Linux-Advocacy Digest #190, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What UNIX is good for. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows come in, your time is up. ("James")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows98 (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? ("Niall
Wallace")
Re: Good books on writing a kernel. (Nathan Dorfman)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:22 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 06:03:04 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:18:06 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> >
>>> >>or even a good LOGO interporator.
>>> >
>>> >Oh yeah, I want Win2K just to allow kids to program in LOGO!
>>> >
>>> >Brilliant!
>>> >
>>> >(IMO, one would be better off buying a used Amiga for that sort
>>> >of thing, or perhaps an old Mac II.
>>>
>>> But not UNIX beacause LOGO is far too advanced for UNIX!
>>>
>>
>>Logo is available for Linux. I have ucblogo-4.6-2. Now, MicroWorlds
>>might be a problem.
>
>Photoshop is avallable for Windows.
When we feel like spending that much for an image
manipulation program it might be relevant...
[deletia]
>>> of us want an OS that supports the hardware we alreaddy have. Linux doesn't even
>come cloase
>>> in hardwair support. Windows beats _any_ UNIX hands down.
>>>
>>
>>Almost any external modem is supported. In fact, all I had to do for mine
>>was plug it in and use modemtool to set the symlink for /dev/modem.
>
>EXTERNAL? Did Linux not suppoart the inntermal modem that came with your PC?
Did Windows 3.1?
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:32:41 GMT
On 18 Jun 2000 19:58:40 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:06:48 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 07:35:06 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>>>> ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>>>
>>>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.
>
>This is actually true (in one special case)..why dont you amaze the
>class by telling us what that one special case is and why its true?
He doesn't know, he's just repeating a FUD mantra.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows come in, your time is up.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:37:16 +0200
>From your enthusiasm I assume I will be able to run all those great Win apps
within weeks. Like Office 2000, Visio 2000, Money/Quicken, Acrobat,
AutoCAD, Photoshop, GroupWise, etc. All 100% supported by Wine.
RIP W2k.
James
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I just downloaded the latest version of Wine. it's pretty impressive.
> Soon, one of the main advantages of windows --- the applications
> avaliable (although I'm happy with the linux ones), will cease to be an
> advantages.
>
> In all other areas (except driver support), windows is playing catchup
> now. How else can windows becoming more like UNIX every release be
> explained.
>
>
> It's only a matter of time...
>
>
> -Ed
>
>
>
> --
> The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
> http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
>
> remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
> it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:40:22 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:10:57 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
Fonts really have nothing to do with Window Managers. You demonstrate
your total ignorance of the problem with such clueless comments.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:40:40 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:40:31 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
>
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 19 Jun 2000 17:41:51 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: wrote:
:>> 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.
:>
:>Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
:>no on is forcing KDE on to you...
: The sad part is... KDE is the best window manger for Linux.
The really sad part is that people still think KDE is a window manager.
http://www.kde.org/documentation/faq/kdefaq-2.html#ss2.4
Fortunately, Sawfish handily embarasses Windows' sorry excuse
for a window manager in the features and usability department.
And I'm pretty sure Sawfish will run nicely under KDE as well.
Unless, of course, you're one who believes people should have
the choice of any window manager they want so long as it's
Windows. But I don't think you'll find many sharing that
view on this newsgroup.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:42:13 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:56:13 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>>
>> Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>
>> > On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:50:49 -0400, Gary Hallock
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Especially when it took me all of about 3 minutes to install true-type
>> > >fonts and now KDE can use them.
>> >
>> > They looked just as ugly for me.
>>
>> So now you're the great art critic, huh?
>>
>> Colin Day
>No, he didn't bother. He's just assuming for the purposes of trolling.
TT fonts are the wrong kind to use. They need 4bit of color
resolution to avoid looking like shit. Type 1 fonts, OTOH,
can quite effectively act in the same capacity under X as
TT fonts would under Windows and deliver comparable visual
quality.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:44:23 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:53:11 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:51:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>>People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>>>ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>>
>> This is just your own fantasy.
>>
>> X can be quite fast, and more responsive than WinDOS due to the
>> fact that all windows are managed by a central executive (don't
>> you just hate it when IE5 hangs and clutters your desktop) and
>> there is more than enough eye candy and good fonts for X.
>
>
>That doesn't happen to me. IE is very stable in general but I have had
...the "it never happened to me" Lemming Mantra.
>it crash once or twice over the last year or so (counting the Win2k
>beats) I just kill iexplore.exe and that's that. My other IE windows
>remian open and I just go back to where ever I was.
That I find highly doubtful. Typically when one IE5 window
tank they all tank. This can be quite annoying.
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:47:23 GMT
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:33:13 GMT, David Cancio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Your post really sounds like a thinly veiled troll.
>
> May be your opinion.
>
>> Well, the first thing you don't mention while you're talking
>> about windows 98 being able to "drive your hardware at full
>> power" (whoa) is that WINDOWS DOESN'T FUCKING WORK.
>
> Obviously you are wrong. It does work. It fails a lot of times, but
>indeed
>it does work, and given that you're as a unbrainned zealot, let me say to
>you
These are mutually exclusive statements.
