Linux-Advocacy Digest #257, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is awesome!
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Jeff
Szarka)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (david parsons)
Re: Number of Linux Users ("Leonardo")
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows ("Bracy")
Re: Wintrolls in panic! (Cihl)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: A contrived strstream performance test. (Donovan Rebbechi)
Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft Ruling Too
Harsh (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
("Leonardo")
Re: A contrived strstream performance test. (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:13:05 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:52:15 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>>Linux sucks Mark and you know it. The only reason you support it is
>>>because it fits into the cult like left wing, screw the establishment
>>>ala "Pacifica Radio" which you seem to believe in and support.
>>
>>I don't know about Mark, but the reason *I* am using linux is simply
>>that it works, and does the things I want from an OS, mostly the way
>>I want them done (and where the differences between my wants and what
>>linux does are really irking me, I *can* [and do] roll my own).
>
>That's fair enough. Most Windows users however are not interested in
>rolling their own. Henceforth the vast number of shrinkwrap
>applications on the market.
This phenomenon is not purely limited to WinDOS.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:14:48 -0400
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:12:24 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Redhat 5.x - Installed but never detected my sound. It also didn't
>> correctly detect my monitor so I spent my time with it looking at half
>> a screen.
>
>The _latest_ versions of redhat (6.0 - 6.2) are buch better re: hardware
>detection. Try one, instead of a 3 year old version.
Uh... I tried this one 2-3 years ago.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 12:53:33 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 01:22:45 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Should a family of four have four different computers? Hmm. Would they
>> >all need separate printers? Separate phone lines?
>>
>> One computer. No accounts. No 'administrative idneities".
>>
>
>No protection from your thirteen-year-old son who is plotting revenge
>for your refusal to allow him to get his navel pierced.
If your spawn is so out of control that he thinks trashing your
computer is a okay way to express his displeasure with your
decisions, passwords won't make one damn bit of difference -- the
hacker sites will give him plenty of ways to break security, if
he doesn't just hammer the system disk against the floor until
it breaks.
____
david parsons \bi/ Mind you, Windows on a network requires passwords
\/ before you can get access to the network shares.
------------------------------
From: "Leonardo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:19:23 +0300
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > "Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If a product has increasing market share each year (which Linux has
> > > achieved in the server os market), they are taking over.
> > >
> > >
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Michael Born" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Where Linux is superior now (as a server), it is in fact taking
over.
> > > >
> > > > really? how does being in the minority indate "in fact taking
over."?
> > >
> >
> > And what if the portion of the marketshare that Linux "takes over" is
that
> > share that once belonged to other Unixes and the Mac and "Others" - it's
> > definately not taking over any of the NT share.
>
>
> Then how come it has been stealing marketshare from NT in the webserver
> department?
>
Not true. Proove it!
> Hmmmmmmmmm?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: 22 Jun 2000 20:34:21 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:14:48 -0400, Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>The _latest_ versions of redhat (6.0 - 6.2) are buch better re: hardware
>>detection. Try one, instead of a 3 year old version.
>
>
>Uh... I tried this one 2-3 years ago.
I guess you were ahead of your time. Redhat 6.0 was released April 1999
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:36:52 GMT
In article <8itc4u$7mo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Gee, thanks! Dump it on the poor flat-ear! :^(
I think you missed my point.
I was saying that for most customers, their method of troubleshooting a
problem is simply to call tech support. Rarely do they do any troubleshooting
themselves.
Bracy
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:37:14 GMT
2:1 wrote:
>
> > But I really, really would like to know what makes
> > a wintroll a wintroll!
> >
> > Why do they STILL insist on touting Microsoft!
> >
> > What could possibly keep a person going on the Microsoft
> > bandwagon? What could it be?
>
> BECAUSE LINSUX SUXX AND ALL LINSUX CAN DO IS SHUFFAL TEXT FIALS ALL DAY
> AND I CANT EVEN WORK OUT HOW TO USE THE CAPSLOCK KEY NEVER MIND
> SOMETHING AS USEFUL AS A COMMANDLINE
Uh.. What's a capslock key?
--
�I live!�
�I hunger!�
�Run, coward!�
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 22 Jun 2000 20:37:49 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:46:51 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>I have been reading this thread with interest, but I think that the
>WinHardware person has missed some valid points, or at least steered
>clear of them.
>
>You mention that you think PCL printers are similar to WinHardware now.
