Linux-Advocacy Digest #570, Volume #26 Thu, 18 May 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why do I need Linux? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (Craig Kelley)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Matt Gaia)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Craig Kelley)
Your office and Linux. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re:
The "outlook" for kooks) (Gerben Bergman)
Re: The future of operating systems and applications? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:03:06 GMT
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> : Sam wrote:
> : >
> : > On 16 May 2000 03:41:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> : >
> : > >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : > >
> : > >*snip a rational, well placed expository*
> : > >
> : > >> People like Charlie, and abraxas have stated that they believe themselves
> : > >> to be more intelligent simply because they are Linux users.
> : > >
> : > >I never stated that.
> : > >
> : > >Let me be very clear:
> : > >
> : > >I am more intelligent than a potential linux user who throws their hands
> : > >up in disgust the moment linux becomes 'difficult'.
> : >
> : > Sometimes it is best not to waste time on something you do not need.
> : >
> : > >Linux is not difficult. Linux is easy.
> : >
> : > What do you mean by 'Linux' ? Do you mean installing, administering,
> : > managing files, or just clicking on an app to make it run ? The skill
> : > level goes from minor to enormous.
> : >
> : > >The problem comes with individuals
> : > >approaching it in the same way that they approach windows--whether or not
> : > >windows is inferior, it is an entirely different beast, and the
> : > >intelligent person treats it accordingly.
> : >
> : > Depends what you are trying to do, The average person at home wants to
> : > access the net, email, and run a few consumer apps and games.
> : >
> : > Windows is the best for them and it has a growth path all the way to
> : > professional level.
> : >
> : > An intelligent person does not use a sledge hammer where a normal
> : > hammer will do. What possible reason would there be for the average
> : > user to use Linux, Crasy !!.
> : >
> : > The only viable option to windows is an iMac.
> : >
> : > Sam
>
> : NO. The mac OS is based on the FreeBSD kernel!
>
> Not exactly true (nor is it exactly false). Read below.
>
> : So you'd be getting about the same thing.
>
> : http:\\www.freebsd.org
>
> Half true. The kernel is also partially based on the Carnegie Mellon MACH
> microkernel, as well as being based partially on FreeBSD v3.2. The name
> for the core running underneath MacOS X is known as "Darwin". It's going
> to be OpenSource software (at least, that was the situation when I last
> read about it), and it promises to be one heck of a kickass operating
> system for graphics applications. Let's hope Apple gets things like SMP
> right with this one.
>
> The WindowsNT kernel is similar, in that it too is partially derived from
> the MACH microkernel. It's officially referred to a "modified
> microkernel" in Microsoftie terms. Microsoft has made its design a little
> more monolithic-like than they should have, IMHO, but I think the
> WindowsNT kernel is still very efficient, from what I have experienced
> using the OS.
> --
> .-----.
> |[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
> | = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
> | | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
> |_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
The NT kernel is similar to the MACH microkernel.
Humm. This is the same thing I heard about Greyhound buses.
See, they are based on the popular Ferrari body style.
Oh for christ sakes, QUIT SMOKIN THAT DOPE!
Oh the lighter side, I wonder if Microsoft will follow Apple once again
and steal a copy of the FreeBSD Kernel for themselves.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:05:28 GMT
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On 16 May 2000 23:40:20 GMT,
> Stephen S. Edwards II, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> >: > Charlie, Evan is trying to engage you in a battle of wits, but it seems
> >: > that you have yet to figure out how to put your gloves on, let alone, your
> >: > dukes up.
> >
> >: I like to debate with people who've actually used the OS.
> >
> >I was a Linux user since kernel v0.92. I used Linux until
> >late 1996. Do you still wish to debate with me? I'm still
> >waiting for you to present something that isn't your usual
> >Linux utopian wet-dream blithering (read: something worth
> >debating).
>
> You mean to tell me that you stopped using Linux in 1996? and want
> to compare it to W2K? hello! there have been a bunch of improvements
> in the last 4 years.
>
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Jim,
As a catholic to a devote Anarchist, paganist,,, let me just say this.
Evan and Stevan should be leavin.
This diareah of the brain will stop someday.
I don't know where they are developing this crap BUT, seems like
everytime I call them on a WEB page,,, they read it,,, then they
change their approach to something different.
If you ask me, I think these two are independants.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why do I need Linux?
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:07:02 GMT
Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> would say:
> >In article <M11U4.86394$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Furthermore, almost all the computer systems you likely encounter are,
> >> under the covers, becoming "more like UNIX" over time.
