Linux-Advocacy Digest #239, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 20:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Boring (Tim Palmer)
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux app spec...
Re: Linux is awesome!
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Linux is awesome!
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:11:42 -0500
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:15:52 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:12:54 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >
>> >> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
>> >> >>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
>> >> >>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
>> >>
>> >> Uhm, no. Not even close.
>> >>
>> >> >What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
>> >>
>> >> The government can't do anything to them until the appeals proscess is over. By
>then, this whole
>> >> UNIX revival thing will halve blone over.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
>> >> >what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> That it sucks. Just like the KDE befor it. You can put Windos like environmant
>ontop of UNIX, but
>> >> thats' still UNIX under theare,
>> >
>> >Thank goodness, I like having a stable OS.
>>
>> You cant make a easy-to-use OS on top of UNIX. Thatts the point. No matter what you
>do, you
>> can't get rid of the eccentrictys of UNIX accept by getting rid of UNIX
>alltoggether.
>
>
>No Tim Palmer, that's not true.
Reelay? Then what OS is based on UINX that is easy to use like Widnows?
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >> and you can't get rid of the limmitations of UNIX except by getting
>> >> rid of the UNIX. That is why UNIX+KDE fales now just like UNIX without it did,
>and UNIX+KDE2 will
>> >> continnue to fale in the future.
>> >
>> >What sort of limitations? No GPF's or BSOD's?
>>
>> No surround sound.
>
>I have that.
>
>> No coppy-protected DVD.
>
>I have that.
>
>> No SBLive support.
>
>I have that.
>
>> Limmited video support
>
>I have several ways to watch a video, dozens and dozens...
Yeah, DeCSS, whitch is illeagle.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Just face it: UNIX is the PAST. Leave it in the 1970s whear it belongs.
>> >>
>> >
>> >It's also the future.
>>
>> It cant evan play DVDs. You call that the _future_?
>
>
>Yes you can. I am.
>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >I think the Microsoft community realizes that there is no competing with
>> >> >Linux as the Linux community comes out with a new version roughly once
>> >> >every 6-9 months.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, and you accuse Windwos of making peopal upgrade.
>> >>
>> >
>> >But Linux companies don't charge as much, and one can upgrade
>> >a few packages at a time?
>>
>> You can do that on Windos too.
>
>
>No you can't. Windows is all or none.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >This in comparison to Windows 2-4 year revisionary
>> >> >history,,, with complete writeups from the ground floor up.
>> >> >
>> >> >Charlie
>> >> >
>> >
>> >Colin Day
>> >
>
>
>He never signes his mail to me...
>I'll sign it for him.
>
>> Tim 'Clueless in computerland' Palmer.
>
>Thank you Tim.
>
>Tim, people are actually getting smarter every year using Linux.
>You should attempt to get smarter.
>
>
>Charlie
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 21 Jun 2000 19:11:52 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:42:48 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>
>> > mlw wrote:
>
>>
>> >Why on earth would your grandmother want to know about software design.
>> >This post was intended to show the technical difference between two
>> >methodologies. The same bogus statement can be made were one to describe
>> >the difference between 98SE an W2k.
>>
>> That's my point. She doesn't care. Linux zealots (advocates if you
>> like) spend so much time telling people why they *have* to use Linux
>> and NO ONE cares the least bit that X is some magical bit of a code
>> for nuts around the globe to embrace and celebrate.
>>
>> >> >
>> >> >We want an OS that is not dumbed down to your grandmother.
>> >>
>> >> and that's why Turbo Linux and Corel are laying off people. There
>> >> isn't a big enough market for even one Linux company.
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> People hate X becuase it's ugly and slow. They don't care why it's
>> >> >> ugly and slow, they just know it is.
>> >
>> >But X isn't ugly. X is the device driver, not the code which does the
>> >presentation. As for fonts, there are many very good fonts for X. X,
>> >btw, isn't the fastest display technology, sure, but it is hard to
>> >characterize it as slow.
>>
>> You know what I consider slow? When I scroll in Netscape and I see the
>> page fliker.
>
>I don't see it flicker on mine.
