Linux-Advocacy Digest #210, Volume #27 Tue, 20 Jun 00 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Sam Morris")
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do .......
("James")
Re: The Linux Challenge ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows98 ("Robert L.")
Re: how do i change the system date? (mark)
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do .......
(Brian Langenberger)
Re: Windows98 ("Robert L.")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Chad Myers")
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:40:18 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 23:52:01 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:23:28 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >
> >Legal bases as well, the varations of the promised user interfaces was a
> >result of the not knowing what would happen in court in their case agains
> >Apple.
>
> Makes sense.
>
Except that their promised user interfaces faded away as soon as the legal
battle with Apple ended. However, theend of the legal battle did not
invalidate or negate the reasons that they had publicly stated for the need
for the user interfaces.
For everything else reread the documentation from Microsoft.
> You deny that drivers have value in their source. Your proposal
> offers to strip hardware companies of the thousands of dollars
> invested in a driver that gives their product an advantage over the
> competition. Compare the nVidia GeForce to the S3 Savage2000. Chips
> are about the same power. Drivers excelled on the GeForce and sucked
> on the S2000. Why should (as you propose) nVidia give up this
> enormous commercial advantage?
>
> The simple fact is your proposal does not hold water when you consider
> the value which is contained in the driver. See my response elsewhere
> in the NG for more.
I deny nothing about the "value" of today's drivers. I also don't say that
all drivers should be offered as open source. The choice is up to the
manufacter. However, in the long run the hardware manufacters that would be
better off are those that release the specs for the use of the devices
and/or an open source reference driver. The money they save by not having
to maintain version after version of their drivers and the additional sales
to users of OS's and archtictures that they would not have otherwise
provided drivers for.
For a new NIC, the manufacturer should provide a packet driver and perhaps
drivers for a few other popular driver formats. If those drivers are then
release as open source, the manufacturer is then all set to crank out their
hardware product and forget all about the driver side of the problem. No
need for the manufacturer to give any more thought and apply any more
resources to the drivers for that device, unless they would like to.
For drivers that contain algorithms that can make piece of hardware a winner
over its competitors and semihardware like winmodems and winprinters, is
stupidity incarnate. The more of the hardware device is implemented in
silicon the better it iis for the user and for the maufacturer. Key
features of a hardware device implemented in silicon would make it more
difficult for the competition to copy. The more work that is offloaded from
the processor the better. Whatever is considered too sensitive in the
driver to be release as source code, should be embeded into the hardware
itself. If the hardware device must have access to a processor then a
processor should be embeded into the device. If you need to upgrade the
device personality by downloading software to the card this could be done by
using a EEPROM or a similar device.
A driver should have no more code than is need to handle the passing data to
and from the device or where needed to control the behavior of the device.
Consider a total bare bones hardware device, it would need two I/O ports.
Port one when read from gets data from the device, port one when written to
gives data to the device. Port two when read from gets the status
information of the device, port two when written to send control information
to the device, perhaps including the computer's willingness to recieve data.
How much interal secrets would this give away.
You not able to publicly support this point of view, since your company
makes money by selling hardware and software development including drivers.
You would still be making money if drivers were open source or the specs of
the hardware were freely distributed; however, you feel that you would loose
one of your major markets. It would be against your vested interest to
support what I have been suggesting. So I will excuse your comments
generated by your narrow view of a much broader subject.
Linux and opensource sure does frighten you, I got a good laugh out of your
anti-Linux biased comparison "Linux: An NT Point of View" on the website of
your firm. Widen your view and you will see how it could work for you
instead of threaten you.
> Sometimes there may be value in not giving the product away? What if
> a company stands to lose by giving a product away, but simply not gain
> by trashing it? You fail to consider issues of technical support,
> sales channel distribution and other non-software costs.
What technical support? Release it as unsupported software. Sales channel
for freeware? Just put it on their Website or FTP Archive and forget it.
========
* Continued alienation and hazing in public schools ensures a steady supply
of misfit geeks to code for free.
* Absolute adherence to open standards means technological development moves
back to the control of government and academia, where it belongs.
