Linux-Advocacy Digest #615, Volume #26 Sat, 20 May 00 16:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Chris Wenham)
Re: a few questions please ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Which Dist? (HTML) ("Nick")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ("Robert L.")
Re: But.... didn't they say it wasn't Outlook's fault? ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (abraxas)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Mongoose)
Re: Your office and Linux. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
--- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 --- ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:11:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam E. Trenholme) writes:
> - Sam (How come these advocacy groups always get so bizarre and rude?)
That comes from frustration when one is unable to convince the other
guy of your point. The inability to be convinced comes from a
misplaced ego.
Someone will be right. Someone will have a malfunctioning ego.
But only one of these can be true of both parties.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: a few questions please
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:24:17 -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...
A laudable sentiment!
> 3) this storm linux? is it ok? any things i should know or be warned? what
> to use instead? you opinion is appreciated..
I've heard of it, but don't know anything about it. However, since you are a
techie, there is a very good chance that you know someone else who already uses
Linux, or perhaps has just started. When learning something new, there's no
better strategy than learning with a friend. That being the case, check around
and see whether you have any Linux-using friends, and if so, go with the same
distro they use. Shared knowledge seems to grow faster than solo knowledge.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.caldera,alt.os.linux.corel,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Which Dist? (HTML)
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:25:13 GMT
Other...
Yea, it's pretty good...
Which one of the distributions that falls into the "other" placement ?
Oh, I added slackware to the poll...
Check it.
http://www.alxpoll.com/cgi-bin/poll.cgi?user=280739
"whistler @twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)" <blahblah> wrote in message
news:x9AV4.7294$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <veyV4.73959$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Nick"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Other
>
> This is my favorite release, the 1.6 distribution was very easy to
install.
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:26:53 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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.
>
>
> 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]
>
( all price in can$ )
50$ Windows 98 ( friend give after buying Win98 SE )
0$ WinME beta3 french.
30$ Linux RH5.2
But here the ugly part...
50$ Commandos, behind enemy lines.
150$ Tomb raider 1 thru 3
20$ Viper racing.
75$ Simcity 2000 ( pack with street of simcity, and simcopter )
75$ Simcity 3000
50$ MSVC++ 6 ( intro ed. )
50$ upgrade to std ed.
50$ MSOffice 97 pro ( used, from a companie that get Office 2000 )
I certainly forget some thing.
For Linux...
0$ A lot of thing we can get at rpmfind. Plus games at freshmeat. etc...
0$ StarOffice.
The problem, is I want to play TR3 and Simcity 3000 on Linux. If big
companies can think of Linux......
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: But.... didn't they say it wasn't Outlook's fault?
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:25:15 -0500
Ciaran wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobby D.
> Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Wasn't it "doublespeak"?
>
> No it was doublethink. Your memory about 1984 is
> doubleplusungood :)
After all, it has been 16 years now...
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft finally gets the idea... almost
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:37:26 +0000
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> I don't know of any Windows mailers that automatically execute executable
> content either, but that wasn't the issue.
>
> The issue was the blurring of the distinction between apps and documents,
> something pioneered by the MacOS. It's generally considered to be A Good
> Thing
Considered by whom?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: 20 May 2000 19:48:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OH please! Stephen want's proof that NT or W2K blue screen.
Although I have no hard evidence (I didnt take pictures), the second
time W2K professional bluescreened on this very desktop machine,
I let linux finally eat its partition in favor of a nice devel
ext2fs.
My S.O.s laptop (running W2K professional as well) has now
bluescreened 4 times, twice while trying to quite RealPlayer.
(trying to quit IE was what did it the first time on my desktop
machine). Luckily the last couple of bluescreens on that laptop
havent been as bad as the first (when I horror of horrors, plugged
a USB mouse into the machine) which resulted in a 'NO KERNEL FOUND'
(or something very close to that) error apon reboot.
I hate windows, and heres why:
It dies, and it dies often. And when it dies, it takes all your
work with it.
I like linux and heres why:
It doesnt die.
I like BeOS more than linux and heres why:
It doesnt die, and its really good at multimedia.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:53:26 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And who in their right mind needs such stuff?
>
> Geek crap.
Oh, yeah, as if I'm supposed to do mathematical typesetting in MS Word.
Colin Day
------------------------------
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: Sat, 20 May 2000 19:57:03 GMT
abraxas wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OH please! Stephen want's proof that NT or W2K blue screen.
>
> Although I have no hard evidence (I didnt take pictures), the second
> time W2K professional bluescreened on this very desktop machine,
> I let linux finally eat its partition in favor of a nice devel
> ext2fs.
>
> My S.O.s laptop (running W2K professional as well) has now
> bluescreened 4 times, twice while trying to quite RealPlayer.
> (trying to quit IE was what did it the first time on my desktop
> machine). Luckily the last couple of bluescreens on that laptop
> havent been as bad as the first (when I horror of horrors, plugged
> a USB mouse into the machine) which resulted in a 'NO KERNEL FOUND'
> (or something very close to that) error apon reboot.
>
> I hate windows, and heres why:
>
> It dies, and it dies often. And when it dies, it takes all your
> work with it.
