Linux-Advocacy Digest #705, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 23:13:09 EST
Contents:
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Christopher Browne)
Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 03:10:59 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
would say:
>I understand what you are saying but my experience has been different.
>Example: I need some Gnome library that I download. i try to install
>it and it complains that I need version 1.2 of yet another library. I
>happen to have version 1.3 of that library. What do I do?
>I have had this exact scenario several times.
This is *precisely* the problem solved by the Debian project's
dependancy system; when you request a package, it builds up the
graph (that's a precise term commonly associated with the area of
mathematics called "graph theory") of dependancies, and presents
the list of *all* required packages.
I want to install some gnome library? I go into the package selector,
dselect, and request that library. And everything else that is needed
is automatically selected for installation as well.
There's an RPM-oriented tool called "autorpm" that provides similar
functionality; it's an obvious enough problem with obvious enough
solutions that this should become available for RPM-based distributions
Real Soon Now.
Note that the BSD "Ports" system also already provides this sort of
functionality.
It's not rocket science; the reasons for the lack in RPM-based
distributions cannot be clearly attributed to anything in particular.
The people at Red Hat are not ignorant, and know how to use Make, which
suggests that they have been too busy implementing whiz-bang features
to make the distribution tools better in *crucial* ways.
The priorities are clear:
Magazines give "points" in evaluations for having a GUI-based boot
utility (e.g. - to replace LILO), and *don't* give "points" for this
sort of thing.
As a result, a lot of attention goes to the flashy features that get
"points," and all too little goes to more fundamental improvements.
A better conclusion would thus be that "Red Hat Programmers Suck."
--
"If we believe in data structures, we must believe in independent
(hence simultaneous) processing. For why else would we collect items
within a structure? Why do we tolerate languages that give us the one
without the other?" -- Alan Perlis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: 11 Days Wasted ON Linux
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 03:30:24 GMT
On 20 Mar 2000 02:39:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 00:33:01 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED],net <[EMAIL PROTECTED],net> wrote:
>> On 17 Mar 2000 21:18:36 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (Wolfgang Weisselberg) wrote:
>
>> >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:
>
>[small store owners]
>
>> The proof is, or will be in how many of these type establishments
>> switch to Linux.
>
>Yes. Maybe we should postpone our talk for 5 or 10 years, and
>then look again.
Honestly I suspect 2 to 5 years is more accurate. If Linux can make an
impact, and I DO believe it can, it will be in the next 2 years.
>> >> You're going to sit this guy who owns a clothing store for example
>> >> down in front of Linux and tell him how great it is and how he is
>> >> going to save tons of money
>
>> >Wrong argumentation. Being able to avoid the vendor lock-in you
>> >describe further down is a much better argument ... and then you
>> >start when he has a system which seems to work for him! If you
>> >start earlier (when he chooses his system) almost all of the
>> >problems disappear.
>
>> He's been lied to once
>
>By whom? Certainly not by the Open Source movement as such.
Not the OS movement per se' but the Linux advocates who will claim he
can do everything he does under Windows seamlessly under Linux, with
better results, and this is untrue.
>> what makes you think he is going to trust the
>> Open Source movement. Again what is the reason for him to convert his
>> data if the current model works for him?
>
>None for now.
For now yes. The future is open though.
>Being not vendor-locked may or may not be a good reason for him to
>switch. Depends on the person in question.
True. Cost is also a consideration.
>> >> Proprietary format? Sure but that's not his fault.
>
>> >Of course it's not his programming. But I hold people responsible
>> >for the tools they use. Guns and bullets can kill, you know, even
>> >if you bought them ready-to-use. And if you use Outlook and post
>> >in HTML, I am not going any softer on you because you cannot use
>> >your tools or are unable to understand them.
>
>> People buy applications based upon a need and the need to support, or
>
>percieved need. If you tell people long enough they are too
>stupid to use a computer unless they use your super-duper,
>droolproof easy program, some are going to believe you. And thus
>their need is to buy your program.
This is unfortunately true, but we all must work with this mentality
and Windows seems to fill the needs of people like this better than
Linux, at least at present.
>> be able to be supported (ie: account who needs his clients data in a
>> specific format).
>
>I personally would try and choose an accountant who understands
>that it's in *his* best interest to support open formats. If only
>to attract customers not fancying a new OS just for him.
