Linux-Advocacy Digest #256, Volume #26 Tue, 25 Apr 00 12:13:40 EDT
Contents:
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: Factory pre-installed Linux. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: i cant blieve you people!! (Kim A. Sommer)
Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I ("Michael J. Burns")
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...) (John Jensen)
Re: Is Linux like IRIX??Helpp (JEDIDIAH)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (JEDIDIAH)
Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...) (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: 25 Apr 2000 10:28:21 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
s_Ea_DAag0n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>Yep.. no such thing as Windows "rescue disks" at all.
>
>Sure there are. Windows makes you create one when you install it.
But, if your NTFS install is corrupted you can't fix it that way.
>>Could've booted off a CD too.
>
>No I couldn't have. I don't have a CD-ROM drive on that computer. Does Linux
>support netbooting yet or is it still stuck in the 1960's?
The sparc version will do a network boot. I don't if the alpha supports
it. On i386 you need a custom ROM on a network card to do it.
How did you load the system in the first place if you don't have
something bootable? And what happens if you repeat that process
and select 'upgrade' instead of install?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Factory pre-installed Linux.
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:37:21 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 09:33:31 -0500, Mr. Rupert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>mlw wrote:
>>
>> OK, lets say we can get some OEM's to do a good job at factory
>> pre-installation. The box arrives at the door, excited, happy user
>> connects the color coded wires, and violla! It boots. What should that
>> user see?
>>
>> What kind of startup screen? Presumably an initial startup program that
>> creates a new user name and password? Music?
>>
>> Here is a list of "pre-configured" apps that must be setup and ready to
>> function:
>>
>> Applix or StarOffice (Depending on the kind of deal you can get)
>> Netscape, of course. With Shockwave and RealAudio
>> KDE and/or Gnome (I prefer KDE)
>> AcrobatReader
>> Java
>> Modem setup and configured.
>> PPP dialup ready to go with modem and dhcp.
>> Sound card setup and configured.
>> Video setup and configured.
>> Optional network, setup and configured.
>>
>> All the mime-types have to be configured.
>> All the file types have to have icons.
>> The user must be able to "click" on a file and start the correct
>> application.
>> It all should have the commercial quality fit and finish of a fully
>> configured system.
>>
>> Are the KDE or GNOME program menus sufficient, or should the OEM
>> rearrange them to a more logical order? The default menus I see are
>> biased toward the Window manager, not necessarily ordered as an end user
>> would like.
>>
>> What are the best multimedia programs?
>>
>> Would anyone care if we mixed and matched Gnome and KDE applications?
>>
>> Any suggestions?
>>
>
>
>Sounds like you just described Win98 minus the multi-media features. Do you
>really want Linux to be the next Win98? Is that the goal?
The world could sorely use Win98 replaced by something more reliable.
NeXT or MacOS would both fit the bill nicely but there's that stiff
entry price that Apple has always insisted on subjecting customers too.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kim A. Sommer)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: i cant blieve you people!!
Date: 25 Apr 2000 10:46:57 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In <8e378b$5jv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, steve jobsniak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>|i cant believe you peolpe... micorsoft is going down, taking the rest of
>|the tech stocks down alogn with it, and you folks are
>|*happy*!!! will you only be happy when the entire stock market
>|crashess, taking the economy, your job, and preciuos apple with it???
>|of course you'll change you're minds then, but why not change your mind
>|now WHILE YOU CAN STILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE and keep it from happening?
>
>Steve,
>
>How can you be so simple minded? Don't you realize that the real
>problem is that Gates is willing to see the entire economy suffer
>rather than compromise... or even, just "play well with others"?
[snip]
>The quetion you should be asking is: Why won't Gates & Co. cut a
>deal with the DOJ? Don't these guys have faith in their own
>products and technologies to succeed in the marketplace without the
>boost of their monopolistic practices?
I'm still surprised the MS stockholders haven't raised a fuss with the
board for not settling the case out of court. That seems to be a prime
example of not protecting the shareholders' interests. But then maybe
hypnotism really does work.
FWIW
Kim
--
=======
Kim A. Sommer
Humans do it Better! The Open Directory Project - http://dmoz.org
------------------------------
From: "Michael J. Burns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be pronounced with a long I
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 21:44:36 GMT
Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:8dvvoo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:>
:> So it doesn't have the same vowel sound as in the first syllable of
:> "Windows." It's bad enough they have to share a consonant.
: Doesn't Linus pronounce it Leenuucks?
: Maybe it should be Leenuck, so it doesn't even share an 's'?
: -- But then people would switch to Windows, because it's plural. --
Linus uses the long sound in Swedish. So, it seems that the long sound is
called for in English as well.
