Linux-Advocacy Digest #172, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Synthetic Speach on Linux (Matthias Warkus)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Michael Marion)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone (Terry Porter)
Re: G4 in space! ("Shock Boy")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Terry Porter)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Gary Hallock)
Re: G4 in space! (Vareck Bostrom)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Sony PCV-L620 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Timo Ely")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Leslie
Mikesell)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Synthetic Speach on Linux
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:34:45 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 18 Jun 2000 12:07:25 -0700...
...and Daniel Mendyke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Several years ago a friend showed me an application
> running on his Amiga that would read a standard
> text file and 'attempt' to read it over the systems
> speakers. (Naturally it sounded like a mechanical
> computer)
>
> Is there such a program for Linux?
Was the program you mean called "say"?
It has been *ported* to Linux; you can use the exact same program. Say
used to be include in the download package of a popular little text
editor (Gnotepad+?).
mawa
--
I made my way through the computer controlled monorail, car by car,
cruising for sentient beings.
-- Mark Leyner, My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:16:44 GMT
mlw wrote:
> And this is why Microsoft spent millions (billions?) making terminal
> server?
Making? I think you mean copying from Citrix. :)
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Yo' momma's so fat she makes emacs look like pico!
-- Another stolen from /.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 19 Jun 2000 05:24:22 +0800
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:49:40 GMT, whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>I've just returned from Perth, where I stopped to examine the increase in Linux
>>books at Dymocks Technical Bookshop, one of the better equiped bookstores in
>>Perth Western Australia.
>>
>>Whilst looking thru the entire bookshelf now devoted to Linux (and Unix)
>>I noticed a huge set of boxed books marked "The Windows2000 Server Resource
>>Kit" priced at $299!
>>
>>Thats right Two Hundred and Ninety Nine dollars for the things Linux does for
>>free, for **ZERO** dollars!
>>
>
>Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
>book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where?
You can read them from a $10 CD on your pc.
> The same printed Linux
>manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
I read info on my pc, I don't need a huge collection of proprietary books that
will be out of date in a couple of years.
Windows3000 ?
>
>Paul
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 5 days 10 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Shock Boy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:29:01 GMT
"Charles Kooy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when void would say:
> > >On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:06:39 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >wrote:
> > >>
> > >>What have you got against me saying a bit dim witted. To put an i86 in
> > >>space would be very dim witted. You can have degrees of dimwittedness.
> > >
> > >An Intel chip would be a bad idea, but a Crusoe might work well.
> >
> > On the other hand, Intel may well have a Space Systems division that
> > produces radiation-hardened products, as described at
> > <http://www.gcn.com/archives/gcn/1999/February22/33a.htm>.
>
> I seem to recal them signing over the rights and designs of the 386 (or
> maybe even the 486) to the US government (for their own use only, of
> course, not commercial use). I believe the processor in question was
> hardened.
Yes.. the US military/nasa has used a multitude of rad/shock hardened 386/486
processors. For example, i believe the Hubble was just
recently "upgraded" to a 486..
>From what I understand.. the major stumbling block to faster computers is not the
>processor.. but really the memory...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 19 Jun 2000 05:37:08 +0800
The answer, as far as I'm concerned is that answer to the subject, is
that Windows claim is a fantasy.
When I upgraded from Win3.1 to Win95, ABC Flowcharter would no longer work.
Only one example is needed to prove that Windows does NOT support old
applications.
As it happened a quick search of the net located a excellent Linux flowcharter
the "TCM" Diagrammer. This will work on all past and future versions of Linux,
its free, and every bit as good as ABC flowcharter. When one considers the OS
that TCM is running under, it blows ABC away, totally.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 5 days 10 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:40:31 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:38:10 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
> wrote:
>
> >It was the Sun, 18 Jun 2000 03:04:59 -0400...
> >...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >X isn't ugly, as you don't get to see X. KDE, Gnome. Afterstep can
> >> >be beautiful or ugly.
> >>
> >> KDE is ugly too. Seriously... the fonts look better on a 15 year old
> >> Mac.
> >
> >How pathetic... Is that the best you can do? Complain about fonts?
>
> Fonts are the most basic and most universal problem of Linux window
> managers. I mention it fist because it's one of the most annoying
> issues. KDE is a Windows 9x UI clone and not a very good one at that.