I would agree in theory, but you have to understand that an
accountants job is to account. If he can make money off 100 Windows
based accounts, why is he going to switch his game plan to support the
meager Linux users out there?
>> As long as the data is saved and available most
>> folks are more concerned with running their business and less
>> concerned of how, and where and what format their data is stored in.
>
>They should be. Like they should be concened if their bank is
>honest and won't go broke over the weekend.
Bank defaults transcend all operating systems. IE: I would NEVER do
bank transactions online regardless of OS.
>> As long as it is backed up properly.
>
>Well, that would imply they understand something about that
>matter. I feel it's asking a bit much these days. :-(
I think you are right, unfortunately :(
>> >> The program works for him and he is happy.
>
>> >Then there's no reason at all to change. If he were unhappy,
>> >well ... that would be different.
>
>> Ok, but I was trying to build an argument for someone like the above
>> to switch to Linux.
>
>If you are happy with foo, why switch to bar? You switch because
>bar might make you significantly happier _and_ because you are
>*not* that happy with foo.
True.
>> >However your claim proves you are building up a straw man
>> >argument. Well, come here, troll, let me feed you some cyanide.
>
>> No. My argument shows that there is no reason other than cost for
>> someone other than a programmer, tinkerer etc to switch to Linux.
>
>... for small business owners who use their PCs as tools. ...
>... *IF* and only *IF* ( they are happy enough with Windows ||
>they percieve Linux not to offer enough remedy).
>
>> The majority of small business owners I have dealt with generally buy
>> pre-loads from the nearest CompUSA that meet the specifications of
>> either their accountant or the home office, in the case of a chain or
>> franchise.
>
>You can get Linux preloaded. With the matching soft- and
>hardware, a service contract and everything you need.
As a pre-load if it suits one's needs then there really is no
difference between Linux and Windows, or Linux and any other OS.
>> >The first part is cheapish hardware designed to reduce a CPU to a
>> >These evil hardware only exists to reduce your CPU 386 in speed in
>> >exchange of $10 and should not even be used under Windows. (And
>> >not only because it's a vendor lock-in again.)
>
>> Agreed but that doesn't help the switch to Linux argument.
>
>Well, it does not hinder it. Unless you are too cheap. In which
>case you need a lot of knowledge yourself, because you won't buy a
>service contract either (or provide the clueful people yourself).
>It'll crash. How much is a good modem and a printer which are not
>Win98-only compared to an NT-licence?
They all crash at some time or another, be it the OS or pilot error.
>> Take a look
>> in the Sunday NY Times and see how many systems have Win*hardware in
>> them. Most do and they happily work with Windows.
>
>Sorry, the Sunday NT Times is not that easlily aviable here.
>Different continent, you know?
Ok! You'll have to take my word for it. Understand I am NOT a
supporter of Win* or Lin*, or Sun* hardware, I wish for all hardware
to work with all OS's. I am simply stating that unfortunately, a
majority, by far, of pre-loaded systems are equipped with such junk
and as a result are lost to Linux, Beos, Solaris etc.
>But if your pursuit of happiness needs you to have WinXX, go
>ahead. Linux is about freedom of choice, even if you have poor
>taste ... :-)
Stciks and stones will break my bones heee hee!
Wolfgang, we each have our opinions but it has been refreshing to
speak with one such as yourself and debate the various issues!
>> >Replacing the printer with some inexpensive real thing won't cost
>> >more that $100 or $150 (see other threads). Replacing the modem?
>> >Well, how much is a modem these days? Replacing the sound card?
>
>> The hoops are becoming higher by the moment that this person has to
>> jump through in order to run Linux.
>> What is he gaining, other than cost for all of this jumping?
>
>Linux. Open source. A non-welded hood.
True but how many know how to check the oil?
>If he does prefer Windows, well, too bad.
>
>> >The second part can easily be solved: Switch to a clueful ISP.
>
>> Easy for a single user, more difficult for a business that may have a
>> webpage, several email accounts, online transaction processing and so
>> forth.
>
>If you want your webpage up, your provider should not run
>Windows on their servers. (W2K is a 'maybe', everything else is
>IMHO a 'nono'.) Email accounts? Then they have a domain.
>Switching made easy. etc. (and no, you don't need to run
>everything over the same provider. That's not even the cheapest
>way, usually.)
But that is how the ISP's do it. Maybe it IS to suck you in I don't
know.