Take the scroall bar and move across the page realy fast.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>Everyone blames X? I don't blame X.
>
...everyone accept Linux zellots.
>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
>So Windows comes with 8 desktops out of the box? I would hope
>that the KDE team is more ambitious than just trying to clone Windows.
>
>
>> For
>> whatever reason, it's slow and ugly.
>
>Ugly?
>
Yes. UGLY.
>
>> It has been slow and ugly for
>> years now.
>
>KDE hasn't even had release versions for two years.
>
>
>> 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)
>>
>
>KDE is good.
slow is good. criptic is good. commands are good. Lye to yorself all you want.
>
>>
>> Is X better than MS TS? Maybe. I don't know/care. TS works great for
>> doing remote administratoin of my servers.
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:16:29 -0500
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:20:16 -0600, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Yes, something like that. Except everyday people can set it up, use
>> it, and work with it.
>
>Oh, you mean . . . X! Ok.
Verrryyyy funny.
>> What other security is there besides XHost +hostname for limiting who
>> can redirect your X server or plug into your X server?
>
>There are three direct authentication systems: xhost, cookies, and
>Kerberos.
>Indirect protection could be developed through the use of a VPN, or for
>those on a budget, SSL.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if this was easier to set up? Terminal
Server is a breeze - just install it, and you're then done. Why can't
Linux be this easy?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux app spec...
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:46:24 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sorry, Nathenial, I don't think Simon and Mingus correlate, unless he forgot
how to spell his name. The person you are thinking of is Simon Magus (Simon
the Magician), for whom the sin of simmony was named. This name Mingus
sounds more like a Romanized version of Emperor Ming of The Planet Mongo who
was played in the serials by Charles Middleton.
Either way, nice free association.
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Simon????????????
>
>
> Mingus wrote:
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:22:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Not at all, it's the attachments and embedded scripts, graphics
> and
> >other nice things that Linux office suites fail to translate
> properly.
> >
>
> Like viruses, trojans, and worms. Oh my!
But just click your heels and say; "There is no OS like Windows, there is
no OS like Windows"---Thank the Great Maker!
Fact is that even Windows is not an OS like Windows, since Windows is not an
OS.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:24:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 13:40:18 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >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:
> >> >>
> >> >
>
> Given that Windows 3.x was the major OS by the time NT was released
> and other UIs were probably not going to increase the sales of the
> product where was the financial incentive to develop these UIs?
>
There were and still are the users who are used to or prefer other
interfaces other interfaces. This means more than just to look of the
inteface, but how it performs as well. Providing what people wanted instead
of what Microsoft wants and then try to convince us that they did it that
way because we wanted it.
Windows 3.x is not and never was operating system. The bulk of the software
available for the PC at that time was written for DOS. The computer retail
stores at that time dedicated less shelf space to Windows than they did for
apple software. In those days, most users prefered to run dos
applicatations over Windows anything. The only jobs that Windows had a real
foothold in the PC marketplace was in desk top publishing, and graphics
programs. Most of these programs were ported from other operating systsems
and made to run on Windows because it was close enough match to the
environment that they were first written for. Windows NT was released and
nothing much really changed. Dos was still the king of the PC and Novell
NetWare was the king of PC networking. For connectivity to internets beyond
the PC world, there was various TCP/IP protocols suites
The situation did not change until some time well after the release of
Windows 95. It was all the copies of Windows 95 that came preinstalled on
new computers and Microsoft cancellation of the Dos product line as a
sepperate product, distincet from Windows. They did not select the Windows
3.1 interface because it was prefered by the public. Untll Windows was more
or less forced on the public, the public may have groused about Dos, and
there were many short commings of Dos to grouse about, but in most cases the
public did not like Windows and Windows enough to replace their Dos systems.
Remember some of the jokes going around: What is the best way to get XT
performance from your 486? Install Windows on it. Windows 95 is Microsoft's
history lesson, it teaches new computer users what state of the art computer
performance was like in 1980. How do you supercharge you Windows computer?
You delete Windows and run Dos programs!
> The whole reason winmodems, winprinters and other devices were so
> successful is hardware costs you money for every item you produce
> while software is a fixed cost.
