Linux-Advocacy Digest #245, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 01:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows98 (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Connors)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting ("Colin R. Day")
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Woofbert)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Woofbert)
RE: Windows98 (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming ("Asmodius")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linux, easy to use? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming (Marty)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the ("Bobby D.
Bryant")
Re: Windows98 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux, easy to use?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 21 Jun 2000 22:06:00 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support & management (not
>>>just a desktop function).
>>
>> Actually, this has NOTHING to do with the desktop.
>
>It does. What's wrong with GUI based hardware detection?
Nothing, if it worked. But I suspect you haven't installed a
MS-windows on large variety of hardware yourself either, or
you wouldn't ask that question. I've done it enough that
I should have known better, but I recently put an ISA ethernet
card in an otherwise all PCI win98 box and had to move
a modem to get it in. For a while the GUI claimed to have
2 ethernet cards and 2 modems and while I did get it to work
after most of a day of fiddling and rebooting it still detects
some odd piece of hardware that it can't match up with any
driver.
>>>b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
>>>appearance).
>>
>> This is just another generalization split into smaller generalizations.
>
>There are simply to many examples to list them all. Linux is a mess as
>a consumer level OS.
Load a theme if you want some distinctive look.
>Get this... you install Linux... It's ugly. The fonts are HORRILBE.
>End of story. I'm not interested in hearing how I can fix it. Fix it
>for me, I'm a CONSUMER after all. (assuming I was strictly a consumer)
I think the fonts with Mandrake 7.1 are pretty nice. The more
pixels you can throw at X the better though. Be sure you are
running the highest resolution your card and monitor can handle.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:01:13 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> You are whining about KDE, not about linux. The fact that you do not know
> the difference between the tough betrays your lack of credibility in the
> first place.
Not that I care to defend him for Trolling, but Linux without a GUI is
even harder to use
that Linux with KDE. Second, Linux may be a kernel, but it is most
often distributed for use
at home with a GUI and most people refer to this hybrid as still being Linux.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:10:32 -0400
John Wiltshire wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:07:02 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >But aren't the OEM licenses bound to a particular machine? I know that
> >mine is (I bought my computer in January of '98).
>
> No idea. I'm making this up as I go. ;-)
>
> My first question would be what legally constitutes a machine when it
> is made from commodity parts? Reminds me of my brother's car which
> has a new chassis, engine, transmission and wheels. The only thing
> the same is the license plate.
Ask Microsoft. From my EULA:
Single COMPUTER: The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed with the
COMPUTER as a single integrated product. The SOFTWARE PRODUCT
may only be used with the COMPUTER.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:19:40 +0400
Bwaa-haa-haa-haa-haaa
One paid piper just popped up. I love to
start counting.
Ferdinand
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:51 +0400, "Ferdinand V. Mendoza"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Installed Mandrake 7.1 recently. I got all the
> >partitions for reiserfs.
>
> On the flip side Mandrake 7.1 locks up for me on a system with a 5
> year old video card while trying to probe for SCSI cards.
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[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 20:15:51 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Such incredible nonsense. . . obviously, the Windows OS is superior to
> the MacOS. Anybody who understands even basic evolutionary theory knows
> that. And anybody who knows even basic evolutionary theory would know
> that Linux is going to continue to grow, but that it is unlikely to ever
> displace Windows on the desktop.
Speaking of incredible nonsense ... mistaking the personal computer
software market for a biological ecosystem does a damn fine job of
appearing to be nonsense as just about anything I've read on this
newsgroup in weeks.
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
Datadroid
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation.
http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[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 20:20:09 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Woofbert wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well, it depends on what you're doing. If you're talking to a big
> > corporate database, then you need a big corporate mainframe. If you're
> > developing software, multimedia, or print; or pushing words and numbers
> > around, then you need a desktop Linux box or a Mac.
>
> . . . PLUS the big corporate mainframe. Been there, done that. The Mac
> and Windows boxen were semi-intelligent terminals that eventually dumped
> all of their data on the big Unix server, which then ran the big,
> combined job to put all the little pieces together.