* Savvy Linux community media and development houses successfully selling to
teen coders the concept that writing device drivers for free is a cool form
of rebellion.
-- Top 10 Reasons Linux Will Be A Smash Hit On The Desktop -- Linux An NT
Point of View by John Wiltshire of CHaSE (Computer Hardware and Software
Engineering)
========
------------------------------
From: "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:48:42 +0100
> >> >Please be more specific. I can easily change my Mac's hard drive name
> >> >and nothing breaks.
> >>
> >> What does it do when two volumes have the same name?
> >> This possibility has already been discussed and the
> >> solution didn't sound elegant at all.
> >
> >Not elegant?
>
> Certainly. The user has to alter they way they use the
> system due to an inherent flaw. They shouldn't have to
> change the volumename at all.
What? Noone forces any user to change a volume name. You can have aliases on
the MacOS that point to whatever folderitems you want, and be assured that,
whatever you do to those items, the alias will still work. Even if you have
twenty-six partitions with the name "Dave", with identical folder layouts,
an alias pointing to a file on one of the Daves will never ever ever point
to an identically item on another Dave. Ever ever ever.
--
Sam Morris
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...7/6/00: 3rd installation of Windows since March took 6h30m, and that's
without a working modem...
...you can have my Mac when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers...
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
.......
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:49:36 +0200
>
> > But this newsgroup will be very boring if everyone
> >just praises Linux.
> Why ?
> Theres a lot to praise, unlike the OS *your* using right now.
>
I am using W2k Pro right now. Sometimes I use Mandrake 7.1. Admittedly
only to tinker with. Prefer IE5/OE to Netscape 6 for Linux. The latter is
functionally crappy and very slow - especially as a newsreader.
W2k has many praises and is certainly miles ahead of any Linux distro - as
an *effective* desktop. Hell, I read that W2k even beats Linux in server
benchmarks! But if Linux is better I would use it. Pity it is not.
James
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:37:43 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Please note that this newsgroup is intended for arguments FOR and AGAINST
> ^^^^^^^
> >Linux.
> WRONG !!!
> Please learn the meaning of ADVOCACY ????
>
> > Steve often identifies real (as opposed to imaginary) shortcomings
> >of Linux. Yes, perhaps he does have too many aliases, and perhaps he is
> ^^^^^^^
> WRONG: They are not aliases, they are FALSE identities, to escape from
kill
> files.
>
> >wrong from time to time.
> WRONG: Theis person is a Troll 100% of the time.
>
> > But this newsgroup will be very boring if everyone
> >just praises Linux.
> Why ?
> Theres a lot to praise, unlike the OS *your* using right now.
>
> > IMHO Linux has established itself as a server OS, but
> >has many miles to go before it qualifies as a decent Desktop.
> Only in your opinion, ive been using Linux AS a desktop since 1997.
>
> > Critics, like
> ^^^^^^^
> WRONG: Steve is not a critic, he is a Wintroll. People need to know the
> **difference**.
>
> >Steve, are there to point out these shortcomings.
> >It is all about democracy - and calling a spade a spade!
> Gardening department next building on the left, have a good day.
>
> >James
> >
> >
> >"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Would you take advice from a Ford salesman, trying to convince you
> >> that Honda's were crap ?
> >>
> >> What if he didn't actually know anything about cars anyway ?
> >>
> >> How about if he was so ashamed of his real identity, being
> >> a total liar and bs artist, that every time you went to that
> >> particular car yard, he had changed his name ?
> >>
> >> This is simon777, otherwise known as "Steve/Heather/Amy/Keys88" etc.
> >>
> >> He has been posting here for 2 years, and its always the same Wintroll
> >> stuff, clever but untrue.
> >>
> >> Do yourself a favor if you're a lurker or a undecided Linux user :-
> >>
> >> ** kill file him **!
> >>
> >> If you do, you'll have a LOT less stuff to read, and will be able to
get
> >down
> >> to the nitty gritty, of good old Linux advocacy, without the lies.
> >>
> >>
> >> Is your time worth more than reading his lies ?