--
Michael J. Burns http://www.indirect.com/www/mburns/
"We are such stuff "Oh brave new world,
As dreams are made on, and our little life That has such people in't!"
Is rounded with a sleep."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:47:53 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:42:45 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Quality is not the issue here usability is.
>>
>> That is how one typically judges 'desktop quality'. This is
>> why Microsoft is a featured OS at the user interface hall of
>> shame. They implemented a poor copy of other's work (MacOS,
>> NeXT, OS/2).
>
>The price of the product, availability of the applications, ease of use,
Point A has little to nothing to do with quality. It's a completely
orthogonal issue. Point B is disputable. The end user doesn't need
EVERYthing. This is fortunate, as the nature of the WinTel market
tends to force one away from the bulk of the significant choices
anyways.
(oops, you wanted to use WordPro: sorry, the collective doesn't
like that)
>etc, has more to do with the user's choice than the quality in itself.
>
>> >Sour grapes, pulling the uptime card again? Do you need the advantages of
>> >clustered environment spelled out?
>>
>> As an admin, I'm more concerned about downtime than I am speed.
>> While speed (or rather) responsiveness is certainly a concern,
>> it is far more damaging to be unavailable to users, or to lose
>> transactions. Clustering a DB has it's own constraints.
>
>And as an admin for a web site with 15 NT 4.0 servers I'm yet to see
15 to 1.
Geez.
...talk about poor WinTel TCO.
>downtime on any of my servers. That's not to say that I'm not concerned at
>all, but I'm more concerned about the security of the site than anything
>else. The site also has a clustered SQL 7.0 database and didn't notice any
>constraints.
>
>> >And that "good chunk" is what, 5%?
>>
>> They're big enough to be in the top vendor list for the US.
>> While the number may seem small represented as a percentage,
>> it still represents a considerable market.
>
>The question is that will the software companies write programs for that
>platform? Most of them aren't willing to take the risks and do so. That's
Software companies are already writing for various platforms.
It's happening already to some degree. The great lie is that
it isn't. The more subtle FUD is the implication that for any
arbitrary user it won't be sufficient.
>not to say that there isn't any, there are, but the majority is quite
>satisfied with one platform. Financially it is more profitable to develop a
The majority is not free to voice their dissatisfaction and never
has percieved themselves to be. There is no need for an end user
to be aware that while they are using one OS, their friends are
using another. This distinction only serves to make a limited number
of people more powerful.
>program for the largest segment of the market, than for the arguably minor
>desktop segment.
>
>>
>> If 5% of otherwise WinTel users could do without (microsoft),
>> then whynot 10% perhaps, or 20% perhaps or even more.
>
>Perhaps one day it will be possible, provided that financially the Apple
>platform will be equal to Wintel. Otherwise the majority of the end users
It's possible already. It's quite obvious and right there in the
sales figures. It's also quite verifiable for Linux as well. Both
have seen a sudden growth on the desktop this year.
>will differentiate based upon their wallet, as it has been in the past.
>
>> >And most of those companies are just like Corel, which tried to
>revitalize
>> >their WorldPerfect by making it available for Linux. After it bombed on
>the
>> >Windows platform.
>>
>> It didn't quite so much bomb as it was a casualty in the Microsoft
>> hegemony game.
>
>That's arguable at best. Even under Linux I prefer StarOffice 5.1 over
Considering just how feebly MS Shills defend their pet word processor,
its not at all demonstrated that msoffice posseses any characteristic
(relevant to the vast majority of end users) beyond the perception of
being a predominant or microsoft product that can't be matched by any
other office suite.
>WorldPerfect. At least it's free vs. whatever Corel costs. And this fact in
>itself goes back to what I said earlier. For most people the cost of the PC
>and the applications does matter a great deal when all things are pretty
>much equal.
Except all things have never been equal. There have always been
artificial compatibility constraints preventing end users from
acting and buying freely.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:54:37 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:07:12 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >If that's all what it takes someone from trying another OS, then so be
>it.
>> >Anyone can freely install other OSs, it's up to the end user and not
>> >Microsoft. For that matter Linux is supposedly is free and yet most of
>the
>>
>> That's extremely disengenuous. For one, one is stiffed for
>> 'the original OS'. Then, one has to have the desire to do
>> the gruntwork one's self. That has typically never been the
>> case in even the WinDOS market and Monopolysoft has exploited
>> that fact.
>
>One would be stiffed for the 'the original OS', if the person has no
>interest in any other OS. There are other platforms, like Apple, Linux, etc,
Considering how feeble Win98, even compared to other Microsoft
product, this is very likely to be the case. Even Win32 users
suffer from the DOS hegemony. This is rather ironic.
