Linux-Advocacy Digest #609, Volume #26 Sat, 20 May 00 05:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The future... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: The future... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David T. Blake)
Re: The future... (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Your office and Linux. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Your office and Linux. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Beowulf (mlinuxlover)
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: a few questions please ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The future...
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:10:32 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Looking over the landscape of the computer industry, here are some
> > observations.....
>
> Okay.
>
> >
> > The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone. Desktop PCs
> > will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients, or be
> > indistinguishable from servers.
>
> They have enough power today to make that work in the home or small
> business.
> I just can't imagine how this concept would be effective in large scale
> industry. For instance, how would you effectively administer SQL power
> from a ORACLE engine across such a system in a large business say 350
> employees
> and on up.
>
> I guess I can't figure out that redundant cluster you've placed here.
> But I will say the office cluster concept is extremely interesting.
>
> >
> > I think the NOS market is gone. Novel and whom ever is pursuing it is
> > wasting their time. All real OS's will just do it right.
>
> I must admit. I'm left scratching my butt over this comment.
> I don't quite know what to make of it.
>
> To say this is exactly like saying NT server is dead, OS2 server is
> dead, Linux server is dead, that the server lan wan thing is dead.
No... he said that the concept of "NETWORK Operating System" is
dead... (Novell, Banyan, etc.).
The only reason these misfit tools came into being was because
Microsoft took over 10 years to include proper networking in their
kernals.
>
> Well, I CAN agree that lan wan is dead. The Thin Web client is
^^^^^^^
Please try not to speak in oxymorons.
> the wave of the future. The centralized processing model is on
> it's way back. But this leads me blank when I see your
> server less, non centralized, office cluster idea.
>
> >
> > Windows is going to die. Not because of MS, exactly, but because the
> > world is going towards standards. While UNIX is not a majority player,
> > it is a standards based multi-vendor platform. MS will bluster about
> > being the "defacto-standard" but more and more IT people are realizing
> > that public standards are better than ubiquitous proprietary standards.
>
> Ummmm.
>
> The World Wide Web does seem to be authoring it's own standards and
> Microsoft is trying to stay up with them as the changes happen.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You mispelled "trying and failing to dictate"
>
> So's everybody else. Microsoft isn't leading the world in this
> arena as they thought they would be doing.
Incompetance and low standards is its own reward!
>
> I think if they were to survive, and their not, but if they did,
> they would be a team follower just like everybody else.
>
> But the day's of hooking people on the face to show them the
> way are over for Microsoft.
>
> Now, what about Word?
>
> Do you really feel this way?
>
> Not breakup then competition then public demise.
Once MS is exposed to real, unfettered competition, they will fall
apart. Their management and culture is geared to being able to
bully around retailers.
The only way for MS to survive is a wholesale cleaning out of
middle and upper management. They will try (by cleaning out
middle management), but upper management will be the same old
people...locked into the ways of latter day Al Capone's
(Listen, bud, your customers will drink MY BEER, or they won't
drink any beer at all, you got it?!?!?!)
>
> But rather general directional tuning followed by a bought of
> dis-interest.
>
> Wouldn't that indicate intelligence on the part of the users?
> Isn't that the real flaw in this kind of reasoning.
As stores start to carry computers with pre-loaded Linux, etc,
you will start to see MAJOR changes in the market place.
Kind of like when Ford Motor Company started offering more
cars painted in colors other than black.
>
> >
> > --
> > Mohawk Software
> > Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> > Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
>
> I'm not really trying to make silly of your comments mlw as I respect
> your opinion most of the time. You've always been somewhat of a camp
> leader around here for years.
>
> > Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
> > sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
Evidently, you've never been in the presence of people who are
well trained in the handling of firearms.
>
> Ha! You know the same can be said of using Microsoft OS's for
> your companies internet needs! Isn't that amazing..
>
> I'm afraid it's true that one IBM 390 might be a more efficient use of
> corporate money than 14,000 PC's on a lan system.
The move from Terminals to PC's for the average user have wasted
more corporate resources than can ever be counted.