>Or are you saying that they have no contingency plan for the
>case their ISP goes tits up?
Tit's up is good..Ass up is bad :)
Hee hee.... I made a funny!!!!
>> With the exception of OS/2 the others are not aggressively trying to
>> compete with the Windows desktop like Linux is.
>> Server market yes, especially SCO, but desktop?
>
>Linux is not "aggressively trying to compete". Linux just happens
>to have something which seems to frighten MS so bad that they
>won't shy away from foul play. There's no aggression on the Linux
>side, no organized marketing blitzes, etc.
I don't blame MS for being scared. Linux in certain area's is MORE
than a threat it is a reality. Servers for example...
>> >So he stays with MS, (after all, by your definition, he is happy
>> >with it!) but I am perfectly allowed to snicker evilly everytime
>> >his OS crashes. I think that's a fair deal.
>
>> If it does.
>
>Next you tell me pigs don't fly. What a letdown. :-)
It depends. For example I have 3 systems. One digital audio system
that is extremely stable and never sees the bleeding edge stuff until
it is proven. Has never crashed on me in over 3 years.
A gamer system which the rest of the family uses and crashes on a
weekly basis.
A Thinkpad for my day job in corporate America. It runs Win95 and
crashes several times a day.
>> >> For a non-programmer, applications based
>> >business owner who uses the PC as a tool, and nothing more.
>> >What's important to him?
>
>> >- It must RUN. No matter what.
>> Linux might have an edge here.
>
>> >- The apps and the environment must be good enough.
>> Linux just died on this one.....
>
>The apps where aviable are good enough, and the environment's
>getting better all the time. If it's not good enough for you yet,
>that's OK by me, it's your choice and your situation. Just
>remember things shift really fast these days.
Linux is certainly improving and in time will be, for me, a real
alternative. I have no doubt it will happen.
>> - There must be a specialist somewhere in case of trouble.
>> Windows help is everywhere.
>> Good Linux help is hard to find.
>
>Nope. Good Linux help is not harder to find than good MS-help.
>Actually, oftentimes it's easier to find, if it's not an urgent
>problem. May I mention the appropriate groups in the usenet,
>mailing lists, websites?
I agree.
>
>> >- It must be payable.
>> The help?
>> Why?
>
>The whole system, hardware, OS, programs, backup strategy, and
>yes, the help too. Why? Because the small shop owner will have
>questions one day, no matter which OS. Or would you advise him to
>skip that area?
I would advise him to buy from a knowledgeable person.
>> >Let's examine these things one by one.
>> >1. Windows 9x and even NT are not really that crashproof.
>> > (Neither is a misconfigured Linux.) For one example where
>> > they failed in that area, see the URL:
>> > http://citv.unl.edu/linux/LinuxPresentation.html
>> > (The Cats Pajamas)
>> > You see, sometimes your imagination fails. :-)
>
>> It's not an imagination. I see this type of scenario every single day.
>> Any OS can and does fail.
>
>Yep, and it's a good case where the TCO is too high using MS.
>Lost work and work time is expensive.
I agree.
>> >2. This is the question with every OS. While Windows has many
>> > more applications, Linux is catching up. (and then there are
>> > programs you can only run under DOS or OS/2 or whatever)
>
>> Linux is definitely catching up, but Microsoft is also advancing.
>> The race is on. Example XFree 4.0 is only now providing things MS has
>> had for years.
>
>I hear W2K will finally more or less have an almost working
>implementation of su. Something that's been known for 30 years.
>But then each OS has it's strong and weak spots.
True and we can go feature for feature with both OS's and some things
will be important for you and others for me.
>> Still no Quicken. How many accountants are running Linux or allow
>> their clients to run it?
>
>You trust Quicken? Well, I guess you have to trust something.
It's actually a nice program.
>> >3. RH is but one example. Linux-Hotlines and support contracts
>> > are aviable everywhere by now. Even with 0900-numbers if you
>> > don't want a contract.
>
>> Just as overpriced and inept as MS's.
>
>So there's no disadvantage choosing Linux on that area, is there?
>And then there are a couple of good helplines as well (for
>example: it costs only if the problem is solved).
True. i would not advise any client to depend on support lines for
help.
>> >4. Linux wins hands down here, especially if you are bigger than
>> > 1-PC-Mom'n'Pop shop.
