Linux-Advocacy Digest #306, Volume #26 Sat, 29 Apr 00 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work. ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work. (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: KDE is better than Gnome (Chris Vine)
Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft. (Kevin Huber)
Re: Beer Tosser a Sabre Fan? Nope. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: So what is wrong with X? ("Mike")
Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (2:1)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (mlw)
Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows) (mlw)
Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft. (mlw)
Re: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work. (abraxas)
Advocay off the Net. (Ali Hamisheh-Bahar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work.
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 19:20:58 +1000
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ee05h$sen$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher, it's happening again! :-P
<Looks in the other direction>.
So, miserable whether we've been having, isn't it ?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work.
Date: 29 Apr 2000 10:10:15 GMT
In article <8ee05h$sen$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> John Jensen wrote:
>> > I get a big kick out of Linux right now, partly because
>> > a parade like this doesn't come through town every day.
>> > (This five year window isn't going to happen for another
>> > OS anytime soon.)
>In short, I do not think it is accurate to equate "Linux"
>with "UNIX", as Linux was written from scratch, and does
>not really have any direct descendence from either BSD or
>SVR4, as do most other UNIX variants
This has no relevance to the acceptance, usefulness, or
reliability of Linux. And, as has been noted, Linux is
often more compatible with the various types of "real" Unix
than they are with each other.
>That fads definitely suck people in. While I myself
>do not like Linux at all, I will acquiesce in saying
>that it is indeed quite useful. However, what makes
>you believe that people swarming all over Linux is
>any less silly than people swarming all over Windows
>v3? Most of the non-technical users of Linux are
>not using it because they need it. They are using
>it because it's cool to use it, and many of them
>oddly perceive themselves to be "smarter" simply by
>using it. It's pretty sad when people define their
>own aptitudes by the operating system they use, but
>they often do so nevertheless. :-\
This is totally a fabrication by Stephen Edwards for the
purpose of anti-Linux propaganda. Linux users everywhere
*say* that they use it because it's more reliable, more
versatile, and more elegant -- pleasing to the eye and the
mind -- than MS Windows.
For Edwards to claim, without any proof whatsoever, that
they really use it because of some other reason, is very
simply a lie. It's one of his favorite lies, which he
repeats frequently.
The intended effect of Edwards' lie is obviously to dispar-
age Linux users as neurotic egotists in the eyes of the
Usenet audience, so that members of the audience will not
want to associate with them, and therefore will be discour-
aged from using Linux.
Edwards has never revealed why he posts so much lying propa-
ganda, for so many months, designed to keep people away from
Linux (and thus to keep them with Microsoft).
>UNIX operating systems are the best solution for people
>who need a very flexible and configurable environment,
>that gives a lot of conceptual freedom, and because of this,
>it is impractical for most consumers, as all they wish to
>do usually are light tasks, such as internet access, or
>writing papers, or playing games, etc.
Note Edwards' elitism here -- he claims that it is
"impractical" for "most consumers" to use an OS that is
flexible, configurable, and provides a lot of freedom.
If he meant that it is simply more than they need, that
would not make it impractical. The only thing he can mean
here is that "most consumers" are not intelligent or edu-
cated enough to deal with such an OS. Of course he consid-
ers *himself* to be sufficiently intelligent and educated
to do so.
By contrast, Linux advocates believe that most people *are*
intelligent enough to deal with an OS that provides a lot
of facilities and areas of choice. While the Microsoft
propagandists claim that users run screaming when presented
with a command line -- in fact they have been *instructed*
to do so by years of Microsoft advertising -- in actuality
they handle it very easily, just as they did when they used
PC-DOS a few years ago (or Unix at work).
>In other words, Linux isn't gaining ground on its own
>merit. It's gaining it on hype, just like Windows v3
>did (and yes, Windows v3 did suck very badly).
Edwards reiterates his Big Lie.