> >
> >It appears that since Unix is perceived by non-technical people as
> >being a stable system, so most vendors use this as a marketing point
> >and want to put as many Unix features into their systems as possible
> >(as if adding fork() takes out all of the bugs in your OS).
>
> To be sure, Unix _is_ monotonically more stable than any of the
> "desktop platforms." They're not seeing an effect that is outright
> incorrect.
>
> >In many systems this has dramatically hindered technical progress of
> >the OS. For example, until about 10 years ago or so, VMS could handle
> >dates through the year 9999. Since the introduction of Unix-like
> >concepts (particularly TCP/IP and DECwindows, which were ported from
> >Unix and written in C), VMS is now only certified through 2038 (or
> >2106, actually).
>
> That is indeed rather unfortunate.
>
> >Windows (which is already a primordial soup of other OS'es influence)
> >and MacOS (which is also about to be Unixified) will likely also have
> >disastrous results as the become more and more indistiguishable from
> >Unix.
>
> On the other hand, it is not nearly so evident that _this_ represents
> an outright "disaster."
>
> "UNIXifying" Windows doesn't seem to me to be _that_ much of a
> disadvantage; it provides the possibility that Microsoft might be able
> to grab some code from *BSD or, as it fits, from Linux-related
> systems, and actually make Windows both more powerful and more robust.
>
> The same seems true for MacOS. Having a Real OS Kernel underneath, as
> opposed to the former CMT "mess," looks to be an improvement.
>
> Would it have been realistic to expect either company to adopt VMS?
> Microsoft _did_ bring in a bunch of the Prism developers, but it
> _looks_ like it's a fresh team working on W65K these days.
>
> >Not only is there a personal argument against all OS'es being the same
> >(such that there is nothing more to learn, and no more creative choices
> >to be made), but there is a very serious security argument against
> >going to one OS. Despite having different sources, many different Unix
> >systems are plagued by the same bugs because they have similar design
> >decisions. For example, in 1994 there was a bug which affected both AIX
> >and Linux systems, whereby logging in as the user "-froot" would give
> >root access to any user. Although AIX and Linux had no code in common,
> >they had similar implementations due to similar requirements, and both
> >feel victim to the same bug. The more widespread Unix is, the more
> >vulernable world security is.
>
> I agree about 90% with this.
>
> The last decade has been a _disaster_ from an OS research point of
> view. Microsoft was "buying out" anybody with viable alternatives to
> just about anything but Windows, with the result that there has been a
> dearth of useful research on "what might come next."
>
> It was doubtless a good decade for Rich Raschid; he doubtless got some
> decent stock options out of becoming VP of Research at Microsoft.
>
> Hopefully there will be some interesting things come from the ashes;
> as Microsoft has been under legal pressure, this has prevented
> remaining _overly_ rapacious. University of Utah seems to have a
> reasonably active OS research group (FluxOS, OSKit, Fluke), as does
> University of Dresden (L4, Fiasco). The UPenn work on EROS also
> sounds promising.
>
> The unfortunate thing is the [virtual] deaths of:
> a) BSD research;
> b) Mach research at CMU;
> c) OS research at MIT (exokernel last "stable" release published in
> 1998...)
> which represent places that used to have _substantial_ and
> _influential_ OS-related projects.
> --
> Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste
> good with ketchup.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
If they ever get a Microkernel fully functional and on a distribution,
the world will be forced to change.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:09:40 GMT
TheKeyMan wrote:
>
> First off, Linux is a good system when it is used in the proper
> setting and under the guidance of people who actually understand the
> system. With that point considered, my company, a small real estate
> company with 10 offices in the northeast USA began a study late last
> year to try and consolodate our network and quite frankly save some
> money.
> We hired several consultants as well as a manager whose job it was to
> oversee the study and identify, religious affiliations, obvious bias
> and just plain FUD.
>
> Initially our plan was to jump to Linux hook line and sinker because
> it seemed to offer, on the surface, most of what we needed in a
> typical office setting. We understood that we would have to maintain
> NT to serve our somewhat vertical applications. The initial plan was
> to setup Linux in the office as a secondary system that the personal
> could utilize at will. Sort of a duplicate system if you will.
> This failed terribly because nobody seemed interested in using Linux
> which puzzled the staff. They went for Windows every time despite
> having dual boot computers.
>
> Upon quizzing the staff we discovered many things amongst them the
> reasons why Linux was not liked.
>
> To put it bluntly, Linux Looks like shit. The fonts are jagged and
> boxy. Staroffice is a complete bloated mess of a joke compared to
> Office.
> Netscape looks like crap and performs like crap also.
>
> Our imported Word/Excel doc's did not transfer well at all into
> StarOffice.