> The BeOS UI and the Mac OS UI are both much better.
>
> The other problems with windows managers is their lack of integrated
> tools. KDE seems to have tried to clone the Win9x UI in this respect
> but again, not very well. I expect a UI to be more than just a window
> manager. It should be the graphical representation of the OS itself.
> Maybe KDE is though... an ugly clone of a sub par UI with almost no
> attention paid to usability and little (if any) consistency.
>
> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
Personally, I find Windows to be extremely ugly. And the lack of multiple
desktops is just pathetic. Quite often I will be deeply involved with
development work with many windows open and someone walks into my office
with a question or problem. I just switch to an unused desktop and they
can then show me what the problem is without upsetting my whole
development desktop.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:45:40 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> You know what I consider slow? When I scroll in Netscape and I see the
> page fliker. That's ugly and slow. They reason why everyone blames X
> is because none of the window managers are nearly as fast as the
> Windows UI. The only common link is X. I don't care what the exact
> reason is. Either it needs to be fixed or people need to stop
> promoting Linux as the second coming of Jebus for the consumers.
>
Whatever "slowness" might have existed with XFree86 (I assume you are talking
about this and not X in general) has been fixed with XFree86 4.
>
> KDE exists to apeal to a desktop user. Since it clones the Windows UI
> we'll assume it is meant to apeal to a Windows desktop user. For
> whatever reason, it's slow and ugly. It has been slow and ugly for
> years now. If Linux was only going after the server market it wouldn't
> be a big deal... they're not. KDE is a consumer level product and it's
> just not very good. (for whatever reason)
>
How long is "years"? KDE hasn't been around for very long. And have you
seen KDE 2.0?
Gary
------------------------------
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: Vareck Bostrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 14:49:14 GMT
>
> I seem to recal them signing over the rights and designs of the 386 (or
> maybe even the 486) to the US government (for their own use only, of
> course, not commercial use). I believe the processor in question was
> hardened.
I believe it was the designs and right to produce a radation hardened Pentium.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Date: 18 Jun 2000 16:43:48 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>VC++ will compile to UNIX?
>>
>>Colin Day
>
>No, I built the UNIX version of POVray. By that I mean I started with the
>basic sources, took config.h from UNIX, ripped out pratically everything
>and built my custom version.
>
>Incidentally, if I increase the Bounding Threshold to 25, so that POVray is
>now running the same on Windows as Linux, I see the following results:
>
>Windows 98 SE 28 minutes 30 seconds
>Linux 32 minutes 42 seconds
>
>Windows 98 SE is _still_ running faster than Linux.
Did you ever run that 'ps ax' and count the other stuff you
have running under Linux?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sony PCV-L620
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:41:54 GMT
In article <8i1gq5$adf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been debating for a while, if I should buy the Sony Slimtop,
PCV-
> L620, is there anyone out there, who has successfully installed RH
> Linux on this model ? And, were there any hardware
> conflict/incompatibility issues. The expenditure for this system is
> quite astronomical, and I'd really appreciate if anyone could clarify
> my doubts, more so because, I am buying this system, simply to work on
> Linux, and nothing else.
If you want to run Linux, get a precofingured system from dell or evem
better, you can built one for around 600 to 1,000 dollar, defending on
the performance. Sans monitor.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:50:00 -0500
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 15:39:13 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>> I see the future as thin clients using technology like Microsoft
>> Terminal Server. With a fast network (100BT, but soon gigabit
>> ethernet will be affordable) it becomes more and more difficult, for
>> non-games, to tell a difference between local and remote access. When
>> gigabit (or perhaps one step beyond that) gets here, I doubt most
>> people will be able to tell the difference. For the office
>> environment, that makes for a very easily controlled but very powerful
>> setup.
>
>
>You're right about the central administration advantages, but the problem
>there is getting enough umph in the server and the network near the server
>to service those clients.
The network bit is solved with gigabit (or one step beyond) Ethernet
and a switched network.
The Server bit can be solved in a variety of ways - many servers, or
high horsepower servers, or both. For what many people need, present
servers each hosting a dozen or two dozen people would work just fine.
------------------------------
From: "Timo Ely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:35:37 -0400
You know, there is more to the rest of the world than what is in your
office.