>> Especially when practically every corporate database server runs on
>> either mainframes or Unix...and practically every CAD/CAM/CAE
>> workstation runs Unix..
>
>Most of the largest corporate databases do run on
>UNIX operating systems, yes. And, there are quite
>a few CAD systems out there that still run on UNIX
>OSen as well.
He means "still run *only* on UNIX".
However, WindowsNT has a permanent
>prescence in the graphics marketplace, especially
>where 3D graphics is concerned.
>...
>> The REAL work in this country is done on Unix.
>
>Ah, I love it when people use the word "real" in
>conjunction with "work". :-) Matt Templeton did
>this once. It was a riot.
>
>Please, Aaron, quantify the word "real" for us.
>
>Does "real" mean "the work that only very intelligent
>people can handle doing", or does "real" mean
>"tangible, and percievable"?
>
>I think that in your mind, it's the prior.
Edwards invents a stupid idea, and then claims without any
evidence that the person he's arguing against secretly
believes that idea.
This is why knowledge of propaganda techniques is so impor-
tant. Once a particular technique becomes recognizable by
habit, its actual uses are laughably absurd and ineffective.
>I really do get a kick out of UNIX snobbery. It's
>very amusing at times.
Again, Edwards has invented this "UNIX snobbery" himself.
It exists *inside* his head, not outside it, but he's
trying to convince the audience of its existence in order
to frighten them away from Unix (Linux) people.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Vine)
Crossposted-To: comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: KDE is better than Gnome
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 11:29:23 GMT
On Thu, 27 Apr 2000 03:00:00 GMT, David Steuber
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>From the developer's point of view, you have Qt vs GTK. Now you have
>something to argue about. Qt is a cathedral, GTK is a bazaar. Also,
>GTC is C, Qt is C++. I am aware that GTK has a set of C++ wrappers.
>I am also aware of the linkage difficulties with C++. I prefer Qt. I
>like to have the facilities that C++ offers me. The Qt library is a
>bit strange with its macro extensions. However, the way Trolltech has
>done it seems less evil than the way Microsoft did MFC. Anyway, going
>back to plain C would be painful for me. So I use Qt.
The latest version of the gtk-- wrappers (gtkmm-1.2) is becoming
pretty usable. The libsigc++ library looks particularly nice - what I
suspect troll would have done (when they developed the meta object
compiler) if the compilers/standards were then available to support
it.
It is worth downloading libsigc++ and taking a look at it - it shows
what can be achieved using some of the features now made available by
Std-C++. Like you, I also find it difficult to understand why people
should want to write GUI applications the hard way using C when a C++
compiler will do a lot of the work for you.
The main problem with gtk-- is the documentation. It is quite hard to
dig out what is there: and of course it is not supported in the way
that Qt as a commercial product is.
It is also a pity that people post trolls (the other kind) with titles
like this.
Chris.
--
If replying by e-mail, remove the --nospam--
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft.
From: Kevin Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 Apr 2000 07:45:29 -0500
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Nor does he want the prize. He's a capitalist, not a
> communist, he simply wants to make money and be
> successful like any other red blooded American.
Gee, and I thought the "red blooded American" way was to thwart
tyranny.
I read a political essay recently which is pretty interesting if you
replace "King of Great Britain" with "Bill Gates" and "their former
Systems of Government" with "Microsoft". Excerpt below.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably
the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such
has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of
Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a
history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct
object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To
prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
--The Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776
-Kevin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Beer Tosser a Sabre Fan? Nope.
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 14:03:59 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 28 Apr 2000 21:44:01 +0500...
...and Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>>> "Matthias" == Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > IMHO, it should be possible to run a package installer without
> > human intervention so it can just run (all night if
> > necessary). The Right Thing to do would be to have RPM batch up
> > the requests to the admin somehow and let them process them
> > whenever they want. This could be done via e-mail.
>
> SuSE does this in their distribution for important messages about
> packages in the post installation script of the RPM's.