All because the original PC's were *STATUS SYMBOLS* for managers
back in the mid 1980's.
Nobody knew what the fuck to do with them..but they HAD to have
them on their desks.....and of course...if you managed to put one
on the desk of all of the people in your department, then you
REALLY looked important (despite the fact that the only people
who really had a sincere need for them were accountants, etc.
The rest would have been MUCH better served with dumb terminals
hanging off of a central minicomputer.)
>
> Yet, this isn't what you were saying. I'm not sure the economics
> are going the PC way anymore.
>
> I see more and more people saying the PC era is dead.
> An IBM 390 can have 14,000 users running the OS of their choice
> on it for about 2 million dollars.
>
> You can't buy the workstations, servers and such for 14,000 people
> for 2 million dollars.
>
> Yet, if we look at SUPER COMPUTERS, the clustering concept has
> made it possible for 136 IBM aptiva servers to be chained together
> in cluster to beat the worlds biggest Cray!
>
> IF anything the PC's and the mainframes have actually switched placed
> in their independent, fanatic goals of displacing one another.
>
> This in itself could be yet another strange way Microsoft would die.
>
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The future...
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:13:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
>
> > Looking over the landscape of the computer industry, here are some
> > observations.....
> >
> > The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone. Desktop PCs
> > will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients, or be
> > indistinguishable from servers.
> >
> > I think the NOS market is gone. Novel and whom ever is pursuing it is
> > wasting their time. All real OS's will just do it right.
> >
> > Windows is going to die. Not because of MS, exactly, but because the
> > world is going towards standards. While UNIX is not a majority player,
> > it is a standards based multi-vendor platform. MS will bluster about
> > being the "defacto-standard" but more and more IT people are realizing
> > that public standards are better than ubiquitous proprietary standards.
> >
>
> Yeap.. Look at the internet, it almost was a company standard and not a
> public one
The Internet was a Department of Defence project. (first called ARPAnet,
for (Defence) Advanced Research Projects Agency, (DARPA)
What the hell are you blithering on about????
>
> >
> > --
> > Mohawk Software
> > Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> > Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
> > sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 20 May 2000 01:27:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Victor Wagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Doug Alcorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >:> a thing.
> >
> >: First, the Qt library _is_ now free. Trolltech decided to license it
> >: using a "free" license. Second, there already was (a now dead?)
> >
> >Not "free", just "open source". And Raimond have specially tweaked open
> >source definition, so Mozilla and Qt would pass the test.
> >In strict Stallman's sense of "free" Qt is not free.
>
> Put another way: what would or wouldn't stop you from making
> a BeOS or MacOS version?
QT licenses DONATE all derived works back to Trolltech. That
includes all modifications of the code. You literally cannot
patch the code without giving them the patch.
Further, if you modify the code, you can only distribute your
modifications as patches. Not as another version of QT. The
license actively prevents forking in this way. Only Trolltech
is allowed to release versions of QT.
Further, if you even LINK to QT, you have to make your program
more FREE than QT. You have to make your program's source
redistributable and make modifications of your program's
source redistributable.
Further, if you create a program that links with QT and
is private, behind your own firewall, you have to make its
source available to Trolltech upon request.
Consider the loss of freedom relative to the LGPL. With LGPL
you can create any program that only dynamically links with
the library, be it open source, closed source, or behind the
firewall. There is NEVER a requirement that you give copyright
from every program that links to an LGPL library to FSF.
Any LGPL program can be forked and redistributed under
a new name, as long as it remains LGPL.
I don't think QT does qualify as open source. It clearly
fails allowing the creation of derived works licensed under
the same license. If you create a derived work, Trolltech
has copyright of that work. You may only distribute it as
a patch, whereas Trolltech make take your modification and
distribute as their copyright. They own your work. Their
license is horribly tilted towards Trolltech. Should they
ever try to use these rights granted under their license,
there will be a true uproar.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The future...
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:16:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Kelley wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Looking over the landscape of the computer industry, here are some
> > observations.....
> >
> > The Server market distinct from the Workstation is gone. Desktop PCs
> > will either get smaller in the direction of thin-clients, or be
> > indistinguishable from servers.