>available pre-installed next to Windows. Not to mention the fact that one
>could buy a PC without any OS pre-installed. However, most people don't have
That too requires the end user to be their own mechanic.
>the desire or time to tinker with alternative operating systems
There is a considerable difference between merely using an OS and
installing it. This is another aspect of systems that MS Shills
love to misrepresent.
.
>
>> >> Linux doesn't have to spread FUD to keep it's users around,
>> >> because the number of users is already rising every day!
>> >
>> >And pretty soon it'll reach the market share of Windows3.11. WOW, big
>@#$%
>> >deal!!!!
>> [deletia]
>>
>> It's NTs marketshare that Linux is most likely to overtake.
>
>The area where Linux gaining market share is the server market at the
>expense of Unix and Novell. The latest pecking order from IDC, NT, Linux,
>Unix, and Novell, seems to confirm this fact.
So? That still leaves NT in a potential minority position in the
market: beaten by a volunteer effort. Whereas the Unixen always
remain a very short migration away from Linux. That leaves Unix
with a stronghold that it can use to further undermine competitors
in other markets.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: John Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective... (was Re: Forget buying drestin UNIX...)
Date: 25 Apr 2000 15:57:36 GMT
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: : Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly, has been proven to use its monopoly
: : position to hurt competition. It is a perfectly reasonable and rational
: : position to avoid MS for that sort of behavior in an attempt to effect
: : change.
: Honestly, I find it very odd that a member of a community that purports to
: advocate "free thinking" and such follows the government with such fervor.
: Am I the only one who thinks this is a tad hypocritical?
Sadly, you are not alone.
It pains me to answer, but if you are speaking "honestly" I suppose I
must. The idea is that a restriction on a specific freedom may protect
greater freedoms. It is obviously a difficult balance, which is why our
governments have this incredible complexity of legislative, executive, and
judicial instruments.
The textbook example of such a restriction is the regulation against
shouting "fire!" in a crowded movie house. It is an injuction against
your freedom, but is considered to protect the rest of the patrons.
The question of how to balance the freedoms of a successful business and
the freedoms of the remainder of society was never simple. The current
body of antitrust law is simply our best approximation of that balance.
Intelligent discussion might be possible on what the nature of that
balance should be, but to simply suggest that "free thinking" is
incompatible with government is perposterous, and probably irrational.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Is Linux like IRIX??Helpp
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:56:55 GMT
On 25 Apr 2000 06:33:35 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I'm probaly buying a sgi Indy that has IRIX 6.5 preloaded and I was wondering
>> if anyone knew how closely Linux and IRIX are in using them (commands etc)
>> Thanks for the help probaly the wrong N/G but you guys are way smart. Thanks
>> and sorry for wasting the bandwidth.
>
>IMHO, theres not much of a point of running an SGI machine unless you're
>going to run IRIX. Did any sort of graphics software come pre-loaded?
...depends on the SGI machine.
There are certainly SGI's for which the value of dumping the SGI
licence manager would make a Linux installation more than worthwhile.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 15:58:41 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 10:13:15 +0100, David Faure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>David Steuber wrote:
>> If you want to argue about which Corba ORB to standardize on, that is
>> an entirely different ball of wax. I think that it would be good to
>> have either one ORB or have Corba servers and clients work with all
>> ORBs. Then you can drag a file from KFM and drop it on GIMP to edit
>> it or whatever. Maybe you can already do that. I haven't tried it.
>CORBA has nothing to do with Drag and drop. You can't drag from KFM and
>drop on gimp, but you can drag from konqueror and drop on gimp, since
>Qt 2.x / KDE 2.x use the XDND protocol.
[deletia]
The Gimp should have access to xdnd.
Just because an application programmer has access to all the bells
and whistles, it doesn't mean that the programmer will use them.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Date: 25 Apr 2000 10:50:36 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
s_Ea_DAag0n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 25 Apr 2000 01:40:14 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [About one vendor supplying remote stuff]
>
>This is still not a technical answer. It might make sense for the
>accountants to insure that we are not tied in to one vendor, but
>technical people do not judge design quality by the number of
>vendors who support the thing.
I don't understand what the accountant has to do with whether
it runs on my Sun workstation or not. Please explain.
>Also, it's not true remote Windows must be done from a Windows
>client. There are definitely products to do it from Unix. Of course you
>will discount this because they are not bundled with the non-Windows
>systems. I could argue just as persuasively that X is not a standard
>too since it requires an extra product for non-Unix clients.
Not on the server side.
>Basically, your point is that Windows does not have remote tools
>because:
>
>(a) Microsoft did not invent Terminal Server.
And they built something that could not be managed remotely without
it.
> But the Unix people did not invent X. Invention has nothing to
> do with what is in the product.