The software of the semihardware is not a fixed cost it is an ongoing cost
if the company had to continuiously debug and upgrade it. As you have
stated else where that has to be done for drivers. Then there is media
duplication, packaging, and distribution costs. As you have mentioned else
where providing updates via the internet can cost real money. That is an
ongoing cost even if the product is not selling at the time.
The touted low cost for this kind of hardware is an illusion when one
considers that using them can will consume memory, storage, as well as
processor capabilities.
Printing with a driver of a "winprinter" is like using ghostscript to
translate printout from postscript to the native graphics control language
of a given printer. It can be a very compute intensive process and the
result would be a slowdown of the programs that the computer should be
running instead of doing the printer's job. The same thing is true of the
"winmodems".
To regain the loss of performance through the use of semihardware a given
speed computer would have to be upgraded to a computer with a higher speed.
Then what if by the next operating system upgrade, the hardware is device is
no longer supported by the manufacturer and the old driver can not run on
the new version of the operating system. Or consider switching from one
operating system to another, what if the manufacturer does not support the
other operating system. In either of these cases the user would have to
purchase a replacement device even though the prior one that is still
perfectly functional.
A main reason that winmodems and other semihardware have sold so well are
because that prebuilt computers more often than not are shipped with them.
This inflates the apparent popularity of the semihardware. Secondly, by
them being called winmodems, winprinter, etc can lead many user to make the
mistake of thinking that since that are using Windows they are required to
use win hardware. Many salesmen in computer retail stores regularly state
that as a fact. What this does in the long run it lock the user into using
the supported operating system that just happens to be Windows 9x and WIndow
NT, unless they are willing to dump their win hardware and purchase full
hardware devices.
The only winners in the win hardware situation is microsoft and the
manufacturers of that hardware, by forming a captive market and the
wastefull spending of the user base because of the need for continual
replacement of their stil functonal and perfectly viable hardware.
Talking about the "high" cost of a pure hardware design lets take a look at
a common hardware only device. The external modem connected to the DTE by a
RS-232 serial port and harddrives.
About a decade ago it used to cost around $400.00 US for a top speed, good
quality modem. Today the cost of a top speed, good quality modem of this
type cost about one fifth as much as it did and it can handle a top speed
that is about 3.9 times faster. Measured as bps per dollar the decade old
model used to be 36 bps/dollar while today model is 700 bps/dollar. Being a
total hardware solutions they don't care, either to old modem or the new
one, what computer or other DTE they are connected to as long at the DTE has
a RS-232 port it is compatible. I can run these modems on Windows, Dos,
Linux, BSD, etc. I can connect these unit on anything from today most
powerful computers to a old dumb terminal.
I am referring to two actual modems in this example. The decade old model
is still functional and in regular use, it was purchaed for a Dos computer.
That was before Window 3.x, that modem has seen service on a number of
systems from XT class to modern day systems and some other system that are
hardly remembered by most people, it has seen service under many different
operating systems and circumstances. A decade from now, how many winmodems
could be spoken of the same way?
> Adding a extra macrocells, or even
> VLSI layers to hardware devices can lead to the commercial success or
> failure of a product. The assertion that all functionality should be
> in hardware is where thinking was in the 1970s. Since then most
> hardware companies have realized the value of sharing the design and
> development load between hardware and software.
See the above example.
> So, your statement that "The more of the hardware device is
> implemented in silicon the better it is for the user and for the
> manufacturer" (which is pretty much the key to your argument) is
> false. This is bad for the manufacturer because:
>
> i) Hardware is more difficult to fix defects than software.
> ii) Hardware costs per unit shipped, Software costs once.
> iii) Hardware is a very restrictive medium, software much less so.
> iv) VLSI designers are much more expensive than programmers.
> v) The four previous points means you don't sell as many units than a
> competitor because your unit costs more.
>
> This is bad for the users simply because it makes them pay more for
> the say thing.
See the above example
> By your argument, we should be using chips that natively run Linux
> instead of chips that run the IA-32 instruction set. Each time the
> kernel is upgraded we should throw out our machines and get new ones
> that implement the next version in hardware.