>
> This is true ... in fact centralized servers in the future may be
> limited to just what they're absolutely needed for .. look at
> products like Freenet and GNUtella; they make it possible to
> share files in a totally decentralized way. This is cool.
> I can see perhaps four to five people sharing a PC instead of one
> to one.
God, you are idiots.
Central databases, etc, MUST be kept on servers.
Every single automanufacture in this country is built around
keeping part files (for both parts, AND THE DIES to make them)
on file servers.
Applications are also served off of file servers.
Thene there are the NIS and DNS servers to keep all of the networking
coherent.
>
> Even MS has doesn't use the workstation/server model, the
> distinction for them is just a matter of product differentiation
MS products are ill-planned, and even more poorly executed.
Check out the use of Unix workstations and servers in the
automotive industry.
>
> > I think the NOS market is gone. Novel and whom ever is pursuing it is
> > wasting their time. All real OS's will just do it right.
>
> Oh yeah, netware is crap. The only reason it could ever exist
> anyway was the fact that dos needed it. NDS for linux would be
> nice. Has anyone messed with this?
>
> > Windows is going to die. Not because of MS, exactly, but because the
> > world is going towards standards. While UNIX is not a majority player,
> > it is a standards based multi-vendor platform. MS will bluster about
> > being the "defacto-standard" but more and more IT people are realizing
> > that public standards are better than ubiquitous proprietary standards.
>
> Windows is decadent. Anyone can see this.
Poorly planned, no security. Glass house full of explosives.
>
> --
>
> Tim Kelley
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:18:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Total investment over 5 years:
>
> $89.00 Windows 98
> Nothing for Windows 98SE (online update)
> $149 Win 2000
>
> So that's $238 over 5 years which amounts to $47.00 per year.
>
> I have spent far more on Linux distributions, books and such in that
> span of time and gotten far less USEFUL stuff.
So, in other words, you are an idiot.
>
> On Sat, 20 May 2000 01:12:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 20 May 2000 00:31:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >>Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
> >>Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
> >>
> >>Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
> >>edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
> >
> > ...the only catch with this is the $$$'s. It costs good
> > money to be up to date with Windows, unless you pirate.
> >
> >[deletia]
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:19:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> And who in their right mind needs such stuff?
People who want their computer to actually DO something.
Hope that helps, luser.
>
> Geek crap.
>
> simon
>
> On Sat, 20 May 2000 03:32:53 +0000, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
> >> Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
> >>
> >> Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
> >> edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
> >> favorite trick of the LinoScrews, to compare a current version of
> >> Linux to an outdated version of Windows. Terry "The porter" Porter is
> >> an expert at this method.
> >
> >Oh, so what version of Windows is now shipping with TeX/LATeX,
> >emacs, gcc, python, perl, etc.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
> >> back here and post your experiences with Linux.
> >>
> >
> >It's great. KDE is gorgeous. And Netscape doesn't associate
> >Visual Basic scripts with an interpreter.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> If you like Linux, great, you have found a new life. If you hate
> >> Linux, let us know why.
> >>
> >> Try Linux and see for yourself....
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
> >Colin Day
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 08:18:30 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Total investment over 5 years:
>$89.00 Windows 98
>Nothing for Windows 98SE (online update)
>$149 Win 2000
Call me stupid, but how do you arrive at "over 5 years" when the first
product you bought is only 2 years old? You know, the "98" in "Windows98"
is a bit of a hint.... I don't think you used a PC without OS for three
years.
>So that's $238 over 5 years which amounts to $47.00 per year.
Actually, I'd say it's more like $119 a year. And I wasn't aware there
was a free online update to Win98SE --- do you have a URL?
>I have spent far more on Linux distributions, books and such in that
>span of time and gotten far less USEFUL stuff.
Well, US$238 sounds a tad high for what I have spent on Linux distributions
over the last, uhm, 8 years, starting with MCC and SLS.