But they did not build a product that required third-party tools
just for nomal operation without someone directly in front
of a locally attached console.
>(b) It requires an add-on tool which costs many.
It points out that they do not understand many of the
normal uses for computers. Servers, data collection,
and all sorts of other tasks do not require a local
console. Building a multi-user machine that can be
used only by one nearby user is useless as well.
> On many commercial Unix's, X was an add-on tool which required
> an extra license and software package. On Linux it is an extra
> package, included with the distribution (along with word processors,
> spread sheets, and music editing programs, which as we all know
> are part of the base OS). Indeed, if you have a non-standard video
> card you will need to pay for an X server which runs on your
> computer, further demonstrating that X is also an add-on product to
> Linux.
Don't be silly - it is possible to run headless Linux boxes and
almost all non-PC unix platforms work fine without a local console.
>(c) It is not accessible from non-Windows hosts.
>
> Incorrect, as there are other products to this. While this requires
> the installation of special packages, X is not accessible out of the
> box on non-Unix clients without special packages on the client either.
X is pretty much irrelevant to the issue. Unix/Linux has it, it's
nice, but it really has nothing to do with the fact that Windows
is unmanagable with its included tools.
>(d) Text tools are not support
>
> You are aware than fully functiional telnetd implementations are
> avaialble for Windows, correct?
Yes. I'm also aware that almost none of the native windows programs
work in text mode. How do you get the data from perfmon, for
example?
> Of course you will discount these,
> because they are extra products, while conveniently ignoring the fact
> that on many Unix's TCP/IP itself is an extra product which is installed
> separately and paid for extra than the base system.
Umm, what century was that?
>Have I forgotten any?
Try managing a bunch of remote machines and you will find out.
>>Before X, there was no need for a remote graphic tool. Everything
>>was remote serial terminal or character mode telnet sessions. Most
>>early unix boxes didn't have anything like a built in console so
>>it was all remote and had no concept of being limited to one special
>>terminal.
>
>Incorrect. There were many non-X based graphics programs before X.
>One was Sun's NeWS, and there were many other, long forgotten ones
>also.
But they weren't required for control of the machine, and in general
they worked just fine remotely.
>>Win3.x didn't. Win95 didn't. Win98 doesn't. How many copies of
>>NT are out there with terminal services anyway?
>
>Who the fuck uses Windows 3.x/95/98? I am not interested in discussing
>these. Please keep your comments limited to NT/2000. For crying out loud.
That's funny, especially after the comment about unixes without tcp.
But perhaps you would like to supply us with the real numbers
of people using 95/98 vs. NT server/2000 server (TS doesn't run
on workstation, does it?).
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:03:07 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 23:58:35 -0400, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:00:07 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8dub6v$pl2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >>
>> >> >Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> It must work then 8)
>> >> >
>> >> >Yeah... but do you expect everything weird to work on Linux? Remenber
>> >> >that hardware producents have their eye on Windows. Its easy.. never
>buy
>> >> >a PC if its components are not supported by Linux.
>> >>
>> >> For Linux to catchup and overtake Windows, yes.
>> >>
>> >> Both the AHA1520B and the SB16 are supported devices.
>> >
>> >SB 16 i have and it works without problems.... actually i remenber having
>> >problems installing it but dont remenber how i solved it.
>>
>> I think the critical issue here might be ISA PnP. I've always
>> avoided it like the plague (to my benefit). My SB16/IDE (nonpnp)
>> works just fine & has been chugging along since it was in the 486.
>>
>
>You have a firm grasp of the obvious ;o)
>
>My whole point was that the SB-16 PnP loses its settings every time it is
>inited, and must be configured either by a PnP BIOS (which I don't believe
Pseudo PNP cards are like that. That's why many of us avoid them
like the plague, tell others to do so, and then make fun of people
who haven't. ISA should have been put out of it's misery a long
time ago. The market should have put it out of it's misery a long
time ago.
Except people kept buying the damn things...
...as well as motherboards with too few PCI slots.
[deletia]
If you've got the PCI slots, you can simply avoid the hassle.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: "Technical" vs. "Non-technical"... (was Re: Grasping perspective...)
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 16:09:03 GMT
On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 08:42:14 GMT, s_Ea_DAag0n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am sorry that you do not believe me, but I can definitely assure
>you that I _have_ been cancel-botted for all of Usenet from posting to
>this newsgroup in the past.
It seems more likely that people have put you in their score files than
there's a "cabal" run from LNUX headquarters that's trying to silence you.
>If I didn't change my address regularly, you wouldn't hear from me again,
>not because I gave up, but because I have been silenced.
What you really mean is that people get fed up with you and put you in
their score files. Eventually nobody is listening. Changing your address
all the time gets around this.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.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
******************************
