Linux-Advocacy Digest #620, Volume #26 Sat, 20 May 00 22:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("EIEIO ERROR")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("Evan DiBiase")
Re: Your office and Linux. (John Travis)
Re: Time to prove it's not just words (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Your office and Linux. (John Travis)
Re: Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution ("Brent")
Gnome, KDE, others.... (piddy)
Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Matt Soltysiak)
Re: Gnome, KDE, others.... (abraxas)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Gnome, KDE, others.... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Joseph)
Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks ("Robert L.")
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Gnome, KDE, others.... (abraxas)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "EIEIO ERROR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:07:30 GMT
Also Concurrent DOS
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:WX1T4.744$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > >
> > > It is a test for non-MS-DOS versions. Joseph claimed that MS tested
for
> the
> > > DR-DOS brand, and further claimed that they did not test internal
> > > structures. This proves him wrong.
> > >
> > > MS tested for non MS-DOS period, not any specific brand.
> >
> > True. However, MS-DOS passed the tests and PC-DOS passed the tests.
> > Now, which other DOS might a Windows executable program be running under
> > in that time frame? How many versions of DOS were there? The answer is
> > that the only other DOS *IS* DR-DOS. So while there is no "if $ver ==
> > 'DRDOS' " kind of logic there isn't anything else they could have been
> > testing for.
>
> Perhaps, but there were at least two other Dos's that were in development
at
> the time (FreeDos (which was originally called PD-DOS) and OS/2's VDM)
> Microsoft surely knew of OS/2's VDM, and probably knew about PD-DOS as
well
> (which had been in development for years).
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Evan DiBiase" <[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 20:14:11 -0400
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Evan DiBiase wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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.
> >
> > What? I don't seem to recall you ever pointing me to a web page. Of
course,
> > if you want to show me the post where you did, I'd be happy to read the
page
> > and tell you what I think.
> >
> > > If you ask me, I think these two are independants.
> >
> > What? Political Independants? What are you talking about here?
> >
> > -Evan
> > Very, very awake... which is a bad thing when one needs to get up in 3
> > hours.
>
> You can't remember me pointing out web pages?
> Do a sort on my name and go back and find the messages kid.
OK... so you've pointed to freebsd.org. So what?
> By Independants, I mean you seemingly don't have an opinion.
> You just like to advocate.
I don't have an opinion? What? I prefer Linux for some things, but I like
Windows 2000 for my desktop right now. Is that an opinion? What are you
speaking of here?
-Evan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 21 May 2000 00:17:01 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Charlie Ebert wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
<snip>
>>
>>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
>
>
No. But thankfully Charlie speaks for no one but himself. People who flame
linux for it's user unfriendliness etc. should take not however. This must not
be the case anymore. After all, if Charlie can do it, anybody can.
Charlie please stop using linux. Get a calculator and portable mp3 player.
Then you can post stupid shit about diamond rio vs. nomad etc.
( 0>
/ \
V_/_
jt
--
7:00pm up 3 days, 20:46, 1 user, load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.03
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Time to prove it's not just words
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 02:14:25 +0200
Maybe you may find useful this
http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-6.2-Manual/ref-guide/
and in particular this section:
http://www.redhat.com/support/manuals/RHL-6.2-Manual/ref-guide/s1-sysadmin-usr-grps.html
which covers group management.
--
Ing. Giuliano Colla
Direttore Tecnico
Copeca srl
Via del Fonditore 3/E
40139 Bologna (Italy)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Travis)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Your office and Linux.
Date: 21 May 2000 00:26:39 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Somone impersonating Charlie Ebert wrote:
>"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
>>
>> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> : In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> : *snip a whole bunch of unwrapped lines*
>>
>> : We can wrap lines, winfag.
>>
>> Did you notice that he's posting with Pan v0.7.6? That is a newsreader
>> which runs under GNOME, you twit.
>>
>> I think you owe this person an apology.
>> --
>> .-----.
>> |[_] :| 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
>
>
>You don't appologize to some kid who professed to run an office where
>Linux failed
>only to be caught on some college campus a short bulletin later!