>I do agree that in some ways there are similarities, but the point you
>seem to completely ignore is that PCL was a fairly open standard. You
>could at least find out from HP how to write a driver that correctly
>used PCL (hence, ghostscript). The WinHardware people are not creating
PCL printers are already supported. Where you run into prolems is when
the PCL driver sits on top of a windows-only software layer. In this
case, the printer doesn't really support PCL, the proprietary windows-only
software PCL driver does.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: A contrived strstream performance test.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 20:41:19 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:36:41 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>#include <strstream.h> // strstrea.h on NT
BTW, here's something that confuses me -- all the C++ books I read
talk about "sstream", and all the associated functions have slightly
different names to the UNIX versions. What gives ?
I've found that most C++ books bare so little resemblence to the way
C++ actually works that I've had to work it out myself largely through
guesswork , take for example the way that templates work in practice versus
the way they work in theory.
Oh, and there's next to no books about how to code C++ on UNIX. As
much as I like Linux/UNIX, I think there's a need to break out of this
C ghetto.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 22 Jun 2000 20:51:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That would include... forcing vendors to charg a customer for your
>>product even when they purchase from the competition instead.
>>
>>There's a REASON that Microsoft is in court.
>
>As the author of "The New Trustbusters" soberly pointed,
Later in this thread, this poster identifies the source of
"The New Trustbusters" as the so-called "Reason" magazine,
a (Right-wing) Libertarian publication that defends unregu-
lated Capitalism without regard to the harm it does to most
of the population.
>the charge was changing with time.
That's because the coercive, fraudulent, illegal practices
of Microsoft were gradually being identified.
>In general I think it is just result of vague
>feeling "we have to punish MS for something, even though we don't
>know exactly what it is"
Microsoft's practice, as a monopoly, of denying computer
vendors the ability to sell Windows, if they sold any other
operating system too, is an outrageous and illegal restraint
of free trade.
That's not "vague" at all, is it?
However, Libertarians, including (un)Reason magazine, don't
care. They're in the business of justifying anything that big
business does. (Un)Reason magazine's website says they get
half their income from private donors whose identities they
keep secret.
Since the magazine constantly prints propaganda saying that
employers should be allowed to pay their employees as little
as they can get away with, and that government shouldn't tax
wealthy people to provide services like education, healthcare,
housing, etc., for hard-working people who aren't paid enough
to afford them, as well as propaganda saying that wealthy
people who own businesses should not be prevented from spewing
poisons into the environment, nor from selling dangerous and
fraudulent products, who do you suppose contributes the secret
support that keeps the magazine in business?
>Equality requires slavery.
Right-wing Libertarian bullshit. It's slavery to rob
employees of a large portion of the value they produce, and
thus pay them low salaries, while the wealthy owners and
executives are paid 1,000 or 500,000 times as much, for
the same number of hours work per day. Yet the alleged
"right" of business owners to do this is the central policy
of Libertarianism.
That's why Libertarianism is anti-human.
Belief in Libertarianism requires turning a blind eye to
the factual evidence of harm caused by grossly unequal
distribution of wealth among people who all work hard.
The *actual result* of this maldistribution of wealth is
starvation, sickness, and death for many poor people under
Capitalism.
Mark K, I don't mean to attack you personally, especially
seeing as you're posting from Poland. But in Russia they
are finding that unregulated Capitalism is worse for people
economically than Communism. Both of these systems are
coercive and cruel. Social Democracy is much better.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=618537352
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 20:55:03 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 18:10:17 GMT, abraxas wrote:
>Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Okay. Lets say you wanted, oh I don't know, create an XML document.
>> KDE isn't that much different from Gnome,
>
>KDE isnt much different from gnome for the end user, but it is ENTIRELY
>different 'under the hood'. COMPLETELY different.
This is a load of nonsense. The GTK and QT APIs are so simmilar that you
could just about convert from one to thhe other with a perl script.
I mean, for each GTK call, you could pretty much match it to a QT
call. QT has signals and slots, and GTK has signals and callbacks
which work in much the same way ( though the implementations are
somewhat different ).
Several of the GNOME and KDE APIs are more or less equivalent. I don't
see why you think they're vastly different.
>> which are the main GUI's for
>> Linux distrib.
>
>Oh really? What the hell am I doing with windowmaker?
He said "the main GUI's", he didn't say "all the GUI's"
>Wrong, most of the difference is between QT and GTK, and one only allowing
>C++ development and the other letting you do whatever the hell you want.