Funny ... None of the software development groups or web publishing
groups I've worked with have needed mainframes. (Well, some of them used
the heavy iron to serve up web pages to millions of clients, but that's
basically the big corporate databse thing.)
> > If you need to
> > employ a bunch of help-desk people, then you needd to get everyone
> > Windows boxes.
>
> Strange . . . I wrote a help desk system than ran on Unix. No Windows
> neccessary.
No, you misunderstand ... who were the help desk's clients?
--
Woofbert <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
Datadroid
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation.
http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert/index.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: RE: Windows98
Date: 22 Jun 2000 03:27:18 GMT
> No comments. I do not even know which ads or stupid question you do
>refer to. May be Microsoft logo ?
Well, while 98 installs, it displays a bunch of advertisement-like boxes about
new features (You've already sold the package. You don't need to keep
marketing.)
Reliability is important for ANY operating environment, for it is the framework
for everything else you do with the computer. Would you put a drafting desk on
a tray of lime jello?
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:34:41 +0400
Charlie root wrote:
>
>
> Most Windows troubleshooting sessions go like this. First, reboot. If
> that doesn't fix the problem, try reinstalling or upgrading one or more
> drivers and then reboot again. If that still doesn't work, reinstall
> or upgrade the application that is giving you trouble and reboot again.
> If that doesn't work, reinstall everything. Start with Windows, add
> the latest Windows fix pack, install the latest drivers, and then
> reinstall all your applications and their fix packs. Configure
> everything again.
>
This exactly happened recently in my department where one of our
NT support guys tried to reinstall NT4 SP 5 from scratch. It took
him two days to figure out without fruitful results on a Dell Optiplex GX1
model.
He tried to do some kind of surgical thing on the video driver (ATI
Rage Pro Turbo to make it work) but it was just a waste of 48 hours.
He later found out what was really the problem -every time he tries
to update the driver the system wouldn't like it, but to his dismay that
when we install the latest Mandrake 7.1 it automatically loaded the
correct driver during install time. Eventually we decided to make the
unit dual boot in case something bad happens to the NT partition
again.
Ferdinand
------------------------------
From: "Asmodius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming
Date: 21 Jun 2000 22:42:03 -0500
"tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Open your eyes.
Stupid bot.
Your algorithms need modification.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:46:25 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:42:48 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I don't see it flicker on mine.
>
> Take the scroall bar and move across the page realy fast.
>
Of course, I can't visually track that quickly, so it's hard to tell if
there is flicker. Also, I'm running my monitor at 60Hz, so even if
there were flicker it might be the OS's fault.
> >
> >Everyone blames X? I don't blame X.
> >
>
> ...everyone accept Linux zellots.
>
People who use just Windows 98 wouldn't blame X, as
they are too busy blaming Microsoft.
> >
> >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.
>
You need an aesthetics upgrade.
> >>
> >
> >KDE is good.
>
> slow is good. criptic is good. commands are good. Lye to yorself all you want.
>
What's cryptic about KDE? And why do you need a command line with it?
As for lye, it's too corrosive.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 03:56:06 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8iqpa9$j7t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Q_N35.113$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If you can run 98, you can certainly run NT4. You just have to decide
> > > whether the extra reliability and stability are worth not being able
to
> > play
> > > games.
> >
> > Hey, games are the main reason why I *have* a PC and not a Mac :)
> >
> > > Anyway, I'm a poor student (in Australia, even, where computer
equimpent
> > is
> > > taxed up the wazoo) and I can still afford a machine to run it :).
All
> > you
> > > really need is gobs of RAM, which is cheap. My Celeron 450 is two
years
> > old
> > > and runs Win2k just fine - that's hardly a high powered machine today.
> > Even
> > > if I clocked it back down to 300Mhz it'd be fine.
> >
> > Snap - I run a C450 (don't use that abreviation near Joe though ;) )
with
> a
> > Voodoo3. It's only barely fast enough to run Quake 3/Unreal Tournament.