We are talking about devices that require drivers such as Printers, modems,
video adaptors, etc. Please don't use those disinformational tactics that
you are trying to.
> Don't bother. My company is my wife and I.
Which is what I have already determined.
> I can do and say what I
> like.
I realize that, you can say whatever you like to as long as it does not
undercut your financial best interest.
> Most of my work is Win32 development, though I keep thinking
> about fixing the ntfs driver for Linux so I don't need an ext2 or swap
> partition on my home machine. One day I'll get to it.
You don't need the swap partition now if you don't want one. All you have
to do is set up a swap file instead of the swap partition--or you could run
swapless depending on your RAM resources. If you are using a swap partition
it is you choice and not a requirement of the system.
> >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.
>
> Which points don't you like and what is biased? I really tried to
> make it unbiased.
If you can't tell by reading it over, it speaks volumes for your mindset.
> If I felt threatened by it, why have I replaced a couple of my NT
> boxes with Linux where it suited?
You may realize how useful Linux is to you, but that does not change that
fact that it appears as though you feel that Linux and/or open source is a
threat to your caw cow which is NT.
> You get phone calls. Given that it costs you money to have phones
> ringing because you have to have staff to answer them this will cost.
> It costs to host a web site that gets hits. If you are hosting this
> site for a free product then you are out of pocket.
> Not everyone has the web.
> Are you advocating discrimination against
> people who don't have web access?
No, I leave that to Microsoft.
First off "web access" is not the correct phrase, "internet access" is.
Remember there is more that can be accessed on the internet than just the
"web". Are you familiar with FTP which a sepperate protocol that I
mentioned as well.
If a company the size of Microsoft can not afford to provide storage and
bandwidth it support access to their freeware olderware, than they could
offer it to a major freeware archive and forget all about it. Offer it as
being freely redistributable and the network through which freeware is
distributed would handle the further distribution.
As for the support phone calls, do you understand what unsupported and AS IS
mean?
WAIT! What phone calls will be generated? What network bandwidth will be
consumed? Those against this idea have claimed that there is no desire or
demand for Windows 1.x and 2.x. If that is so, nobody or almost nobody are
going to generate any network traffic or support calls. Or are you
admitting that there is a demand for that software?
> >* 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)
>
> You honestly can't see these as humor? Everyone who listened could -
> especially as I'd just given a demo on the ease of install.
The claim of humor is the last defence of an exposed bigot's reputation. If
you really meant this to be a humorious parody, why have you not setup a
related presentation on you website "NT A Linux Point of View" that is
written using the same kind of humor.
Remember there is a difference between laughing with and laughing at.
Also since you also have a presentation about system backups in the NT
environment, why not one for backing up unix hosts and networks as well? Of
course this would not be a factor if it wern't for the "humorious" Linux
presentation.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:49:19 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For literary style, have nothing to say, but for the message content, Hear!
Hear! Hear! Nathaniel, about the statement that nobody uses Linux, then I
guess I must be nobody right along with you and have been nobody since the
days of SlackWare 1.0. I use whatever OS and environment I need at the
moment to on my workstations but the servers are all running Linux.
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > Sometimes the truth hurts Nathaniel.
> >
> > Linux in terms of market share is less than a hangnail on Microsoft or
> > Apples foot.
> >
> > Things may change in time, I have no crystal ball, but for now
> > learn to deal with it. You'll feel a whole lot better about
> >
> > simon
>
> Like I've said before, I don't give a shit how many people do or don't
> use Linux, I will use it. It doesn't matter if it's 3 people, two
> people, one person, one million people, I don't give a fuck. Saying
> that no-one uses it is false. I use it. That means that either I am
> no-one (a point which quite honestly I would be willing to believe most
> of the time) or that you are wrong. Since I'm not the only one posting
> honest comments on Linux in here, I'm guessing that you are wrong when
> you say that only Windows is used on PCs. For the most part, yes,
> WIndows is used, but that does not make it the only operating system
> used. You need to deal with the fact that there are alternatives to
> WIndows, and people will use those alternatives. Telling me that I need
> to deal with Microsoft is a crock of shit, because I don't give a fuck
> what M$ does. THey can continue to grow, or they can fall all over
> themselves. It doesn't matter. Linux is here now, it will be used by
> people like me whether M$ is there or not. So I know that M$ is the
> leader (numbers wise), and I have no problem dealing with that. But
> that does not mean they are the only option. Only someone completely
> narrow minded would think that you can only have one solution. So once
> again I say, "SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
>
> I know I'm wasting my breath. Simon/Steve/Whathisfuckingnametoday won't
> ever believe that people actually use Linux. That's fine. Keep
> spreading your lies you bastard. I'm still going to use Linux, and I'm
> not the only one. Keep on lying and trying, you won't change reality.