>
>Charlie
Charlie shut the fuck up. You are an idiot in ways you couldn't even
understand. Run an office where linux failed? What the fuck are you talking
about? I am not on campus you stupid fucking dipshit. I use a dialin to my
schools server. If you weren't a brain dead waste of skin you could read the
headers and find this out. Please stop using linux you ignorant twit. The
wintrolls here know more about it than you do.
jt
--
7:20pm up 3 days, 21:06, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.03, 0.00
------------------------------
From: "Brent" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Challenged Todd Returns (Was: Here is the solution
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 17:29:13 -0800
In article <8frjpm$vsq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Todd"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
{snip}
> Finally, my network access at home is great. I've got a DSL connection
> and a cable connection. My bandwidth to the 'real' internet (not the
> intranet) is a lot better than from HP using a proxy server.
>
> Regards, Todd
>
Todd,
Why DSL and cable. Cable blows DSL from the water.
Brent
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (piddy)
Subject: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:40:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
When will the new versions be finished?
Is there a website that explains the new features?
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:57:26 GMT
W2K took something like 1.5 to 2 years
over-run to get out the door.
The goals were to design a better system
which united the features of Windows 98 with
USB support as well as bring in the network
support found in NT under an all 32 bit
compiled code base.
Also reported goals were to eliminate the
problem of blue screening as well as
maintain performance levels in multitasking.
They didn't meet goal #1 very well and
totally failed at goal #2.
W2K is slower than NT as well as it still
blue screens.
And at the same time have provided the public
with no improvements to the desktop.
How could it be possible that the Team at
Microsoft spend 2 years more than estimated
and come up with a uni-os which doesn't
meet it's design goals?
Then release it to the world...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 20:18:31 -0500
Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > MS no longer uses a version number for OLE. Inside OLE by Kraig
> > Brockschmidt (MS Press) explains that OLE simply means OLE 2.0 since
1994.
>
> MS uses a version number for OLE to refer to OLE, Version 1.0 and it is
> posted on MS's web page.
When talking about OLE1 they state specifically that it's version 1. They
do not specify version 2 in the majority of OLE2 documentation.
> Kraig Borckschmidt would join me in correcting your lies about OLE.
> He'd tell you MS nevered had an API named OLE2 or OLE1. He would also
> say that MS acknowledges and even has ownership and trademarks over "OLE
> Version 1.0".
> Last and most important, referenes to OLE's origins to not refer to the
> origin of OLE Version 2.0. The origins of OLE refer to OLE Version
> 1.0.
You should really learn to not talk about books you've never read.
Page 11 of Inside OLE:
"You may notice that OLE is no longer given a version number. The first
edition of this book was called inside OLE 2, but this edition is just
Inside OLE. The reason for this is that OLE 2 implies that there will be an
OLE 3. There will not be any such product. As an extensible service
architecture, new features and technologies can be added to OLE within the
existing framework without having to change the existing framework!"
As you can see, Kraig specifically states that using the term OLE without
any version number *MEANS* OLE 2.
------------------------------
From: Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:18:31 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> It was the first Cheap OS. $65 would get your os from the store.
> Why do people still drive fords! Remember Grandma and Grandpa talk
> about their
> model A. It's brand loyalty.
>
> But X windows, Gnome and KDE made the desktop as easy as Window's
> itself.
> There IS no serious training curve learning X.
> There is NO mystery in running Linux.
OK, i didn't mention administrating the system in console. X pretty much sucks for
admin'ing a server. But I agree with your point about some of the managers - they
are easy for many common tasks...but not all.
>
>
>
> No, it's not a fact either. Linux is frankly as easy to administer as
> Windows is. Has been for 3-4 years now.
Uh uh uh uh... careful. That's where you're wrong. I would love to see you admin
a nice corporate network with Unix. Win2k makes many of the common admin task in
Unix a breaze - anyone could do it (mostly anyone). Things are not so trivial in
Unix as you let people to believe.
>
> The reason abundant Windows software exists is because Windows is
> abundant right now.