> >>
> >>
> >> Kind Regards
> >> Terry
> >> --
> >> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> >> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> >> up 1 day 15 hours 53 minutes
> >> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 4 days 12 hours 53 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Challenge
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:54:49 GMT
Of course their sales increased. If YOU had that much money invested
in hardware and the OS was abandoned you would consider ANY OS just to
make the damm thing run.
BTW I think MS was crazy to abandon Alpha....
On 20 Jun 2000 17:34:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David
Steinberg) wrote:
>BR ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: http://www.networkcomputing.com/1112/1112f1.html
>: Read it. Reflect on it. Enjoy it.
>
>One piece of information (just from the introduction) that jumped out at
>me was this:
>
> And Alpha Processors Inc. (API) says the focus on Linux after
> Microsoft decided to stop supporting the Alpha platform has
> contributed to the 45 percent increase API has seen in Alpha sales.
>
>I had never heard that before. In fact, I've never before heard of
>hardware sales INCREASING because a major software product stops
>supporting it!
>
>Although I can't figure out the logic behind it, apparently it's true: the
>market sees the alpha as a more viable platform without NT than with it.
>
>How delightful.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:56:28 GMT
Typical LinoNut semantic argument designed to take the focus off the
original point that KDE sucks compared to Windows as far as the
consistancy and speed of the gui is concerned.
The point is like I said above. Who cares what the cause is?
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jeff Szarka would say:
>>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 sad part is... Clueless idiots that think KDE _is_ a window
>manager, despite _vast_ quantities of evidence to the contrary.
>
>How many times do you need to be told that KDE is not a window manager
>until it will penetrate deep enough into your pea brain to take
>sufficient hold that you might feebly wonder: "Is KDE a window
>manager? Maybe not..."
>
>KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
>
>When you state that it is, you simply make evident your ignorance, so
>as to demonstrate that what you say is based on ignorance and
>apparently complete apathy to educate yourself.
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:04:03 GMT
And it's the first time someone say I have to write re-install.
Thanks for your help.
( i'm much better in french than in english )
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Robert L." wrote:
> >
> > Get a cdrom of windows 98, make a scratch on the cd, and maybe you can
> > achieve something more reliable than that. :)
> >
> > When I read people saying "Linux is not free unless your time worth
nothing"
> > I laugh and i can't do anything for about 1 hours ( isn't the time it
take
> > to install windows? )
>
> You misspelled "RE-INSTALL....for the 50th time"
>
>
>
> >
> > "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message
news:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > "Robert L." wrote:
> > >
> > > > Win98 is a good OS. If well configured, it may be bug less.
> > > > I mean, habitually, it take 3-4 month before i have to reinstalled
it.
> > >
> > > Incredible! Where can I buy this paragon of reliability!
> > >
> > > Bobby Bryant
> > > Austin, Texas
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
> 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] (mark)
Subject: Re: how do i change the system date?
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:50:49 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:49:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: I want to change the system date of my linux machine.
>: how do i do that?
>
>I'm a fan of using rdate, rather than date.
>
>rdate -s clock.timeserver.somewhere.org
>
>To make the hardware clock reflect the system time:
>
>hwclock --systohc
don't you have to tell hwclock programme about timezones or something?
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
.......
Date: 20 Jun 2000 21:13:50 GMT
James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:> > But this newsgroup will be very boring if everyone
:> >just praises Linux.
:> Why ?
:> Theres a lot to praise, unlike the OS *your* using right now.
:>
: I am using W2k Pro right now. Sometimes I use Mandrake 7.1. Admittedly
: only to tinker with. Prefer IE5/OE to Netscape 6 for Linux. The latter is
: functionally crappy and very slow - especially as a newsreader.
As far as I'm concerned, Netscape and IE are tied in the unpleasantness
department. Opera is looking better with each release and I'm too
lazy to assemble all the KDE bits I need to get Konqueror going - web
browsing is only a secondary use for my hardware.
: W2k has many praises and is certainly miles ahead of any Linux distro - as
: an *effective* desktop. Hell, I read that W2k even beats Linux in server
: benchmarks! But if Linux is better I would use it. Pity it is not.