There are 4 machines running 24/7 in this room, 3 more upstairs, and one
in the lounge room. So I guess I'd be looking at US$1904 for the two
year period. If I had that sort of money to spare, I'd spend it on a
second Alpha.
Bernie
--
One more such victory and we are lost
Pyrrhus
King of Epirus from 306 BC
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 08:18:31 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Geee --- same newsreader, posted via newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net,
and a username created by appending multiples of the same digit to a
"normal" name, and the same careful choice of words.
Welcome back, Steve! When I suggested you should be a bit more creative
about changing your identity, I was thinking of more than going from
"keymaster" to "simon" and from "88" to "777".
Bernie "I hate 777s, they are just too small" Meyer
--
To understand the heart and mind of a person, look not at what he has
already achieved, but at what he aspires to.
Kahlil Gibran
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:25:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> *snip some badly wrapped lines*
>
> Maybe if you used a newsreader that didnt suck ass to
> post your message, your lines would have wrapped properly.
That's a user-defined setting.
>
> :)
>
> -----yttrx
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 04:28:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raul Valero wrote:
>
> Did you realize how much did it cost the so called 2000 effect ? Well,
> that was changing a little programas here and a little there. Do you know
> how much would it cost to switch whole programs, data, networks,
Databases get migrated all the time.
Front-end apps get replaced all the time.
Networks -- nobody will notice the change.
MS shit will just get gradually phased out over a period of years,
just like Mainframe apps were gradually replaced with PC clients
over a period of years.
> employees knowledge, and the so ? I think Microsoft (or the sequels)
> will remain for a while. What's more, if it begins making good code, why
Dream on, Monkeyboy
> can't it survive just like each other software company onthe planet ? In
> fact, it starts with some advantages. I agree anyway the fact that it won't
> ever be as powerful as it is now. It will be just another software company,
> although it is starting TV and hardware markets too ...
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Beowulf
From: mlinuxlover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 01:27:25 -0700
have you been living in a cave? goto linux.org, and look it up.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 03:39:47 -0500
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.
Agreed, yet for NT or Windows to be a good system you must have an army
of
Windows certified point and click idiotneers
> 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.
>
They most likely had no idea what linux is, or is capable of.
>
> 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.
>
Let me ask you this? Would you give a server to a uneducated end user
who doesn't really understand the concept
of a mouse let alone a network?
>
> 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.
You can place Windows TrueType fonts on linux
> Staroffice is a complete bloated mess of a joke compared to
> Office.
> Netscape looks like crap and performs like crap also.
>
Well that depend's are we looking at memory requirements, functionality,
portablity, and useablity.
If StarOffice did not work for you why not try Corel Office, oh yes the
great misconception that Free software
means free beer.
>
> Our imported Word/Excel doc's did not transfer well at all into
> StarOffice.
>
Works great for my network
>
> We had severe network performance problems after installing Linux.
>
That was your consultants faught for selling you a load of s**t
>
> 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.
>
So does the internet, windows, etc.
>
> 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...
So help it it is your os
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: a few questions please
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 03:44:20 -0500
AJ wrote:
> Hi.. I am an experience Novell tech (CNE) but new to linux and want to get
> windows out of my life as soon as possible... I Would like someone to answer
> a few questions for me.. First i want to install linux on the following
> system,,, P II 400 , 64 ram , 4.8 G hd , SB pci sound , 4meg ATI Rage
> video, and US Robotics pci 56k, and 3com pci net card( 3c509). I know this
> more than meets the requirements. My questions are the following
> 1) I use a high speed isp ( called : vibe) not a cable modem but adsl. it
> used a newbridge networks MainStreet in my home and i use a 3com net card.
> Is there any known problem settting lunix up on this?
>
Nope, I to use ADSL and a 3 com net card, Linux will Dectect the 3com card
> 2) I just got Storm linux does anyone have instructions how to install it in
> a partition without it destroying the other one's? Please Help
>
Try the advanced install
> 3) this storm linux? is it ok? any things i should know or be warned? what
> to use instead? you opinion is appreciated..
>
If it is your first Linux try Corel or Mandrake
John LCP
> Please Email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] thank
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