I know :) This is where I got my inspiration from. But the package
installer could do far more, i.e. process the administrator's replies
to its mails to set passwords etc.
mawa
--
Get up.
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So what is wrong with X?
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 14:11:02 GMT
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stephen Cornell wrote:
> >
> > mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > What I am suggesting is that the `X-client/X-server' division of
> > labour is too unequal, and that a `remote server/local not-too-thin
> > client' approach leads to much less wasted bandwidth. I know this is
> > nothing new, and I also know that this approach can be (and is) used
> > with applications that run under X. However, as far as I know there
> > is no standard protocol (API?) for creating GUIs in this way, so
> > programmers are not encouraged to write most software according to
> > this model.
> Actually, I found your message very well thought out, however, a remote
> Windowing environment such as X (terminal server too!) either have to
> support regular applications or "special" applications coded for
> remoteness. Perhaps it is possible to make "remote aware" optimized
> programs, but I digress.
> You talk about the client end picking up more of the processing. Perhaps
> sending and receiving meta information about what the user wants, having
> the server provide the information whilst the client handles the whole
> presentation end. This sort of remote server you are talking about is
> very well represented by a web browser.
But a web browser doesn't go far enough. It connects to remote machines very
nicely, and exchanges meta-information. But to support client-server
applications, the client would specify which application the server should
run, and the server would start it and provide the communication channel to
the client.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft.
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 14:40:26 GMT
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Linus just wants to take over the world as part of his
> > master plan. He seems bent on destroying Microsoft and
> > indoctrinating all his croonies to do the same.
>
> And here we find the very nub of chad's argument from the
> very beginning.
>
> Thanks for summing it up, chad.
>
> -----yttrx
It's Linus's "MASTER PLAN". YES Chad! The "MASTER PLAN"!
Here! Allow me to introduce yet another phrase from another
famous Texan Chad, "IT WILL BE A NEW WORLD ORDER!"
"IT IS A NEW WORLD ORDER!" That was from former president
Tree.
Why do I have the feeling I'm dealing with like a 14 year old
boy who's just discovered himself in the bathtub?
That's what I sense every time I read one of Chad's INFAMOUS
bulletins.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 15:45:17 +0100
Mike Palmer wrote:
>
> "Mark Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> at Gnome are working on a printing API which is different from the printing
> API that KDE has or is working on. Help systems, clipboards, and so on: all
Why do they need a new printing API? Wouldn't postscript be better,
since it is already very widely supported (especially if you have
GhostScript).
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 10:46:51 -0400
Streamer wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > It's comming folks!
> >
> > Just look at all the little Wintroll's.
> >
> > They are so angry.
> >
> > I think that's just too bad.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> Well, I should receive my Applixware 5.0 today. I have 4.4.1 and I
> already know it is superior to MS Office, includes more, and is much
> cheaper than M$O. At least I know I can trust the software much better
> than M$O.
>
> Personally, I'm looking forward to the competition and Linux programs
> much better than the M$ standards. <Who made M$ standards the yardstick
> to measure by anyways?>
I use Applix, and I think it is one of the best office packages I have
ever used. You simultaneously get the feeling you are working with a
simple, light weight tool which is responsive, yet at the same time
would be hard pressed to find something you could do with MS office
which you could not be done in Applix.
The UI is not IBM CUI, but I guess that's changing in version 5. The 5.0
beta looks very good.
So, my Linux buddies really really like Applix too. Once they use it,
even though StarOffice is free, they are willing to buy Applix. That, to
me, says a lot.
So, I know of no Windows user that would pay for MS office, only users
that use it because it comes with the machine or "have to have it, and
the companies paying" and I know linux users that user star office
because it comes with RedHat. The fantastic thing I see happening is, I
have seen Linux users with Star Office buying Applix because it is
"better." I have seen developers, with both a Windows NT box and a Linux
box on their desk, the Linux box has Star Office, and the NT box has MS
Office, go out and buy Applix with their own money.