>
> I like linux and heres why:
>
> It doesnt die.
>
> I like BeOS more than linux and heres why:
>
> It doesnt die, and its really good at multimedia.
>
> -----yttrx
That's a pity. W2K was supposed to be BLUE SCREEN FREE!
This was their big selling point!
W2K is about 35% slower than NT was, so I really wonder what the
advantage was to running W2k now?
W2K is also twice as expensive.
The professional desktop version is $350 a copy.
NT 4.0 could be had for $180.
Microsoft will be dead by 2006 for one more reason.
#11. Microsoft killed itself.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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 14:54:26 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>' And as a result of SuSE predating RedHat, SuSE rpms are incompatible
>' with RedHat ones :-( I wish they'd switch to dpkg, but I bet there would
>' be incompatibilities with Debian there too - for the same reasons -
>' maintaining backwards compatibility breaks sidewards compatibility :-(
>
>It is the RPM BS that has caused me to abandon that format whenever
>possible. Instead, I prefere to install software from source.
>Packages that conform to the ./configure, make, make install mantra
>are easy to build and put where you want them.
You left out the dozen obligatory arguments to ./configure that
are different for every package to make it interoperate with
the rest of your setup. Even then it is impossible to use
this method alone to set things up so the next update from
the stock distribution (that by now has the fixes you added plus
more) will correctly replace your intermediate fix.
>You don't have to
>worry about dependencies because ./configure should discover if
>required libraries can not be found.
>
>Granted, this is not the way most users want to operate. But until
>all the distros adhere to the FHS strongly enough and stop adding
>their own hacks (patches) to the code, this is the most reliable way
>to go.
You do understand that source rpms do exactly those steps if
you rebuild them, don't you? It takes 3 rpm commands. One
to install the source rpm, one to rebuild the binary, and
one to install the binary, doing whatever it needs to do to
update an existing setup or install from scratch. You can
then copy the binary around and install on any other machines
that need it. The *.spec file actually specifies how to unpack
standard distribution tars, patch them with any distribution-specific
modifications, run configure with the distribution-specific
arguments (which are very handy to see even if you are not going
this route), compile, and do anything else necessary.
>I've even updated GCC and libc this way. That took a while on my
>hardware.
With rpms, chances are pretty good that someone has already done
what you need, so you can grab it and install. If not, and a
patch exists against the last distribution that was built as
an rpm, you can take the older source rpm, add the new patch
to the spec file and rebuild it. I do wish there were a simple
guide to doing this somewhere covering just these steps. I'm
just starting to do it this way myself. My main complaint
about rpm is that it has everything including the kitchen sink
in one command so it is difficult to figure out which options
you need for which step. As you mentioned, 'configure/make'
aren't hard and without a simple guide rpm looks more difficult.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 20:01:07 GMT
Too many people have learned that GUI's are the only way to install
stuff. You don't have to be a genius to use a command line. I know
lots of people that can untar and make stuff. I just have them write
down the commands
tar xzf tarball.tar.gz
configure
make
su
make install
exit
and they don't have any problem, unless the program uses a
non-standard configuration or something, but most major apps don't do
that. But they don't have to know all of tars parameters, I don't and
so don't most people. Just enough to do what they want.
On Sat, 20 May 2000 16:25:00 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>tar and make are fine installers, once you get their little secrets. rpm is
>also a very easy installer.
>Not much more difficult than running an InstallShield executable. And you
>don't have to worry about
>any secret Registry entries... normally the makefile or the directories in
>the tar file make it pretty
>obvious where stuff goes.
>
>The main learning curve is getting over the fear of the learning curve,
>because the real learning curve
>isn't much.
>
>Chris
>
>
>> >
>> > You can't be serious. Make and tar are "installers"???
>> >
>>
>> tar xzvf package-name-X.Y-Z.tar.gz
>> cd package-name-X.Y-Z
>> ./configure
>> make
>> make install
>>
>> The onlything Peter left out was autoconf. Granted, not every user
>> wants to use this install method; however, an install method it is.
>> Many, many people have used it as such.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[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 13:03:13 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Charlie Ebert wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Microsoft will die by 2006 for the following reasons.
>
>#1. The Court systems is going to break Microsoft into 2-3 peices
>within 2 years.
>#2. In the balance of the time we are waiting on the courts, most of
>Microsoft's
> talent will leave her due to the stock market crisis Microsoft is
>in.
>#3. Linux has forced Microsoft into a ONE os or die campaign.
>#4. The manpower currently going into Linux is over 100,000 programer
>contributors.
> Microsoft has around 850 actual coders.
>#5. Linux has surpassed Microsoft on sales this year in Servers and
>Desktops.
>#6. Linux is not a company, it can not go bankrupt. Market forces do
>not harm Linux.
>#7. Linux is written open source so it will never be MIS-TRUSTED by the
>people such
> as Microsoft is.
>#8. Linux does not BLUE screen or need re-booting like ALL Microsoft
>products need.
>#9. Linux is FAR cheaper to obtain than Microsoft W2k and far more
>capable also!
