Linux-Advocacy Digest #418, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Todd")
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Linux Sucks (Jacques Guy)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products (Karri Kalpio)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Todd")
Re: Win2K ("Todd")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 17:51:38 +0800
"Raul Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SEKB5.268$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > We've gone through this before. Neither Gnome *OR* KDE take only 35
MB's
> of
> > memory if you include buffers and caches, which the number you state for
> > Windows 2000 uses.
>
> None of those two is mandatory, you can use from XFCE (desktop) to
iceWM
> (window
> manager) ...
>
> > > 3.you have a lot (if you are a"experienced home user") more
flexibility
> > with
> > > linux than win2k more powerfull tools and features to work with
> >
> > Such as?
>
> What do you think about booting a full working system from CD that's
> able to read NT/98/Solaris and Linux partitions?
I only need to read Fat32 and NTFS 5.0 -- and you can't read MS' EFS file
system with Linux and you never will be able to.
> How about booting
> a minilinux distro to do a lot of reparation work?
Windows 2000 has a repair console which boots directly off of a CD. It
works great. (Heck, you can use it for more than just repairing).
> (always 'cause of
> M$ OS's) ? What about dd ? LILO booting what you want ?
The MS boot manager does everything I need -- no need for LILO.
> A
> FTP server in a floppy?
Floppy? You mean as in the archaic old floppy disks that store only 1.44MB
of data???? What century are you living in, anyway?
None of my machines have floppies. An FTP server is included with Windows
2000.
> Enough ?
Nope, not even remotely close. You haven't listed any reasons why I would
even think about using Linux.
> > Netscape is very old and doesn't support most of the W3C stantdards
> > properly. Mozilla is coming along, but it's not done yet.
>
> Netscape 6 is not as old ...
Netscape 6 barely works, it's slow, and still in beta...
> > GIMP is a good piece of software,
> > but not really comparable to Photoshop.
>
> Just because you learnt with Photoshop in a lot of cases ...
GIMP doesn't have advanced features such as layers... GIMP just doesn't have
the advanced features that photoshop or even Paint Shop Pro have.
> > BTW, both Netscape and Opera are available for Windows, so how does that
> do
> > something which Windows doesn't? And Netscape is more stable under
> Windows.
>
> Well, Windows 2000 is available for Linux under VMware ;-) If memory
and
> CPU
> power are as cheap as here was said, just install dual motherboard with
1GB
> RDRAM
> and it will go well.
Why even bother with Linux at all then? Windows 2000 does more than what I
need already.
Most people (not OS geeks like us) want an OS that 'gets the job done'.
They want productivity and entertainment software.
Windows 2000 has better apps., and better and more games.
There are reasons to use Linux, but I'm not going to list them because I'm a
Windows advocate, and I'd rather not give you guys more ammunition.
If you think carefully, though, you will come up with some. Unfortunately,
the uses are specialized and doesn't include general desktop use.
You just can't beat Windows 2000 -- it is simply the best all around general
purpose OS out there today.
-Todd
>
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 02:49:58 -0400
David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > People who post on this thread are posting about subjects that have
> > > nothing to do with the newsgroups to which they are posting. They are
> > > polluting these newsgroups with posts based on topics that belong in
> > > other newsgroups. The posters are apparently unable to identify the
> > > appropriate newsgroups and I therefore bestow upon them the title of
> > >
> > > OFF-TOPIC IDIOTS!
> > >
> > > Congratulations to all of you.
> >
> > He's not only the club President, he's also a member!
>
> Your typical garbled, illogical, nonsensical comment. Maybe you do some
> work on that "Grad School in Texas" thread.
Sorry, I intended to say 'Maybe you should do some work on that "Grad
School in Texas" thread.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 09:54:22 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sucks
Richard, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I tried Linux and I think it stinks.
Wait a minute! Does it stink or does it suck?
And as for your good self, do you think or do you
stink?
Do you troll or do you drool?
Do you dribble or do you drivel?
(And for those of you who know my language
and are keen cinephiles: "Est-ce que �a vous
gratouille ou est-ce que �a vous chatouille?)
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 05:54:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >A corporation cannot commit a felony. I've never heard of a corporation
>> >being convicted of murder. PEOPLE can only be convicted of felonies.
>>
>> Well, that's entirely wrong. That's why corporations are considered
>> 'artificial persons'. So that they can be treated like a person in
>> terms of certain rights and responsibilities. Apparently, you've never
>> read anti-trust law, which clearly applies to incorporated persons as
>> much as real people:
>
>The key word here is "certain". Please provide a single case of a corporate
>entity being convicted of a felony. Just once cite please.
I don't have the capabilities for that kind of research; I think the
fact that the statute identifies the penalty for convicting corporations
of a felony should be sufficient. If you don't agree, then you'll have
to provide some reason to believe that this issue is at all related to
anything besides the pedantic point that civil liability is simply much
more attractive in pressing anti-trust charges.