If Applix could do a better job marketing, in a few years, the DOJ could
be after them too. That would be cool.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opensource rumors (Microsoft Windows)
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 10:57:41 -0400
Bastian wrote:
>
> On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:26:25 GMT, Andy Micheals wrote:
> >
> > Have been to discussion groups and recently heard the idea tossed
> >around about Microsoft looking at the possible situation of making
> >windows 98 into an open source os, their way of punishing the feds and
> >torpedoing the competition; What do you think!
> >
> > Andy Micheals
>
> I think, M$'s source code will be called the "Joke of the Week", because
> all people will laugh about how badly it is written. And when everyone
> can see what badly-coded OS they're using, they'll switch to another one,
> which certainly prevents M$ from releasing the Windoze source.
> Believe me, they won't release it!
>
> Bastian
There are other issues as well, comments like these will be made public:
"/* This should break lotus 123 */"
"/* Hack to allow powerpoint to access private bitmaps */"
"/* This should break notes */"
"/* NSA paid big bucks to this back-door */"
"/* netscape engineers are weenies */"
"/* This is a big ugly hack, fix it in next version? */"
or code fragments like:
// if(height > 480 || width > 640)
// if(height > 600 || width > 800)
// if(height > 768 || width > 1024)
if(height > 2048 || width > 2048)
{
/* No one has a screen this big. */
return FAILED;
}
Yup, I think I would like to see the source, if only for the hours of
laughs that would be provided by looking through it.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft.
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 11:23:29 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > And allow me to just say that Bill Gates will never
> > be awarded the prize.
>
> Nor does he want the prize. He's a capitalist, not a
> communist, he simply wants to make money and be
> successful like any other red blooded American.
>
> > After all, you have to actually help people to
> > be awarded the prize.
>
> Of course, Gates just wanted to make a good product,
> sell lots of it and make money and be successful.
Wrong, Gates wanted a computer on every desktop, and Microsoft software
in every computer. When he said this we was serious.
>
> Linus just wants to take over the world as part of his
> master plan. He seems bent on destroying Microsoft and
> indoctrinating all his croonies to do the same.
Linus used the words "World Domination" in a false bravado as a joke.
Even he did not believe what he was saying. It is like me when asked in
a job interview, "What to you want to make" I usually say, "A Million
dollars a year." Then we negotiate down. At some point I may need to
adjust this up.
>
> Simply look at the subject of this topic to see how
> ludicrous and diabolical it is.
>
> > Congradulations Linus.
>
> Hail Der Fuhrer!
One should know better than to liken anyone to Hitler.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work.
Date: 29 Apr 2000 15:47:23 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux was first released to the public in 1991 or 1992,
> IIRC. While BSD/SVR4 UNIX variants have been around for
> about 30 years, Linux in particular has not.
Can you name any legitimate BSD/SVR4 variants that exist
*right now* that can claim closer lineage than linux?
If you use your brain to think about the knowledge that youve
harvested from your box, edward, and then add some real world
experience to that, you can have your OWN OPINION.
Heres mine:
Linux from the very beginning was meant to be a 'unix-like
operating system for the x86 platform'. And thats exactly
what it was, back in the beginning. Now, IMHO, it is a
unix-like operating system for x86, strongarm, PPC, sparc
(and ultra), RS6000 and lots and lots of other platforms.
The argument here is exactly what makes it 'unix like'.
> Linux is a UNIX-workalike. If you have a look at "The
> Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating
> System" (I cannot recall the publisher off hand), you'll
> see that their ancestry tree places Linux on its own
> branch.
Add some real-world experience to that and you might just have
an argument.
> In short, I do not think it is accurate to equate "Linux"
> with "UNIX",
I think that its just as valid to equate linux with UNIX as it
is to equate Solaris or FreeBSD with UNIX at this point. Theyre
all wild variations from the bsd-sys5 originals.
> as Linux was written from scratch,
Not exactly from 'scratch'.