(1) This statement is outright false. QT does not only have C++ bindings.
(2) The language that something is implemented in is not a "huge difference"
if the two things are almost exactly the same in terms of design.
(3) How many of the GTK bindings outside C are actually usable ?
>These are *amazingly* large differences. If you cannot understand this,
>you have no point to make at all.
I've been programming for some time, and I don't understand this. Perhaps
you could explain with a coherent argument rather than resorting to
"argument by intimidation".
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:54:50 GMT
On 22 Jun 2000 15:54:46 GMT, Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
>> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Not that I care to defend him for Trolling, but Linux without a GUI is
>> > even harder to use
>> > that Linux with KDE.
>>
>> Thats a matter of opinion.
>
>
>Sigh. Man, take a stance and whatever comes along shoot it down at whim,
>that way, your strawman looks like the most beautiful strawman in the
>whole world. Problem is, you have NO idea where I'm coming from (which
>will be adressed).
You're all full of shit.
Ease of use in Linux is not dependent on KDE.
You lie to imply otherwise.
[deletia]
>> KDE *isnt* linux, if you dont like it you can use something
>> else without tossing the entire operating system.
>
>KDE isn't that much different from Gnome, which are the main GUI's for
>Linux distrib. Most of the changes are cosmetic. It's like replacing one
The basics of ANY gui since the Macintosh are all the same
with any differences being pretty much cosmetic. That's why
it is also somewhat absurd to claim that one MacOS clone is
significantly harder or easier than another.
[deletia]
Also, one need not be a stupid shell trick junkie to effectively
utilize a castrated Command line based operating system (nevermind
a fully functional one). The mere existence of Windows now is a an
effective demonstration of that.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Leonardo" <[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 future.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:38:39 +0300
This only means that 10% of companies are using Linux and 90% are not.
This does not mean that 100% of the users at those 10% of companies are
using Linux.
Actual figure can be between 1-100%.
Indeed, if you presume that 3% of those users are actually using Linux today
then you get the same figure as in all the other recent studies, and that is
0.3%.
--L
"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8itpr4$1s6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I don't disagree on the 30 percent number if it is applied to servers.
> >Mark said 30 percent of all BUISNESS'S. In that statement he said
> >nothing of servers.
> >
> >My points (sblive, crappy fonts etc) are directed at desktop. I have
> >no problems with Linux as a server and in fact think it is a great way
> >to save a lot of money.
> >
> >Same for a development platform for those not fortunate enough to fork
> >over ridiculous prices for those vertical applications.
> >
> >However if you take the entire picture, desktop and server as a whole
> >Linux use is so minuscule compared to Windows it can barely be
> >measured.
>
> http://www.infotechtrends.com/freedemo.htm
>
> 99Q2 - Percent of information technology managers using
> or planning to use Linux as a general purpose desktop
> or workstation operating system. ^^^^^^^
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Currently Use 10% <<<
> Use Within 12 Months 20% <<<
> No Plans 68%
> Don't Know 1%
>
> JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE
> VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 54 InformationWeek/
> *GENERATION LINUX - NEXT STOP: DESKTOP
>
> One year ago, when KDE and Gnome, along with hardware and
> installation support, were much less developed than they
> are now, Linux was already in use on the desktop/workstation
> computers of 10% of all businesses. The figure may now
> be 30%, if the managers planning to switch to Linux have
> followed through.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: A contrived strstream performance test.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:08:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 22 Jun 2000 20:41:19 GMT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:36:41 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>#include <strstream.h> // strstrea.h on NT
>
>BTW, here's something that confuses me -- all the C++ books I read
>talk about "sstream", and all the associated functions have slightly
>different names to the UNIX versions. What gives ?
I for one know nothing about "sstream"; neither does my version of Linux.
It's possible this is something new, but I rather doubt it. :-)
One oddball thing I have noticed (and it used to bite us rather hard
at my prior employer) is the difference between <iostream.h>
and <iostream>. On NT, all kinds of silly things happen during
compile if one mixes the two.
>
>I've found that most C++ books bare so little resemblence to the way
>C++ actually works that I've had to work it out myself largely through
>guesswork , take for example the way that templates work in practice versus
>the way they work in theory.
Templates do appear to be a bit of a mess. It's getting better,
I think, though. :-)
>
>Oh, and there's next to no books about how to code C++ on UNIX. As
>much as I like Linux/UNIX, I think there's a need to break out of this
>C ghetto.
>
>--
>Donovan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