>
> We had severe network performance problems after installing Linux.
>
> People, meaning end users generally hated Linux big time. Funny thing
> was they were so willing to talk about why they hated it so much.
>
> I could go on and on but there is really no need. Linux is an
> operating system that needs a lot of work. We tried and could not make
> it work.
>
> I have talked to others in my industry that have had similar
> experiences with Linux so I know it is not my company..
>
> Linux needs a lot of help...
Well if they are not going to use Linux then I guess they will be
back to using Filing cabinets and clerks by 2010 because there
will be NO MORE Microsoft by then.
I enjoy saying this as still, NOBODY REALLY UNDERSTANDS WHY.
And I can't understand why people are this stupid.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:01:13 GMT
Hmmm, seems as if the MS FUD machine is getting a bit desperate. I've
seen a bunch of these personal taste types of posts. MS must realize
that they have lost on the technical issuse.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
TheKeyMan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First off, Linux is a good system when it is used in the proper
> setting and under the guidance of people who actually understand the
> system. With that point considered, my company, a small real estate
> company with 10 offices in the northeast USA began a study late last
> year to try and consolodate our network and quite frankly save some
> money.
> We hired several consultants as well as a manager whose job it was to
> oversee the study and identify, religious affiliations, obvious bias
> and just plain FUD.
>
> Initially our plan was to jump to Linux hook line and sinker because
> it seemed to offer, on the surface, most of what we needed in a
> typical office setting. We understood that we would have to maintain
> NT to serve our somewhat vertical applications. The initial plan was
> to setup Linux in the office as a secondary system that the personal
> could utilize at will. Sort of a duplicate system if you will.
> This failed terribly because nobody seemed interested in using Linux
> which puzzled the staff. They went for Windows every time despite
> having dual boot computers.
>
> Upon quizzing the staff we discovered many things amongst them the
> reasons why Linux was not liked.
>
> To put it bluntly, Linux Looks like shit. The fonts are jagged and
> boxy. Staroffice is a complete bloated mess of a joke compared to
> Office.
> Netscape looks like crap and performs like crap also.
>
> Our imported Word/Excel doc's did not transfer well at all into
> StarOffice.
>
> We had severe network performance problems after installing Linux.
>
> People, meaning end users generally hated Linux big time. Funny thing
> was they were so willing to talk about why they hated it so much.
>
> I could go on and on but there is really no need. Linux is an
> operating system that needs a lot of work. We tried and could not make
> it work.
>
> I have talked to others in my industry that have had similar
> experiences with Linux so I know it is not my company..
>
> Linux needs a lot of help...
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:10:47 GMT
BUZZZ wrong again FRnainy (time to cry to mama again) Unix DOMINATES the
server market. In order to compete Windows MUST become more secure,
robust and scailable.
In article <A%HU4.1650$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >Actually, Erik is right. The UNIX community had problems with
> > >people downloading binary files that had what we now call viruses
> > >in them, and executing them. In some cases, the shar script would
> > >even remove all traces of itself.
> >
> > The difference is that Erik uses this as an excuse, which is
misplaced.
> > Executing email content seems to be possible with non-Windows MUAs
(I've
> > been told that dtmail can execute shell scripts) but it certainly is
not
> > common practice in Unix. Using the mailcap facility is. On Windows
this
> > behaviour /is/ common practice (at least for Outlook Express,
Pegasus
> > and Eudora).
>
> It's not commonplace on Unix because of the huge disparity in Unix
> implementations.
>
> If Unix wants to compete with windows, it has to start losing those
> disparities, which will make such viruses inevitable.
>
> It's not a fault of the environment, it's a side-effect of making an
OS
> capable of being used by computer illiterate people.
>
> There are always tradeoffs of security versus ease of use. Allowing
*ANY*
> kind of connection to the internet is, in and of itself, a security
risk.
> Even if you've got the best security on the planet, it can still be
> compromised. The *ONLY* way to prevent people gaining access is to
lock it
> in a room with armed guards and no external network access.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 May 2000 21:21:07 -0600
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 May 2000 20:13:31 GMT, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >I must have missed something here - Linux still seemed to have
> > >configuration spread all over the place.
> >
> > Only if you consider /etc and $HOME 'all over the place'.
> >
> > --
> >
>
> Linux (and Unix in general) does make is easy for backup. I just
> backup /etc and /home. Everything else can be restored from the
> installation disk plus a disk I keep of all the RPMs I have
> downloaded. The only exception I am aware of is /var/spool/lpd. I
> never have understood why printer configuration is kept here instead
> of /etc.