> and does
> not really have any direct descendence from either BSD or
> SVR4, as do most other UNIX variants (ex: FreeBSD is
> directly derived from 4.4BSD Lite).
Have you ever actually USED freebsd?
> In other words, Linux isn't gaining ground on its own
> merit. It's gaining it on hype, just like Windows v3
> did (and yes, Windows v3 did suck very badly).
And 95, and 98, and NT, and 2000...
>> Especially when practically every corporate database server runs on
>> either mainframes or Unix...and practically every CAD/CAM/CAE
>> workstation runs Unix..
> Most of the largest corporate databases do run on
> UNIX operating systems, yes. And, there are quite
> a few CAD systems out there that still run on UNIX
> OSen as well. However, WindowsNT has a permanent
> prescence in the graphics marketplace, especially
> where 3D graphics is concerned.
As a poser and wireframe modeler. It does light-medium 3d effects
rather nicely. The heavy stuff is never more than posed and framed
on NT.
> It is rare to find
> a 3D application that runs on UNIX, and not on
> WindowsNT.
Flame, TOREX, Amani, Turbo Silver [sic]. In short, all of the
*really* good ones.
> Even programs such as BMRT, and
> Radiance have been ported. In fact, nearly every
> single high-end Hollywood studio uses both WindowsNT
> and Silicon Graphics boxen, and they have done so for
> years. WindowsNT is typically used for modeling, where
> the SGI workstations are used for rendering,
And high end modeling. In-line editing (additive) is almost
always done with SGI machines when one is working with celluloid
resolution.
> due to
> their immense speed advantage over Intel hardware.
Its not just a speed advantage. Drivers for very specific (and
some would say unique) graphics hardware simply do not exist for
NT.
>> What does this tell you?
> That perhaps you need to do a little more research
> on the 3D graphics industry before you comment on it.
> :-)
I'm familiar with the hardware utilized by a couple of the 'big boys'
of CG-effects and processing, and although windows NT is admittedly
widely used in this regard, they wouldnt be out of business if NT
suddenly stopped existing tomorrow.
They WOULD be out of business if SGI/IRIX did.
> I think that in your mind, it's the prior. I
> really do get a kick out of UNIX snobbery. It's
> very amusing at times.
We're simply more intelligent than habitual windows users.
> BTW, my WindowsNT box is doing plenty of work
> with Lightwave 6 as I type this.
Lightwave 6? Kidstuff...:)
Babylon 5 was alright, I suppose....for 640x480 in analog...
> My IRIS Indigo
> is also parsing some detailed Radiance files. My
> NetBSD box is busy offsetting the odd and even
> fields on a very large batch of frames of animation.
Working on a used car lot commercial are ya?
> Aaron, would you please tell me which one of
> these machines is doing the "real" work? Golly,
> I just can't seem to tell!
> --
Well, real in this case could be synonymous with 'important'.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Ali Hamisheh-Bahar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Advocay off the Net.
Date: 29 Apr 2000 10:54:50 -0500
Hi all,
I admit that I do not usually frequent advocacy groups. IMHO, it's
akin to 'preaching to the converted'. And every once in a while,
FUD-posters stir up everybody into a pointless frenzy.
I had CNN on this morning (I apologize in advance ;-), and noticed
that some calls/emails were taken in response to the news of M$'s
proposed breakup. Almost all were disapproving because they felt that
M$ is innovating and they could not understand what they'd gain with a
breakup.
To my mind, our job is to inform the _public_ now. Regardless of what
potential efficacy Government's action may have, this is the time for
us to put forth our argument. This is the time when the public is
listening.
Most end-users have not experienced anything but M$. If you've never
experienced power, you don't know what you're missing. To that end, we
should call the call-in programs, and write to regular
newspapers. It's _public_ opinion that matters now ... and they're not
on this NG.
later,
ali
--
UNIX: designed by programmers, for programmers.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