Riiiggght. Alrighty, man. Use as much of Windows software as you can and compare
them to Unix. Come back and tell me your answer. A lot claim that Unix software
has the ease of use like ALL Windows software. But from my experience, that is not
true at all.
>
> I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
> Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse 6.4,
> install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just said!
>
> Charlie
Sorry, that's my cable modem and OC-3 shell are for, man.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: 21 May 2000 01:19:25 GMT
piddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When will the new versions be finished?
KDE 2.0 will be finished fairly soon, check their website for
details. Ive experimented with a couple of the nightly builds
and have been pleasantly surprised.
Dont use gnome. It sucks ass.
> Is there a website that explains the new features?
Yes, many.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 20:31:18 -0500
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> W2K took something like 1.5 to 2 years
> over-run to get out the door.
Yes, similar to Linux Kernel 2.4's being a year overdue.
> The goals were to design a better system
> which united the features of Windows 98 with
> USB support as well as bring in the network
> support found in NT under an all 32 bit
> compiled code base.
There were many more goals than that.
> Also reported goals were to eliminate the
> problem of blue screening as well as
> maintain performance levels in multitasking.
No. It's impossible to eliminate such things, just like it's impossible to
eliminate kernel panics from Linux. If you could eliminate them, they
wouldn't need to be there.
Things like faulty hardware and to some extent background radiation *WILL*
cause glitches on non-military spec systems.
> They didn't meet goal #1 very well and
They met #1 perfectly.
> totally failed at goal #2.
Only because you are listening to "reported goals" by people who don't know
what they're talking about.
> W2K is slower than NT as well as it still
> blue screens.
It's significantly faster than NT if it has it's minimum requirements. 10%
faster on average.
> And at the same time have provided the public
> with no improvements to the desktop.
More absolutes? All it takes is *ONE* improvement to prove you wrong, and I
can name several.
Personalized Menus
Unified All User/Specific User settings
Integrated Index Engine into search system.
Numerous small enhancements, like settings to make the control panel,
printers, etc. a cascading menu
The ability to customize the start menu. You can turn on and off things
like Favorites, whether to scroll or tile the menu, etc..
So, are you still going to say there are *NO* improvements?
> How could it be possible that the Team at
> Microsoft spend 2 years more than estimated
> and come up with a uni-os which doesn't
> meet it's design goals?
uni-os? It's most certainly a multiprocessor OS. It's also got tons of
backend features.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:34:59 GMT
Matt Soltysiak wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> >
> > It was the first Cheap OS. $65 would get your os from the store.
> > Why do people still drive fords! Remember Grandma and Grandpa talk
> > about their
> > model A. It's brand loyalty.
> >
> > But X windows, Gnome and KDE made the desktop as easy as Window's
> > itself.
> > There IS no serious training curve learning X.
> > There is NO mystery in running Linux.
>
> OK, i didn't mention administrating the system in console. X pretty much sucks for
> admin'ing a server. But I agree with your point about some of the managers - they
> are easy for many common tasks...but not all.
My point is they work whilst Microsoft's seems to be hit and miss!
And WHOLE controlling is a very grey area. Kinda depends on what you
want to do?
>
> >
> >
> >
> > No, it's not a fact either. Linux is frankly as easy to administer as
> > Windows is. Has been for 3-4 years now.
>
> Uh uh uh uh... careful. That's where you're wrong. I would love to see you admin
> a nice corporate network with Unix. Win2k makes many of the common admin task in
> Unix a breaze - anyone could do it (mostly anyone). Things are not so trivial in
> Unix as you let people to believe.
Why? You keep saying UNIX. Are you refering to Linux or some
commercial Unix?
I wonder which?
>
> >
> > The reason abundant Windows software exists is because Windows is
> > abundant right now.
>
> Riiiggght. Alrighty, man. Use as much of Windows software as you can and compare
> them to Unix. Come back and tell me your answer. A lot claim that Unix software
> has the ease of use like ALL Windows software. But from my experience, that is not
> true at all.
Again, I think you must be refering to a commerical version of UNIX and
not Linux.