Either it actually works or it's failure prone.
It can't be both.
[deletia]
--
If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 12:49:20 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 16:25:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>>I think I have. Linux runs about as well on a 386 as DOS does. The lie
>>>is that Linux is going to somehow bring your old machines back to
>>>life.
>>
>> ANY Unix on a 386 is considerably more useful than DOS on a 386.
>> It will likely be useful for something. You lie if you claim
>> that people such as my self are claiming that it would be useful as
>> a conventional desktop machine.
>
>
>You know as well as I do that if you say Linux runs on a 386 users
>expect it to run just like the pretty (minus the uglyness of KDE)
>little picture on the back of the box looks like.
I think people who have 386's already know what to expect speed-wise
when using a GUI. Linux is able to do useful things without
the unnecessary overhead and thus offers a better choice.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:50:33 +0100
If Netscape 3 could run on a Win 3.1 486 33Mhz with 4Mb Ram on a 14"
monitor then I am sure even the newest versions can run on a 486 in Linux.
Niall
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:02:25 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >If you can't do this with Linux after reading "Linux for Dummies" then
> >you aimed too high. ;-)
> >
> >There is nothing that you have asked that can't be done in Linux.
>
> Netscape in 16MB on a 486? Yeah rite. On that kind of system the best you
can do with Linux is
> a coupal of virtual consouls and LYNX.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Flacco wrote:
> >>
> >> Can Linux do this?
> >>
> >> We would like to put some "obsolete" hardware to use as web browser
kiosks.
> >> We have Win95 and IE installed on them now, but I though I'd give Linux
a
> >> try.
> >>
> >> Requirements:
> >>
> >> - Run pretty well on 486/66's with 16MB RAM.
> >>
> >> - GUI that is fairly easy to use for a non-technical Windows user
> >>
> >> - Support 3270 connections to VM mainframe
> >>
> >> - Simple web browser with low memory requirements; must be easy to use
for
> >> people familiar with IE and Netscape.
> >>
> >> - Must be able to "lock down" the desktop so that users cannot change
the
> >> configurations at all. The only things we want these machines to be
able to
> >> do is browse the web and establish 3270 sessions.
> >>
> >> - As an added bonus, it would make my life easier if I can manage
these
> >> machines remotely from my office.
> >>
> >> - All software components must be freeware.
> >>
> >> Does anyone have any opinions on the feasibility of this, and
suggestions
> >> for products (3270 client, web browser), and techniques (ideal Linux
config,
> >> locking down desktop)?
> >>
> >> I'm just getting started with Linux, and I really like what I see so
far.
> >> Thanks in advance for your opinions and suggestions!
> >
> >--
> >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?
>
------------------------------
From: Nathan Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.programmer,comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.aix
Subject: Re: Good books on writing a kernel.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 14:06:35 EDT
Shailender wrote:
>
> Yes, I very much support this suggestion. I am myself interested in
> knowing
> how a system really works and Linux happened to be the most accessible
> way to learn. Actually one could start implementing a Kernel and
> other subsytems which can fit on a floppy disk, starting from the
> boot up phase. One problem I face (could be only me) is
> not having access to a RISC machine and the support from Linux community
> for RISC based machines (compared to x86). If RISC machines were
> more mainstream writing assembly code required for Kernel would be
> much a bit easier.
Old SPARC machines are fairly easy and not terribly expensive to obtain.
Depending on your budget, you should be able to get a running sun4c
system
(such as the SPARC 1+ or 2) for less than $100 or a sun4m like a SPARC
Classic
or LX for $100-200.
Linux, NetBSD and OpenBSD are all functional on these systems and
supported
quite well through the usual channels (mailing lists, etc.).
> Shailender
--
Nathan Dorfman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [http://www.rtfm.net]
"The light at the end of the tunnel is the headlight of an approaching
train." --/usr/games/fortune
------------------------------
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:06:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"whistler@ twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>
>> Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
>> book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where? The same printed Linux
>> manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
>>
>> Paul
>
>Books are still my prefered method of info even though I am always on
>the net downloading info. I bought "Linux complete" for $30 australian
>which is really just a collection of about a dozen faqs available from
>the LDP projects but I can read them without a computer on, or in bed
>just before I go to sleep, or on the road somewhere, or without flipping
>between screens, doing less damage to my eyes I'll bet, etc.
>
FAQS are good, sometimes! But again it doesn't fullfil the original posters
comments that you can get the same type of information for free with Linux
in the same packaging as is contained in the Microsoft Windows 2000 Server
Resource Kit. Fact is you can't. You can buy, usually for less the same type
of information in a bound copy for Linux as Microsoft Press is selling for
$209($29.86/volume U.SofA prices). It may not be a whole lot less if it has to
span the same 7 volumes.
>Why not write windows books and charge ridiculous prices, what a neat
>way to encourage the use of a free operating system and make some money
>at the same time!
>
The Microsoft Windows 2000 Server Resource Kit is 7 volumes, plus CD.
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=635208 - 1999 Hancock Airshow
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=67063&a=2618171 - National Warplane Museum
Limited engagement - Olympic Torch gala in Alice Springs, Australia
http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=609126&a=6708709
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