>> So its pretty obvious why corporations are rarely prosecuted criminally;
>> you can't put them in jail, and the fines aren't high enough to act as a
>> deterrent in many cases these days. A civil charge allows for a finding
>> of liability, and an injunctive remedy.
>
>In other words, you cannot rationally prosecute a corporation criminally.
Well, you can legally prosecute a corporation criminally, so you'll have
to refine your thinking.
>> >*THAT* is why anti-trust is a civil matter, and not a criminal one.
>> >
>> >A civil court case cannot establish criminal guilt.
>>
>> No, it establishes civil guilt. If you're trying to say that since 'a
>> preponderance of evidence' is all that is needed, while in a civil case
>> it must be 'beyond a reasonable doubt', Microsoft's actions can't be
>> said to be criminal? How utterly pedantic.
>
>No, I'm saying that your use of the word "criminal" is wrong.
Interesting. How?
[...]
>> I don't have specifics. If you make it worth my while, I could provide
>> some examples. Here's a hint I'll give you for free, though: search for
>> 'undocumented API' and 'Microsoft' in your favorite search engine. A
>> cross-reference for WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 would probably be
>> helpful, if you can manage it.
>
>You're the one that made the statement. If you don't have specifics, how
>could you posibly justify the statement in the first place. You made this
>up and you just admitted it.
I can make general but not specific statements about particle physics,
too. Get a grip.
[...]
>> Bullshit. Wake up and smell the middleware, Erik; these are not
>> original accusations I'm making.
>
>Then provide the original ones you are basing them on. Otherwise they ARE
>the original accusations.
Only if you've suddenly been struck with amnesia concerning the entire
history of the Windows API.
[...]
>> Well, the more developers are using the Win32 API to provide necessary
>> functionality for their applications, the easier it is for Microsoft to
>> get them to use even more new extensions of the middleware
>> functionality. By mitigating the clear distinctions between operating
>> system, office suite, an Internet software, Microsoft encourages vendors
>> to allow Microsoft to provide greater and greater amounts of
>> functionality, making the application developers ultimately even more
>> tied to the monopoly. Middleware can't threaten a Win32 monopoly as
>> long as MS keeps adding more lock-in mechanisms (which don't provide
>> simple interoperability with non-MS systems) which they then make
>> attractive to application developers, often by providing them with up to
>> millions of dollars in added incentives to use these features.
>
>My god. You're saying that, because MS provides tools, functioanlity, and
>API's to 3rd party competitors, that this is in itself anti-competitive?
What does your god have to do with whether you are still hard at work
proving yourself the ultimate troll by furiously misrepresenting every
statement I make? I did not say that anything is 'in itself'
anti-competitive. I described how MS uses tools, functionality, and
lucrative incentives to 3rd parties to use their APIs in an
anti-competitive way.
>Yet you also argue that they do not provide said information on API's in
>certain cases and that too is anti-competitive? Which is it?
I think "it" is the fact that you want us to believe you have the
intelligence to post to Usenet, but are still entirely brain-dead. Its
cute for a few posts, but now I'm getting bored....
[...]
>No, I'm saying that MS has a serious incentive to allow 3rd party developers
>to develop working applications. The more non-working apps for the
>platform, the fewer people will convert to it.
But you're not addressing the fact that MS has acted anti-competitively.
We're all aware that MS has incentive to act competitively; we're simply
not aware of any examples where they've done so, since the incentive to
acquire and maintain an illegal monopoly is apparently much stronger for
them.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 05:56:04 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> >And I'm sure you've got a special agreement other than the one every
>other
>> >dialup customer of theirs signed.
>>
>> No, just a contract that says if I post for a month of Internet access,
>> they'll provide it.
>
>That sounds like a great law! You mean to say if you pay an ISP a month in
>advance they can't cancel you for breaking the rules?
I think you've tried to sneak an assumption in where I never made it.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K beats Linux in OpenGL performance using Nvidia products
Date: 03 Oct 2000 12:55:12 +0300
"Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Kolbj�rn S. Br�nnick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
...
> > I'm impressed by the fact that I can use a free OS with my GeForce and it
> > will be no perceivable difference in speed to W2K.
>
> Not according to recent benchmarks. Windows 2000 is faster in OpenGL than
> Linux.
> It wasn't me who came up with the benchmarks, I'm only the messenger.
No, you're not. Typical wording in this ng would be "your a liar".
I would rather define you as a jerk.
Tom's hardware was comparing NVidia drivers. They say that the
NVidia's linux driver beta (v. 0.95) is slower than the driver they
have for Windows. They even explain why: their linux driver does not
yet support page-flipping.
There's no claim that Linux OpenGL is slower than Windows 2000 OpenGL.
That is not their message. The message you should be carrying is that
the NVidia's Linux driver for Detonator 2 and 3 is not as fast as its
Windows 2000 counterpart.