Linux has LinuxConf which is a graphical administration tool and
extremely easy to use.
Suse has their own tools and Caldera has the WEB admin tool.
If you were refering to something like old style Xenix then I would
agree.
>
> >
> > I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
> > Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse 6.4,
> > install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just said!
> >
> > Charlie
>
> Sorry, that's my cable modem and OC-3 shell are for, man.
Oh, well you can try out Mandrake 7.0 {AIR}.
The network install disk fit's on one 1.44 and just give it a spin.
What the hey. You have NOTHING to loose.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:37:29 GMT
abraxas wrote:
>
> piddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > When will the new versions be finished?
>
> KDE 2.0 will be finished fairly soon, check their website for
> details. Ive experimented with a couple of the nightly builds
> and have been pleasantly surprised.
>
> Dont use gnome. It sucks ass.
>
> > Is there a website that explains the new features?
>
> Yes, many.
>
> -----yttrx
I like the KDE better but I've also used Gnome and
I'm not going to count them out.
In Gnome you can write applications via several languages
and METHODS.
In KDE you can write them via C++ only.
IT's your choice, but I like C++ so I stay with it.
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 18:44:18 -0400
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > MS no longer uses a version number for OLE. Inside OLE by Kraig
> > > Brockschmidt (MS Press) explains that OLE simply means OLE 2.0 since
> 1994.
> >
> > MS uses a version number for OLE to refer to OLE, Version 1.0 and it is
> > posted on MS's web page.
>
> When talking about OLE1 they state specifically that it's version 1. They
> do not specify version 2 in the majority of OLE2 documentation.
What's OLE1? What is OLE2?
The origin of OLE refers to OLE Version 1.0.
Can you use an adult reference and follow MS's own notation please?
> > Kraig Borckschmidt would join me in correcting your lies about OLE.
> > He'd tell you MS nevered had an API named OLE2 or OLE1. He would also
> > say that MS acknowledges and even has ownership and trademarks over "OLE
> > Version 1.0".
>
> > Last and most important, referenes to OLE's origins to not refer to the
> > origin of OLE Version 2.0. The origins of OLE refer to OLE Version
> > 1.0.
>
> You should really learn to not talk about books you've never read.
>
> Page 11 of Inside OLE:
>
> "You may notice that OLE is no longer given a version number. The first
> edition of this book was called inside OLE 2, but this edition is just
> Inside OLE. The reason for this is that OLE 2 implies that there will be an
> OLE 3. There will not be any such product. As an extensible service
> architecture, new features and technologies can be added to OLE within the
> existing framework without having to change the existing framework!"
>
> As you can see, Kraig specifically states that using the term OLE without
> any version number *MEANS* OLE 2.
The origin of OLE refers to OLE 1.0, the first version.
Lying isn't helping you. There isn't a MS text written that uses your
notation OLE2 or OLE1 including the one you're quoting. There isn't any
confusion that OLE's origin began with Version 1.0 and not Version 2.0.
You've lied about OLE's accessability to the community and it's
usefullyness. The OLE API was invented by the power point group and
later added to the OS. MS's developers had exclusive access to the OLE
API and competitors were at a competitive disadvantage.
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Ten Reasons Why Linux Sucks
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:44:04 GMT
> BTW, why didn�t W2K find my IR-mouse conn�d to COM1, when every
> other OS (including DOS) was able to find it? Why doesn�t work my
> SCSI-controller with my graphics-board under Windows, but does under
> Linux? Why can I scan a picture and write a CD under Linux
_simultaniously_
> but not under Windows?
I can't even format a: and playing music at the same time. How can you think
any windows can write to CD and scan. I think formating a floppy and playing
from my cdrom should be something easy, but windows freeze! Even
ctrl+alt+del doesn't work. So, you ask too more for windows.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 01:45:23 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > W2K took something like 1.5 to 2 years
> > over-run to get out the door.
>
> Yes, similar to Linux Kernel 2.4's being a year overdue.