>
>> Doubtful at the moment. Cost is the only reason, certainly not
>> applications that a mom and pop shop would be interested in.
>
>Well, I'll let that decision to the owners of these shops.
>
>> >> Open Source way, it will steam roll Windows over time. Currently it is
>> >> not even close, and looking at the cryptic applications that folks
>> >> seem to be writing for Linux these days I doubt it ever will.
>
>> >Nobody forces you to use them. Actually, you could write a
>> >noncryptic (aka simple) wrapper GUI round them. This is of course
>> >the preferred way: Less code duplication, reuse of well tested
>> >code, choose-your-GUI.
>
>> Too many choices are confusing the issue and none of them are as
>> consistent as the Windows gui.
>
>Well, you can always use the cli, if you don't like the GUIs. Or
>you take the GUI your distributor chooses. Or the one which
>copies your current GUIs standard. (I prefer a different GUI to
>the next person, so choice is good, at least for me).
Linux offers choice, I have no complaint against that.
>> >> Meminfo? Don't we have enough of those already?
>
>> >Obviously not, else it would not have been written. Are you
>> >trying to tell people what to write? Hmmm ....
>
>> No I am showing what shows up on the home page of Freshmeat.net when a
>> Linux supporter tells someone to go there for an example of how many
>> programs are out there for Linux. Quantity maybe. Quality and useful
>> to normal folks? Debatable.
>
>Would you like to debate about the quality of GNU-tools compared
>to commercial equivalents? GNU wins hands down in flexibility
>and in crash-proof-ness. Quality in somewhat used open souce
>programs has almost always been at least as good or better than
>commercial programs.
I don't use programmer tools so I really can't comment. I will take
your word for it.
I am certainly for free, low cost software.
>If you happen not to see any use for YaMeminfo, well, there are
>thousands of Win-programs & add-on's I feel the same about. For
>example, how many skins are there for WinAmp?
Thousands I am sure. I use the default because I am too lazy to look
for others and it works for me.
>> >> GPM? I thought you guys had figured out how to use mice by now?
>
>> >Yes, you use GPM. It also does nice stuff like handle quite a
>
>> Mom and Pop will love it. While they are trying out all this great
>> stuff their business will go down the drain.
>
>As you said, they buy pre-installed. So they never need to touch
>that stuff. Or they get someone to set it up. Then it works. No
>need to touch that stuff.
true
>> >> RTP? So now I can turn my $450 Sony display into an etch-a-sketch.
>
>> >Why not? Imagine, someone might want or need that ability!
>> >Even with their $30000 extra-big flatscreens or their 3rd hand
>> >13" monitors. (But then, trolls lack imagination ...)
>
>> You still haven't given me a single reason why someone like mom and
>> pop should switch other than cost.
>
>Oh, let's assume that 'voting with ones purse' and philosophical
>or political reasons are not important to them. Well, then
>there's just the cost. Like the cost of upgrading, of vendor
>lock in (even if that's a future cost), of your program provider
>going bancrupt, of lost work over crashes, etc.
>
>In *my* eyes there's plenty reason to use Linux if you can. But
>then, that's just me.
If applications are available for both cost is really the only reason
to use Linux that I can see.
>> >> QextMDI? Yet another library that I am certain is needed somewhere and
>> >> for something.
>
>> >Are you frightened that people create stuff you don't understand?
>> >And which you probably never will use?
>> No I am saying when mom and pop go take a gander at Freshmeat.net they
>> will be very confused.
>
>Why should they wish to install any new software (apart from
>their business software, that is) at all on a *business*
>computer? Do you install every MS-program you happen to see?
>Happen to ever try and find all the drivers that works for your
>system, if you have some non-run-of-the-mill hardware?
The trick, under Windows as well as Linux is to buy supported
hardware. But is one chooses cheap crap hardware the chances are still
better that it is supported by Windows out of the box than with Linux.
Somehow that doesn't sound right ? But whatever....
>> >> This stuff is scary..It reminds me of stuff I used back in the mid
>> >> 1980's to tweak my IBMPC, like NumLockOff.
>
>> >> Absolute FlintStone period.
>
>> >Ah. I see. You also wrote at least one useful aplication. What
>> >was it called, what did it do? (After all, you did not invent a
>> >kernel for your "IBMPC", right ...?)
>
>> I didn't have to. Still don't have to.