Your "effective" desktop certainly isn't mine. Benchmarks aren't
particularly relevant since I doubt the apps you need for an "effective"
desktop are equally available across UNIX/Linux and W2k. My needs
include Emacs, LaTeX, Python, make, Sawfish and tcsh. Since Linux
includes all of these out of the box in a nice easy-to-use UNIX-type
environment, I see no reason to use anything else.
------------------------------
From: "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:14:41 GMT
No, is not acceptable. No, is not good. Yes you are right.
But win98 isn't a server or any very critical part of a network.
It's only for playing games ( when it don't crash ). Is not to
use as a web server.
Yes is silly, but windows fan are silly too. I'm not a windows fan
( some people may think so ). But i'm not a windows hater.
I just want to play, learn, work, etc.. with my 2 computer.
( win98 = play )
( Linux = learn, work, etc... )
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gary Connors wrote:
> >
> > "Robert L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Win98 is a good OS. If well configured, it may be bug less.
> > > I mean, habitually, it take 3-4 month before i have to reinstalled it.
> >
> > Do you realize how silly this sounds? Okay, I'm may be going out on a
> > limb here, but is TOTALLY unacceptable to have reinstall an OS every
"3-4"
> > months. It's TOTALLY unacceptable to have to reinstall it at all. In
the
> > almost 3 years I've worked with SGI's, I have NEVER seen a single one of
> > them crash. I have NEVER seen a single of them "break". The ONLY time
> > they ever get rebooted is when new hardware in installed or when it
> > necissary to apply security fixes. That's it. In the 6 years of owning
> > and using Mac's at home, i have NEVER in my entire life needed to
> > reinstall the OS to make it work. It may crash, but at least on reboot
it
> > works still and I assume as long as you don't run your Linux box as root
> > 24/7, it won't need to be reinstalled either thanks to Unix File
> > permissions preventing the user from messing with critical system files.
> > I still don't understand how the Registry gets corrupted and futhermore
I
> > dont get why on Earth MS still uses the Regitry if one corruption can
> > bring down the OS in such a big way as to require a OS reinstall.
> >
> > That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
>
> Your opinion is correct.
>
> That's why anybody with a degree in Computer Science or Computer
> Systems Engineering recognizes LoseDows for the pile of shit that it is.
>
>
> --
> 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: "Chad Myers" <[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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 16:14:44 -0500
Another insightful, witty, and intelligent posting
by a *nix advocate.
LoseDows... how creative. Did you think that up all by
yourself?
-Chad
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Timo Ely wrote:
> >
> > You know, there is more to the rest of the world than what is in your
> > office.
>
> Is, or is not, his office included in "everywhere" ???
>
> The original poster claims that LoseDows is run "everywhere"
>
> That would, by definition, include Charlies office.
>
> But Charlie's office doesn't run LoseDows.
>
> Neither does mine.
>
> Unix all the way!
>
>
> >
> > > >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
> > >
>
>
> --
> 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] (mark)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:04:48 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mingus wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 08:29:36 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>I see it here so often, and so many Linux advocates get dragged down
>>this path. It wastes your personal bandwidth and it is a classic example
>>of an argument which can not be won, not because it isn't true, but
>>because of the great number of variables in the market place.
>>
>>99% of the machines sold today are sold with Windows. To argue that
>>Windows is not "easier" to install is problematic. Yes you have to
>>reboot after you install each and every stupid little plug and play
>>device, etc. However, chances are that the hardware will be supported in
>>some fashion, because the box shipped with Windows, it only follows that
>>the OEM distributor put the work in to their n x 1000 boxes to ship with
>>all the correct support.
>
>That's not even true. Windows 2000 only needs to reboot when
>installing certain types of hardware. There is no sense in talking
>about Windows 9x since the future of consumer Windows is NT.
Weell, then we'd better consider how difficult it is to install windows
2000, how it doesn't come with a cd for when it all crashes/burns, how
very little hardware is supported, etc.
>
>>Installation is important, but OEM installation is even more important.
