistake yourself
> >>for an actual programmer.
> >
> > So, just out of idle curiousity, just what makes using Visual C++ not
> > comparable with being an actual programmer?
> >
> > ____
> > david parsons \bi/ Inquiring minds want to know.
> > \/
>
> The ability to actually write C/C++ code without being babysat by an IDE,
> for example. Of all the VC++ coders I know, only a couple actually know
> how to write source code without using the IDE (and those couple are
> folks who program on Linux as well). The others don't even know how to
> properly use #INCLUDEs or #DEFINEs, or how to manually tweak
> COM/DCOM IDL for unusual situations. Most of these people don't
> even really know C/C++ at all -- they only understand the MS dialect,
> and that only through the IDE.
Don't mistake your experience as a complete characterization of all VC++
users. I happen to work with about a hundred VC++ users -- some quite
good coders; and not a one of us uses the IDE.
--
Mark Hamstra
Bentley Systems, Inc.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