>#10. By 2006, people will realize that Microsoft is NOT the consumer
>market leader
> for Desktops as Linux is far superior and they will shut down thier
>OS division
> in favor of making Microsoft an applications vendor as Microsoft
>Office for Linux
> did so well.
>
>By 2010, people who have used and exerienced the office environments
>provided by KDE and
>Gnome will be asking why do we need Microsoft OFFICE. Microsoft OFFICE
>will be shut down.
>
>Microsoft will disappear from the world.
>
>Linux on the other hand will changed names about every 30 years and
>continue on thru several
>centuries before mankind leaves the planet for the stars never to
>return.
>
>Aliens exploring this planet will come do a DIG to find out what
>happened to the doomed
>Human planet. They will uncover a set of 18 DVD's somewhere and it will
>begin again!
>They will argue that Microsoft was their OS and not Linux and therefore
>the race
>which wrote Linux were superior and they destroyed the humans!
>
>
>
>Stephen refuses to post his comments on when Linux will die for he has
>no reasoning.
>Stephen is NOT advocating anything, therefore he shouldn't be here. IE.
>he's just bitching.
>
>Stephen NEEDS to advocate something or put some MEAT on the table for a
>prediction so
>that OTHERS who are less intelligent can laugh at him.
>
>You can't just be a fucking bitch and get away with it.
This yutz keeps claiming that _I_ am the one refusing to discuss things
rationally. Can someone please find _one_ rational thing in this dorkus
malorkus' post that can even be argued with a straight face?
Charlie, please don't post again until you've graduated the 6th grade.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: --- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 ---
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 13:07:50 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- USENET newsreader filter report #00001 ---
From: the office of Stephen S. Edwards II
======================================================================
Subject information:
Name: Claims to be Charlie Ebert.
SMTP E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NNTP Posting host: 24.94.254.132
Gender: Claims to be male.
Age: Claims to be somewhere around his late 30's;
behaves as if he is approximately 13-14 years
of age.
IQ: Approximately 3 points below that of an eggplant.
Hobbies: Nose mining, eating modeling glue, burning things.
Newsgroup(s) being frequented by subject:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject's social characteristics [please check all that apply]:
[X] Arrogant little worm
[X] Delusional lunatic
[ ] Paranoid conspiracy theorist
[X] Anti-Microsoft imbecile
[X] Blithering zealot
[X] Immature wanker
[X] Annoying troll
[X] PEZ dispenser for various forms of plant life
[X] Mouth-breathing simpleton
Allegation(s) against subject [please check all that apply]:
[X] Displaying an annoying elitist attitude
[ ] Feigning the rational human thought process
(note: the above applies only if thought is actually
attempted.)
[X] Intellectual bankruptcy and emotional instability
[X] Exuding a very limited attention span
[X] Conduct unbecoming of a chimpanzee
[X] Professing expertise while displaying cluelessness
[X] Displaying the cognitive level of a sackfull of lawn shavings
Reason for placing subject into newsreader filter
[please check all that apply]:
[X] Subject has an apparent history of being a complete fool.
[X] Subject displays a constant avoidance of interesting discussion
or debate.
[X] Subject is incapable of presenting a logical argument.
[X] Subject is incapable of conveying anything but vulgar insults.
[X] Subject continuously references his/her own supposed L33TN355.
[X] Subject continuously mutilates the English language.
(note: this only applies when subject's native dialect is English)
[X] Subject refuses to reference proof for his/her outrageous claims.
[X] Subject displays a gratuitous amount of ignorance, stupidity,
blatant hypocrisy, or all of these three attributes.
[X] Subject is irrationally biased, and hopelessly jaded.
[X] Subject has a very annoying false sense of self-importance.
Other reasons not specified above:
Subject is an asshole.
Additional comments about subject:
Subject also appears to be abnormally fixated on other people
performing the act of masturbation. Such negative connotation
of said self-service would suggest that he is experiencing a
significant amount of guilt due to his own indulgence in such
activity. In addition, subject appears to have falsely drawn
the conclusion that this applicant is employed in the field of
artificial intelligence software engineering, apparently because
of the intently witty remark in my .signature file. This further
demonstrates the subject's tendencies towards idiocy.
Conclusions about subject:
Subject is clearly inept, and completely devoid of rationale,
intellectual thought, or initiative. It is urgently requested
by this applicant that said subject be placed into the newsreader
filter for the sake of sparing the viewer from the completely
spineless and pointless posting of said subject.
Filed by: Stephen S. Edwards II
Date of filing: 05/20/2000
Date of *PLOINK!*: same
======================================================================
This form is provided as a means of humor, as well as for the mere
purpose of chronologically filing USENET's worst idiots. Copies
of this form can be obtained in WordPad format from:
http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/losers/morons/killform.doc
A full archive of USENET's morons can be found at:
http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount/losers/morons/
This form is (c) 2000 Stephen Edwards. Use of this form against
the original author, or any participating authors will be viewed
as pathetic, and completely devoid of initiative. All perpetrators
will be scoffed and laughed at hysterically, and possibly put on this
same report. This form may be modified freely, as long as this entire
statement remains in place.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| 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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