> No matter how much market share M$ has, Linux exists. If people didn't
> use it at all it would cease to exist. It hasn't happened yet, and
> anyone with even the slightest clue knows it isn't going to. So, in ten
> years we will see which OS is still hanging on. Again, I don't give a
> fuck what MS does or doesn't do. MS isn't what my computing time is
> spent working on. I work for a company completely Linux/Unix/BSD
> based. That negates the point that MS is the only OS supplier to the
> world. There you go bitch.
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
I run Linux, no bloody RedHat, Debian, SlackWare, just Linux!
My servers have been up 172 days, 6 hours, 33 minutes.--If only not for
that damn blackout...
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:15:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Try a 20k directory under Windows 2k and it is INSTANTANEOUS!!!!!
> > YOU CAN SCROLL FROM SECOND ONE......
> >
> > What is so hard about this for you to comprehend?
> >
>
> What seems to be difficult for you to comprehend is what is involved
> with KDE building a device list.
>
> Now, since you are talking about LINUX AS AN OPERATING SYSTEM, try
> the same thing with midnight commander.
>
> Or a simple 'ls'.
>
> -----yttrx
WHOOO!
NT is not as fast as KDE on 2009 files.....
HUMMMMMMMM!
He had me do /dev, and wanted it from a freshreboot so no cache was in
effect.
Gnome will do it a little quicker.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:17:37 GMT
On 21 Jun 2000 19:10:01 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:08:16 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 21:20:43 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> You had better post that ditty to the setup groups because you would
>>> >> not believe how many people ask the question:
>>> >>
>>> >> I just installed Wordperfect, now how do I start it?
>>> >
>>> >So, what you are saying is, a lot of people are asking this:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >"I just installed a program, what is the name of the command?"
>>> >
>>> >Yeah, right. Try again liar.
>>>
>>> They don't want to tipe stuped DOS command they'd rather click an Icon that's why
>Windows is
>>> still #1.
>>
>>So, you are saying that windows is popular because the typical user
>>is a moron, and windows is popular with morons.
>
>The typical user doesn't want to spend all their time lerning how to program the
>commputer. They just
>want to use itThey just want to use it.
That's precisely why they should avoid DOS and it's thin veneer...
[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: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:18:23 GMT
On 21 Jun 2000 19:11:11 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:05:27 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:57:36 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:25:46 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >>wrote on Fri, 16 Jun 2000 15:45:08 GMT
>>> >><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> >>>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 02:43:51 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>>> >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> >>>>wrote on 15 Jun 2000 17:49:50 -0500 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>[snip for brevity]
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>>The funny thing about you UNIX people is that you alwais say that UNIX
>>> >>>>>is "easy" and then you come back and say you half to type some
>>> >>>>>cryptic-as-hell command to do something simpal.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>Unix is not easy. Unix is in fact quite difficult.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> The simple is harder, however the complicated is at least possible.
>>> >>
>>> >>Very true; Unix also likes to combine many small tools in various
>>> >>well-defined ways. The tricky part is to know all the small tools. :-)
>>> >
>>> > Nah, the tricky part is figuring out how a particular task
>>> > decomposes into many smaller ones...
>>>
>>> In other words "wright it yoursealf".
>>
>>As opposed to "hope someone writes it for you, some year" in Microsoft
>>land...
>
>As opposed to "go to the softwhare store and find it alreaddy theare."
...and then fork over $$$ for it.
Or alternately: not find it there at all.
[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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