My
> > experience is that Win2k is as fast as, if not faster, than 98 when you
> have
> > at least 128 megs of RAM. I had 64 when I switched to Win2k and boy was
> > everything slow! Then I bought another 128 megs, giving me 192, after
> which
> > Win2k became really really fast - until I ran Quake 3, Half-life or
Unreal
> > Tournament that is. Under 98 I get framerates in the high thirties for
Q3
> > timedemos - this dropped to the low twenties under Win2k. This is the
> > difference between playability and a slide show ;)
>
> That's sounds like you should be complaining to 3DFX. I have a TNT, which
> IIRC should be in the same ballpark speed-wise and Quake3 was quite
playable
> on my machine (I'd throw up some benchmarks, but I don't have it installed
> atm).
>
I think it more to do with the User, considering I have Voodoo2 and PII
400, and Quake 3 is quite playable at 800x600, I get 40+ fps most times,
and even up to 60+ when there is nobody around.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:05:56 -0400
"Robert L." wrote:
> Here what i do when installing package.
>
> # rpm -i nameofpack.rpm
> ( -U if i upgrade )
Except if the new package would remove *.so files, in which
case one should use
rpm -i --replacefiles nameofpack.rpm
>
> # rpm -qpl nameofpack.rpm | grep bin
>
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Tholenbot needs re-programming
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 04:29:17 GMT
Asmodius wrote:
>
> "tholenbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Open your eyes.
>
> Stupid bot.
>
> Your algorithms need modification.
The algorithm is working quite well apparently, as it is evoking the type of
response usually aimed at the one whom it is emulating.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:43:08 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 30 PERCENT!!!! ???
>
> What kind of drugs are you on?
I think both sides are trying to fudge a bit in this argument. The Linux
advocates want to measure market share in terms of *server* share, and the
Windows advocates want to measure market share in terms of *desktop*
share. Benchmarketing at its finest: pick the figure that supports your
choice.
Either is, of course, OK. But it's really funny watching alternating posts
in these threads, where the debators totally ignore what the numbers quoted
by their opponents are actually measuring.
Yes, Linux (apparently[*]) runs almost 30% of the world's servers. Yes,
Linux (apparently) runs on only the tiniest fraction of the world's
desktops.
And then there are the trends....
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
[*] Based on what various news sources have been reporting, citing Netcraft
in turn. I have never seen the numbers at www.netcraft.com, so I *assume*
they come from a pay-for-view portion of the Netcraft survey. The most
recent number I've seen quoted was 29%, vs. 25% a mere three months
before. The Netcraft site tells which domains were surveyed, and it looks
very extensive, if not exhaustive.
As a footnote to the footnote, the free portion of the Netcraft site
mentions "almost 850,000 web sites that run Linux and provide a
personalised server header". This does not even come *close* to the cited
29%, since the survey covered 15 million servers. This *may* mean that the
quoted 29% is -way- off base, or it *may* merely mean that only a small
fraction of Linux servers "provide a personalised server header". You can
read all there is to know about it at www.netcraft.com.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:52:19 -0500
"Robert L." wrote:
> 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.
Do you think gamers get any less mad about crashes in the middle of a game than
secretaries get about crashes in the middle of reading their mail?
I used to dual boot so I could play games, but it got to the point that I never
wanted to boot to Windows to play, because as often as not I spent the time
working on my system instead of actually getting a chance to play. Nothing
ticks a student like doing his homework in advance (for a change!) to hoard up
enough time for a game night, and then spending "game night" playing Windows
Repairman.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 04:57:29 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:01:13 -0400, Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>abraxas wrote:
>>
>
>> You are whining about KDE, not about linux. The fact that you do not know
>> the difference between the tough betrays your lack of credibility in the
>> first place.
>
>Not that I care to defend him for Trolling, but Linux without a GUI is
>even harder to use
If you mean to imply that (no KDE) implies (no GUI) then you
are infact trolling. Not only are there complete desktop
enviroment replacements for KDE but there are multiple replacements
for any component of KDE.
>that Linux with KDE. Second, Linux may be a kernel, but it is most
>often distributed for use
>at home with a GUI and most people refer to this hybrid as still being Linux.
--
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
******************************