> >Really? Windows in everywhere? Not in my office. I have a 64-bit
dual processor RS/6000 workstation
> >running AIX 4.3. Next to it I have a Thinkpad running Linux. I run
Lotus Notes on Linux on my Thinkpad
> >and redirect the display to my workstation. There are about 1000 of
these AIX boxes in my area. Then we
> >have a 12-way S/390 G6 running Linux on VM/ESA. No Windows in sight.
> >
> >Gary
>
> Ahhhh,
> This sounds like heaven.
>
> Can I go?
>
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 17:58:25 -0400
On 18 Jun 2000 11:42:40 GMT, WhyteWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Colin R. Day wrote:
>[sniped the lies of Tim Palmer]
>
>>And what shell is this?
>>
>>Colin Day
>>
>
>
>its' not a shell it's in reference to vim ..
>
>altho it does show his stupidity
>he doesn't seem to relize that
>write makes alot more sence
>then save ... because you are in fact
>writeing a file not saveing it
>and then the :quit command
>becomes avalible with out the
>must write warning altho if he
>didn't want to write and still quit
>!quit should have worked unless vim
>isn't set up right in which case
>typeing !quit gives a error msg like he
>discribes
>
The command to quit without writing is quit!, not !quit. !quit runs
the shell command "quit".[*]
* I know that the "!" command is meant to pipe text to a command
and replace the text with the output of the command, but when you
don't have any text selected and you don't give any line numbers,
most VI implementations will run the command with the standard
input and output connected to the terminal.
>
>--
>-=-=-=-=-
>Biology grows on you.
>-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: 18 Jun 2000 16:57:27 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich C"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> So......you type characters to select the file, and type another
>> command to open it. Where does the GUI part come in? This sounds like
>> an embedded CLI to me. A GUI is a "graphical user interface." An
>> interface (to anything) consists of both output AND INPUT. Clicking
>> icons and buttons, and selecting menu items with the mouse is
>> graphical input. typing commands is COMMAND INPUT.
>
>The GUI allows one to drag through n levels of nested folders, popping
>them open with a slight hesitation until the target folder is reached.
>_Then_ the initial letter is typed to complete the selection (a
>combination of GUI and CLI inputs). Now, CMD-delete, or click-drag to
>move it, or option-click-drag to copy it out or whatever is your
>pleasure.... _You_ may call the entry of the initial character of the
>filename or cmd-delete a COMMAND INPUT. I call the overall task a _GUI
>operation_ which took significantly less time than a "pure" CLI would
>have required, at least in the case where you didn't _know_ the exact
>path before starting to enter a "pure" CLI input (which must be entered
>without a single keystroke error or all bets are off).
Why is a keystroke error more likely or significant than a mouse-wiggle
error? I've had about 20 more years of practice at the former and
there is normally time to view and correct the typed line before
committing it with <enter>.
Besides, most(all?) unix shells will let you wildcard all parts of a
path that will resolve unambiguously, or will do tab-completion on
a directory level at a time, so you really don't have to type all
those letters right. But you do have to click exactly in the right
spot.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:00:08 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Timo Ely wrote:
> You know, there is more to the rest of the world than what is in your
> office.
Yes. And your point is????
Gary
------------------------------
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:06:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:49:40 GMT, whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>>I've just returned from Perth, where I stopped to examine the increase in
> Linux
>>>books at Dymocks Technical Bookshop, one of the better equiped bookstores in
>>>Perth Western Australia.
>>>
>>>Whilst looking thru the entire bookshelf now devoted to Linux (and Unix)
>>>I noticed a huge set of boxed books marked "The Windows2000 Server Resource
>>>Kit" priced at $299!
>>>
>>>Thats right Two Hundred and Ninety Nine dollars for the things Linux does for
>
>>>free, for **ZERO** dollars!
>>>
>>
>>Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
>>book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where?
>You can read them from a $10 CD on your pc.
>
But that doesn't meet the specifications, now does it!
>> The same printed Linux
>>manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
>I read info on my pc, I don't need a huge collection of proprietary books that
>will be out of date in a couple of years.
>
But that doesn't meet the specifications, now does it!
>Windows3000 ?
Artichokes?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