>
>Ah, you don't "have to" (in other words cannot) write usefull
>apps. Hmmm.
Wouldn't even know where to begin.
>> See that's the problem with the
>> Linux camp you are always looking down at someone for not writing
>> code.
>
>They look down at people demanding and demanding and demanding for
>free, but never even turning in a good bug report. Well ... If
>you cannot code, you can document, write up a mini-howto or a FAQ
>... which may not be as glorious, but is just as neccessary and
>honorable.
Fair enough!
>> It is also the very reason why Linux will peak and then fall to
>> earth faster than the Hindenberg.
>
>Well, time to fresh up your history lesson.
I'm listening!
>First, you probably have heard the names "Acron" and "Macron".
>Yep, they were US-Zeppelin-plane-carriers. Both were lost over
>the sea in bad weather. The first one claimed 70ish dead (almost
>the whole crew), the second one (after being refitted when
>learning of the other's fate) only 3.
True!
>Second, at the time the Hindenb_u_rg went up in flames, no other
>airship company was even operating any more, for years. They had
>all had their desasters all over the time. Just the German
>Zeppelin Company were not having those accidents (ok, they had
>them, but not with dead or injured people), even though they had
>terrible struggles due to the aftermath of the first world war.
True again
>Third, one of the causes that the Hindenburg went up in flames was
>that it used hydrogen instead of helium. Why? Well, simply
>because helium shipments to Germany were banned. As I said, the
>aftermath of WWI. Also note that out of the 97 persons (61
>crew, 36 passengers) 62 survived.
>(http://www.iat.hs-bremen.de/argus/geschichte/ges_25_40.htm)
True again.
>So, by that comparison, Linux will fail some years after Windows
>has been given up as unsalvable. Only to be resurrected: The
>ZEPPELIN Luftschifftechnik GmbH (a subsidiary company of Zeppelin
>GmbH of 1908) have finished the passenger carrier ZEPPELIN NT (for
>New Technology)
>(http://www.iat.hs-bremen.de/argus/ausblick/ausb_zeppelin.htm) and
>are currently building the Cargo-lifter
>(http://www.iat.hs-bremen.de/argus/ausblick/ausb_cargo.htm)
>
>> >I agree that having to upgrade to switch is something you'd not
>> >like to do. But having to upgrade for Windows (which is much more
>> >likely since Linux needs comparatively little resources) is OK? I
>> >bet not! But locked in, you won't be able to help yourself ...
Nice response. I did not mean to sully the inventors of the Hindenberg
nor the passengers and crew that lost their lives. It was a very poor
choice for an analogy. I apologize...Steve
>> Upgrading programs under Windows is soooo much easier than under
>> Linux..
>
>Do you mean you just buy a new pre-installed computer?
No. Upgrading any system.
>Or do you mean that point'n'click is too complicated?
Under Windows it works. Under Linux it's a mixed bag.
>Or that the CLI: rpm -U PACKET.rpm is too complicated?
If it works and you have all of the proper dependencies.
>You seem not to have expericence with Linux here.
>
>-Wolfgang
It's been a pleasure debating with you Wolfgang. I have learned much
from you and thank you for that.
Sincerely,
Steve
------------------------------
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 (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Mon, 20 Mar 2000 04:05:51 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:00:49 -0500, Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>George Marengo wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:18:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >
>> >>Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill
>> >>off OS/2 is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
>> >
>> >I agree, but I also think -- in light of what has come out at the M$ antitrust
>> >trial, that there are many, many dirty deeds committed by M$, as well as
>> >mis-information and lies spread by Ziff-Davis and others -- that had just
>> >a large an impact on OS2, as anything that IBM did or didn't do.
>>
>> Maybe... but's it was very hard to tell anyone that they should get
>> OS/2 when IBM itself loaded Windows as the default with the option
>> of loading OS/2 when it should have been the other way.
>
>No need to play dumb about preloading.
>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3900/3932.htm
I realize that preloading OS/2 would have meant that IBM would
basically be unable to offer Windows machines at price competitive
points, but they should have thought that one through before
proceeding with OS/2. Were they going to get wholly behind it
or just do a half-assed job? They chose the latter.
>It's hard to tell anyone they should get Windows after reading
>about MS's contempt for consumers.
I ask them what they want to do with their computer. If it's surfing
the web, they don't need Windows. If it's to run specific software
like TurboTax, Quicken, and Word, they do.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