>>With OEM installation, the user will never be faced with installation
>>and it becomes a non issue. Unlike Windows, Linux does not need to be
>>"reinstalled" if something goes wrong. It can actually be fixed in
>>place. It can actually be upgraded while running normally!
>
>And you really expect a new user to request Linux over Windows?
Yes. They're doing it more and more.
>
>>This leaves the real issues, on which the Windows advocates can't touch
>>Linux:
>>
>>Scalibility
>>Windows may "scale" by using a vastly different code base for each
>>level, CE, DOS, and NT. Linux scales using the same code base.
>
>Why would a user who logs into a NT system at work and uses a CE
>system on the road care? Windows = Windows.
No, windows != windows. wince != win95 != windows 2000 - no binary
compatibility, different user interfaces for the user to learn. All
very difficult for an average user - were that not the case, wince
might have done quite well, but it's really bombed, hasn't it.
>
>>Flexibility
>>You can have your Linux anyway you want, in almost any form you want.
>>You can have very few features, or all of them. And you don't have to
>>install netscape if you don't want too. You don't even need a hard
>>drive.
>
>Again, it really comes down to no one expect computer nerds caring
>about such things. Do you think my parents care they can install Linux
>without Netscape? Sure, I like the fact I can make a very clean
>install with Linux but even I would rather install it all and save
>some time.
No, but the new net appliances that are appearing are more likely to be
running linux because of that flexibility. From a business perspective,
windows lack of flexibility just doesn't make sense.
>
>>Reliability
>>I will not say that I've never seen Linux crash, or that I haven't
>>needed to reboot. But, when I have it has been for an explicit reason,
>>that I understood and could take corrective action. It has not been
>>because it was working funny and rebooting it would "fix" it.
>
>Anytime you need to reboot NT because of strange behavior you better
>get to the bottom of it or you'll need to repeat the process a few
>months later.
why do micrsoft marketing people have such trouble spelling 'minutes'.
You will need to reboot NT a few minutes later.
You will need to reboot NT a few minutes later. Or for the great new
version:
You will need to reboot windows 2000 a few minutes later.
See, it's not so hard to write.
>
>>Applications
>>Windows has a few great applications. There can be no argument about
>>that. However, a few really great ones tend to out shadow the really
>>really bad ones. All in all, IMHO, the applications on Linux tend to be
>>better than those on Windows.
>
>I bet everyone in my office thinks I'm crazy. When I read this I not
>only laughed out loud but I had to mention it to as many people as
>possible because each time it kept getting funnier. Star Office is
>sure better than MS Office huh? KDE isn't just a pathetic clone of
>Windows? Again, wake up. Consumer level Linux software is dreadful.
MSoffice is unpopular junk. I have to use it, my colleagues have to,
it's universally loathed. MSword has more or less been dropped now,
powerpoint is being used because it's actually easier to write docs
in than msword (amazing, isn't it? well, maybe not if you look at
word).
>
>>X11
>>People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
>>limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
>>features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right. A
>>graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
>>both applications and OS. Microsoft's terminal server is a resource hog.
>>To run an application server means a very expensive service, you would
>>not run it on a heavily loaded web server. However, it is perfectly
>>reasonable to run "xosview -display admin:0.0" to get a live visual
>>update of a UNIX web server.
>
>Features no one cares about. They want it to work, work fast and look
>good. It doesn't. It's like people who like music simply because of
>the mathematics behind it. Go get yourself a calculator and some hand
>cream. Consumers want tangible features.
X and related (e.g, VNC client/servers for X displays) seem to be
getting more common in my environment - something to do with them
working reliably, I think?
>
>I'm not sure about the NT4 version of TS but the NT5 version is very
>good. I use it to remotely administrate my firewall/NAT on a low end
>system with 64MB and it works fine. TS is fine, it's the Windows
>applicatoins that hog memory.
>
>
>
>
--
Mark - remove any ham to reply.
"A compiler is a program that takes the pseudo-English gibberish produced
by a programmer and turns it into the sort of binary gibberish understood
by a computer." Linux for the uninitiated ... by Paul Heinlein
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