>
> > The goals were to design a better system
> > which united the features of Windows 98 with
> > USB support as well as bring in the network
> > support found in NT under an all 32 bit
> > compiled code base.
>
> There were many more goals than that.
>
> > Also reported goals were to eliminate the
> > problem of blue screening as well as
> > maintain performance levels in multitasking.
>
> No. It's impossible to eliminate such things, just like it's impossible to
> eliminate kernel panics from Linux. If you could eliminate them, they
> wouldn't need to be there.
>
> Things like faulty hardware and to some extent background radiation *WILL*
> cause glitches on non-military spec systems.
How can they have NT being a flop in this arena and then make such
progress by SP 4 that we can actually keep a server up a full day.
There has to be a fix to this where-by a server can stay up for at least
a week under a heavy load before needing re-booting.
>
> > They didn't meet goal #1 very well and
>
> They met #1 perfectly.
No they didn't. Just one case in point is the Core Technologies bridge
disaster. Anybody who tries to use W2K to gain access to a mainframe
system can't as they designed OUT the DLL's which did the work.
>
> > totally failed at goal #2.
>
> Only because you are listening to "reported goals" by people who don't know
> what they're talking about.
If you are mildy asserting that #1 and #2 were NOT goals,
then I'd sure like to know what their goals were?
Or have we degenerated into playing word games.
>
> > W2K is slower than NT as well as it still
> > blue screens.
>
> It's significantly faster than NT if it has it's minimum requirements. 10%
> faster on average.
Every national magazine I've read plus my own hands on experience has
proven it's 35% slower than NT 4.0 with SP6 installed.
>
> > And at the same time have provided the public
> > with no improvements to the desktop.
>
> More absolutes? All it takes is *ONE* improvement to prove you wrong, and I
> can name several.
>
> Personalized Menus
> Unified All User/Specific User settings
> Integrated Index Engine into search system.
> Numerous small enhancements, like settings to make the control panel,
> printers, etc. a cascading menu
> The ability to customize the start menu. You can turn on and off things
> like Favorites, whether to scroll or tile the menu, etc..
>
> So, are you still going to say there are *NO* improvements?
I won't provide arguement with you there.
I'll just say, FOR ME, there have been no improvements.
I'm not going to run to the car dealerships when they start
offering those satellite navigation systems.
>
> > How could it be possible that the Team at
> > Microsoft spend 2 years more than estimated
> > and come up with a uni-os which doesn't
> > meet it's design goals?
>
> uni-os? It's most certainly a multiprocessor OS. It's also got tons of
> backend features.
No NO NO. I realize this.
What was ment was NO more 95, 98 and NT. No more parallel product
lines.
IT's a costing issue.
I'm just sad it doesn't work well.
It wouldn't trouble me much to quit picking on Microsoft if THEY DID
come out with an OS which could stay up for 1 week, handle a load,
and have the basic security issues FIXED. That's all I want from them.
I just can't understand why all we get is extra chrome and no actual
improvments.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Gnome, KDE, others....
Date: 21 May 2000 01:57:35 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> piddy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > When will the new versions be finished?
>>
>> KDE 2.0 will be finished fairly soon, check their website for
>> details. Ive experimented with a couple of the nightly builds
>> and have been pleasantly surprised.
>>
>> Dont use gnome. It sucks ass.
>>
>> > Is there a website that explains the new features?
>>
>> Yes, many.
>>
>> -----yttrx
> I like the KDE better but I've also used Gnome and
> I'm not going to count them out.
> In Gnome you can write applications via several languages
> and METHODS.
IMHO, this is a bad thing. It leads to lots of people who
are convinced that they know the PROPER way to do things, all
doing it at the same time===instability.
> In KDE you can write them via C++ only.
Though it might seem a bit heavy handed, KDE is extremely
stable as a result. Take a look at the extreme differences
between GNOME's rpm utility and KDE's.
> IT's your choice, but I like C++ so I stay with it.
I actually dont run either habitually. Again, my combination
is the best that there is, namely windowmaker compiled with
both KDE and GNOME frills enabled, +GTK themes, +a few kde
apps thrown in here and there.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