Your printer configuration *is* stored in /etc; just the spool
directories are in /var. If you use a good spooler (bsd print spooler
doesn't count here, of course), it'll re-create them from
/etc/printcap just fine. LPRng includes checkpc, which will create
the spools using /etc/printcap.
> When I install a new version of Linux, I just backup /etc
> and /var/spool/lpd since /home is on a separate partition that won't
> be touched by the installation process.
I usually backup /usr/local as well, for the same reasons.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Matt Gaia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 23:24:52 -0400
Hmmm....you actually try to base a Linux experience with your experience
with StarOffice *troll detector starts going off*? First off, if you even
try to do this, you should have any copy of Linux/Unix/etc... taken off
your hands and returned to the store _immediately_. Secondly, you use how
the fonts look to base your thoughts on it. Um, no. That's like saying
that Windows is nice because you like the pattern on the cards on
Solitare. But I'm just going to stop there, since I'll probably be
beating a dead horse. :)
Matt
<<snipped meaningless FUD>>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 May 2000 21:28:25 -0600
Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels) writes:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > i tried the microsoft windows truetype fonts.
> > >
> > > andale and courier new look ok per se. both leave little specs after
> > > them. somehow X doesn't clean up after the fonts. courier new was
> > > worse in this regard than andale.
> > In my case (Matrox MilleniumII 8Mb/AGP) all works perfectly. Check
> > the settings for your server.
>
> i've got one machine with a matrox millenium II 4MB PCI and another
> with a 3dfx voodoo3. same little flecks of leftovers. perhaps it's
> something to do with the redhat font server, a patched xfs.
My work machine is a Millenium II 4MB PCI and my home machine is a
v3/2000; neither have any artifacts at all (and they both run RedHat
6.2's xfs). Strange.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Your office and Linux.
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 03:34:40 GMT
Look folks. We don't need to push Linux at the office place or at the
home.
The American people, for that matter the world, are at the brink of
seeing
Microsoft go down the tubes.
After the U.S. Court system breaks up Microsoft, their estimated LIFE
will
be less than a decade. And that's the peices....
And another fact is Linux is growing in the market place at a rapid
rate.
It's being adopted by more people and business's every day.
Linux will NEVER go broke, bankrupt, nor end up in court.
Linux can never be accused of creating a monopoly as it's not a
business.
And the worlds governments have no ability to regulate it either.
Linux truely is a FREE operating system in every important respect.
Linux is truely a secure and reasonably speedy operating system also.
IN performance, Linux leaves W2K in the dust.
Linux might have tied NT 4.0 with SP 4 but it leaves SP6 by a margin.
The X desktops available in Linux range from very simple, lightweight to
more powerful than anything Microsoft dreamed of.
Truely there is more choice for the consumer who uses Linux than
Microsoft.
And this choice is not going to just blow away in the wind.
Always keep in mind that Microsoft is a corporation. And because it's a
corporation,
it's subject to the laws of this land. All corporations have a
beginning and an
ending! There are less than 500 corporate or business institutions in
America
which have lasted longer than 100 years!
Considering the eventual Life of Linux, Microsoft is a mere spec in it's
history.
Linux could go on for centuries. It would be known by mankind for
thousands of years
by one name or another across history.
Microsoft will never achieve that goal.
Truely on the grand scale of things, Microsoft has made less of an
impact on the world
than IBM has.
And Linux is just beginning. Very soon, Linux will be 10 years old!
But in just the next 5 years comming, Microsoft will undergo some
massive changes
in their corporate structure do to their continual breaking of the laws
of this
land. And because they are a corporation our for the bucks, they will
be broken up
because of this illegal activity.
And maybe when you calm down and realize what I'm saying, you'll also
realize that
companies who invest in Microsoft FURTHER are just thowing their money
in the streets.
Bill Gates said it best! And I believe him. If they break up
Microsoft then the
software development will suffer. And frankly, his software is
suffering right now!
Linux is at an even keel if not slightly ahead of Microsoft in
technology right now.
It's during these 5 years where Linux will actually shoot ahead of
Microsoft in
ability to serve the public.
Also keep in mind that Microsoft has a limited number of people working
on their OS.
I believe the total number of actual coders is about 850 people.
This pails in comparison to Linux's 100,000+ people contributing to the
Linux Kernel
under the control of Linus. Microsoft truely doesn't have a snowballs
chance in hell
against that kind of manpower anyway!
Think about that! Linux is even with Microsoft in the 9 years they've
been in existance!
They started with SQUAT! They had NOTHING back in 91!
Microsoft has been screwing around with their Operating systems since
1983-4???