--karri
--
/"\ : Karri Kalpio
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X Against HTML Mail : [+358] (40) 5926895 (mobile)
/ \ : [+358] (9) 75111771 (work)
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:04:32 +0800
"Pan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Can one easily script photoshop libraries to draw images into web
> applications on the fly the way that one can do with the PerlMagick
> extensions for ImageMagick? What equivalent is there to this on win32?
>
> In any case, the gimp, a free program bundled with most linux systems
> should not be compared to a $299 retail product like photoshop. But it
> blows away micros~1 paint.
>
> This is strictly a case of linux raising the bar on itself. People
> assume that because apache, sendmail, the host of c and c++ libraries
> and the various other packages that come bundled for free with linux are
> better than commercial alternatives on micros~1 that all linux apps
> should be better than all commercial apps available on win32. That's
> not realistic.
>
> If you want to compare apples to apples, compare linux apps to the
> freely available apps bundled with win32:
Why the ones bundled with 'win32'?
Either you are advocating 'bundling', or you are limiting the free Win32
choices artificially.
> gimp ms paint, Gimp by a mile
> kde advanced text editor vs notepad & wordpad, huge edge for linux
But not vs. TextPad or Ultraedit.
Besides, with Notepad, I can use UNICODE, *and* Windows 2000 has many
different language input locales that Linux does not have.
So for multi-language use, Notepad SMOKES kde 'advanced' text editor.
> apache vs personal web server, no contest
I beg to differ. Personal web server is based on IIS 5.0 under Windows
2000, and it SMOKES apache in almost every way.
Check www.tpc.org for the benchmarks... Windows 2000 + IIS 5.0 takes the TOP
spots for performance.
Linux + Apache is NOWHERE to be seen -- not even the lower scores.
IIS is included free with Windows 2000.
> perl vs. perl hands down, perl for linux
No. ActivePerl for Win32 is perl plus Windows extensions -- ie. all of the
funtionality of Perl plus more.
In addition, Windows 2000 comes with the Windows Scripting Host which allows
you to use 'active' languages *anywhere* in the OS where you can use
objects.
This means as a native scripting language, in ASP pages, called from any
language, *anywhere*.
The two built-in languages are JavaScript and Visual Basic.
I'm not going to tutor you on WSH, but it is extremely powerful and uses XML
to bind 'jobs' together. You can call JavaScript functions from Visual
Basic and vise versa.
You can also create 'plug-in' active languages if you want more choice.
However, the power of JavaScript plus using COM/ActiveX objects is far more
powerful than anything I have seen under Linux or UNIX for that matter with
regards to scripting languages.
> gcc vs ???
gcc is available for Win32.
> gpp vs ???
Not sure what gpp is - I use Visual tools from MS -- been a while since I
toyed around with the 'free' stuff.
> sendmail vs ???
Many variants of sendmail exist for Win32. SMTP/NNTP/HTTP/FTP services are
included in Windows 2000.
> Moreover, there are dozens of commandline utilities with no real
> counterpart on win32.
There are dozens of gui utilities with NO counterpart under Linux. Also,
you can get the Windows 2000 resource kit which adds a zillion command line
utilities -- many of them which came from UNIX.
-Todd
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8ranth$hfumo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Okay, I think you're enough right in here, but that plug-ins could
> > > easily
> > > >be
> > > >integrated inside GIMP with nothing more than recompiling, so again
it
> > has
> > > >nothing to see with the program quality itself, hasn't it ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Gimp already does support plugins - www.gimp.org has links to a huge
range
> > > of plugins.
> >
> > I would hardly call that list either Huge or much of a range. Seems
like
> > lots of them say "Dropped in favor of xxx" or "DO NOT DOWNLOAD".
> >
> > What's left are things like "Draws a grid on the image" or are file
import
> > filters (which I don't consider to be a plug-in at all).
> >
> > There are a few decent plug-ins of the calibre of most photoshop
plug-ins,
> > but nothing like Kai's power tools or any of the advanced stuff.
>
> --
> Pan
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2K
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2000 18:10:36 +0800
"Jacques Guy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > This is one of the few reasons I choose to use Windows 2000. Even if
> > Windows 2000 was twice the price and had only the hardware support of
Linux,
> > I'd still use Windows 2000 because it offers me so much more.
>
> There is one born every minute, and you are the one. All those
> born that same minute are deeply thankful to you. But is just
> one born every minute enough to keep Microsoft afloat? I fear
> it might not.
Wait until you see MS' next quarterly financial statement. They are now
just starting to see the fruits of Windows 2000.
Additionally, according to 'the Register', HP is going to deploy Windows
2000 multi-language version on ALL desktops (more than 100,000 licenses).
Caltex will do the same.
Company after company will do the same.
> So I humbly suggest you put your money where
> you mouth is, sell all you have, and buy Microsoft shares (they're
> pretty cheap now, you are getting the deal of a lifetime).
Once MS wins the antitrust case, I expect my shares to rocket. Heck, even
if they would have split into two companies, both shares would also rocket.
> As
> for myself, I have already put my foot where your mouth is --
> see the headers of this post.
There is one born every minute...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