And they are using paid professionals since that time.
By 2006 everybody in the planet will see that Microsoft has no future
and will WISH they left,
and by 2010 Microsoft will be an applications vendor if they are still
in business at all.
You know, Microsoft is not like ITT! They don't have millions of miles
of phone lines
to be left dealing with! Microsoft's assets are not nearly as valuable.
Every employee at Microsoft today is thinking of switching jobs because
of the stock market
situation. They are loosing their retirements as we speak.
Times at Microsoft are very bleek and are getting bleeker as this
breakup comes forth.
So don't bother pushing Linux at the office. Let your employer throw
all the money into
the street that he can. Teach them all a good old fashion lesson! Show
all those beer
drinking, golf playin, hunk-a brains that they were right and let them
blow the entire
wad on some more big Microsoft deals!
I just smile when I hear about them! I don't say anything.
In fact, it's really humorous to see them throw their hard earned assets
in the street like
that! And they are so cheerful to do it too....
Especially when your companies internet policy is so tight now due to
the ILOVEYOU thing,
that you can't even E-mail your wife without the threat of being fired.
You can't
give your customer your E-mail address as that is against company policy
also!
I just smile when they throw more money to King Microcrap!
HA HA! I love it! Don't you folks!
HA HA!
And let's all wish them well on their new careers as golf caddies in 5
years time!
HA HA!
I love this life folks....
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Gerben Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for kooks)
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 05:31:45 +0200
Thu, 18 May 2000 02:11:46 GMT was when a million monkeys took over Marty's
computer and wrote:
| > Why don't you ask Eric "Master of Forgery" Bennett what Cornell University
| > thinks of him posting under a false identity?
|
| I see you're posting from cable.a2000.nl again, Gerben.
You're erroneously presupposing that I've posted from cable.a2000.nl before,
Marty. Reading comprehension problems?
| Interesting.
Yes, your erroneous claims are quite interesting.
--
Gerben Bergman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The future of operating systems and applications?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 22:39:46 -0600
In article <8fkoka$j1v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mats Pettersson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It's fun to read all posts by biased win vs biased linux users (easy to use
> vs powerful stable).
>
> I don't know how many of you are administrators on a place that use about 4
> different operating systems and tries to get all servers and users updated
> with the latest versions of software with all the bugs, incompabilities and
> reinstalls that comes with it.
>
> I think most of you have to take a step back and look at what people need.
>
> You can easily split the different users needs in (at least) three
> categories...
>
> 1. Home/private users. -- Users that use the computer for
> entertainment(game/internet) and/or homework
>
> 2. Commersial application users. -- Users that use specific applications at
> work
>
> 3. Server administration/administrators. -- Administrators that operate
> servers, backup, programming, scripting, upgrading, installing, reinstalling
> etc..
>
> The category 1 users uses their computer to play games, connect to internet,
> chat and maybe do some homework. They want easy to install software, easy to
> use software/system with a minimum of waiting times for startup of
> games/software. This category of users don't know anything about
> operatingsystems. The OS is preinstalled and shouldn't need to be
> reinstalled.
>
> The category 2 users often know all about the applications they use but
> probably not much about computers in general and thats a good thing. They
> should get their job done, not bother with reinstalls, configuring network
> and such.
>
> The category 3 users are administrators with all the whoes bells and
> whistles that comes with it. They are in charge of keeping the company
> computers/servers updated with the latest software/upgrades/bugfixes of
> application/services/os-software.
>
> Category 2 and 3 could be said to be in the same group because administraors
> are often responsible for category 2 users software/system maintainance.
>
> As a category 3 user myself along with my two collegues i stumble into
> problem with most operating systems whether it be with Win NT/95/98, Linux,
> Sun, MacOS. Why? Because they are all using the same basics and all try to
> be like eachother. When i say "problems" i don't mean it can't be done, but
> it's unnessesary compilcated to do. Most of the "problems" has to do with
> upgrading software, switching computers (wich leads to reinstalling),
> switching hardware (wich leads to reinstalling).
>
> I know there are some flavours of "application servers" out there, but they
> still need some work. If the Linux community could develop some easy to
> maintain/use "application server system" where it's easy to both write and
> use applications and get some commercial developers to hook up on it, i know
> it would be a hit with many commercial companies.
Visual Bloated Basic for Linux? No.
>
> What i'm looking for as a category 3 user is a sort of a "extended" X
> window-terminal/application-server system.
>
> Just my biased point of view :)
>
> Mats
Don't forget to download and apply your M$ Lookout X'dpress patch
...Very good post. Seriously.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
