Linux-Advocacy Digest #740, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux is great. ("Philo")
Re: Linux: Lots Good, Some Bad (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Michael
Livshin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (FM)
Re: Why Linux is great. (mlw)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Hartmann Schaffer)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Hartmann Schaffer)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Hartmann Schaffer)
Re: who's WHINING dipshit! ("MH")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? ("MH")
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me ("MH")
Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51???? ("MH")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?=)
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Philo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 06:07:41 -0500
ok i have to comment on this as i use all the operating systems i can get my
hands on...
and usually i argue on the side of windows...
but your mention of windows having nice "eye candy" brought me to post this:
windows does *not* have an e terminal !
***now*** i see why everyone seems to like the command prompt so much in
linux :)
--
Philo
website: www.plazaearth.com/philo
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux: Lots Good, Some Bad
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 11:34:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Keith Peterson) writes:
> The alsa documentation is terrible. Really, really bad.
Agreed, the documentation is a bit spotty, but remember that this is
bata software in its 0.5.X release.
> Why? Because the alsa mixer can't detect it's own driver
> running. Agh. I cannot find a solution for this, so I am back to my
> original configuration, where my sblive is supported through the
> default install, and the DIO-2448 is unrecognized.
The easiest way is to:
(1) Revert to your old version of modules.conf.
(2) Download the latest version of alsa.conf from
ftp://ftp.alsa-project.org/pub/driver/alsaconf/
and run it. This will detect your soundcard and insert the
appropriately lines in modules.conf.
(3) Load the driver.
(4) Run an ALSA aware mixer such as alsamixer and unmute the
channels.
If you have any problems, you are welcome to email me directly.
Charles
------------------------------
From: Michael Livshin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 19 Oct 2000 13:38:18 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows) writes:
> Functional languages are characterised by their semantics consisting
> entirely of the evaluation of expressions. They don't have updatable
> state. (Well, most practical functional languages do, but that stuff
> is typically ring-fenced quite carefully.) SML and Haskell are
> excellent examples, and Lisp is (practically speaking) a pretty poor
> example.
why is Lisp a pretty poor example?
[ yes, it doesn't have ML-style pattern recognition as easily
available (though it is available), there's no notion of tuples, and
the function namespace is distinct from variable namespace. I never
found these to present any problems wrt functional style in
practice. anything else? ]
> Logical languages are characterised by their semantics being defined
> in terms of unification. Prolog is really the only well known example
> (and if you don't know Prolog, I'd advise learning it as it helps
> illustrate some quite different ways of approaching programming
> tasks.)
yes, Prolog is one of those few "worth to learn" languages.
--
(only legal replies to this address are accepted)
When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look like a thumb.
-- Steve Hoflich on comp.lang.c++
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 19 Oct 2000 11:12:57 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Clarifying a bit further, there are three main computational models:
>imperative, functional and logical (well, I'll call it that; I can't
>recall the correct term off the top of my head.)
I heard it being called logic/constraints-based. I guess your
term is as good as any.
>Imperative languages are characterised by their semantics consisting
>of an environment and a sequence of operations upon that environment.
>C is a classic example.
Interesting. Earlier versions of Basic are probably
the purest surviving examples of imperative programming
aside from assembly/machine language.
>Functional languages are characterised by their semantics consisting
>entirely of the evaluation of expressions. They don't have updatable
>state. (Well, most practical functional languages do, but that stuff
>is typically ring-fenced quite carefully.) SML and Haskell are
>excellent examples, and Lisp is (practically speaking) a pretty poor
>example. I've even seen functional programs in C, but the language
>has very poor support for it.
Well, yeah, Lisp is more of a hybrid language. On the
other hand, it probably is the first practical language
to bring together the concepts of functional programming.
I like Scheme's clean semantic model myself though.
>Logical languages are characterised by their semantics being defined
>in terms of unification. Prolog is really the only well known example
>(and if you don't know Prolog, I'd advise learning it as it helps
>illustrate some quite different ways of approaching programming
>tasks.)
Yup. I'm a bit skeptical about logic programming being used
for general computational problems though. But it's quite
applicable for domain-specific problems.
>These are not the only paradigms in use in programming though. The
>two others that are well known are (the wildly successful) structural
>programming and OO (not quite as good, but still very useful when
>modelling the real world.) However, the lessons they teach can be
>applied fairly to the computational models described above[*] since
>they do not state how to ascribe semantics to what they describe.
>They are very useful though.
The only reasons why I think OO is helpful (or the parts of
the philosophy that I find actually applicable to problem
solving), are that it forces the programmer to codify more
abstract type information and that it promotes a higher
degree of code reuse. On the other hand, these can be done
without much of the garbage that OO brings.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:03:49 -0400
Idoia Sainz wrote:
>
> > I hate when the seeming majority of messages are either defending Linux
> > against some idiotic press release, or a dialog initiated by a troll.
>
> I hate it if it is done blindly or stupidly, let's see if you can do it
> better.
>
> > Lets talk about why Linux is great, and a pleasure to use.
>
> Obviously, you could be named troll or said to talk subjetively, but
> like you are talking about Linux ...
This is an advocacy group, subjective is perfectly allowable, as long as
you are advocating and do not use the word "because."
>
> > A typical Linux distribution, out of the box, has 95% of anything anyone
> > (that's ANYONE!) would want to do with a computer.
>
> Again 0 facts in here.
Zero facts needed. If you want to argue the actual percent, which I'm
sure the casual reader accepts as a complete guess intended to imply
"almost everything."
>
> > Depending on your needs, there is a high likelihood that Linux will do
> > what you want better, faster, more reliably, and more socially
> > responsible than Windows any release.
>
> May be, like you say, it depends on a lot of things, included
> computing skills, time left to learn, installed hardware, ... well
> no too much facts till now, like the same thing could be said
> about any OS under certain circunstances.
See, now you are trying to debate with facts! O.K lets go..
Computing Skills:
Linux, like Windows will install with little or no computer skills for
"most" machines. Windows, like Linux will be more difficult if a driver
that is required for installation is not supported. At issue: Try
installing Windows 98SE with a VooDoo3 card, on that same machine
install a Haupague TV card. You must crawl around the web and find a FAQ
that indicates that the VooDoo3 does not support the older version of
DirectDraw that comes with the TV card, and that you have to acquire the
new version for it to run.
I find little difference between this process in Windows than the
equivalent in Linux. The only difference is the information is easier to
find for Linux because it is on public groups.
Time left to learn:
I have yet to see an "average" user not spend a day or two playing with
a new machine.
Installed Hardware:
See bit about VooDoo card.
BTW "too much facts" should be written as "Too many facts" (grammar),
never the less, you stated some things, but did not prove that these
were not a problem in Windows as well, so they do nothing to further
your position.
>
> > I have a friend that is self employed as a word processor, she uses
> > Linux, as she puts it, her "time is worth money."
>
> Again her opinion is not relevant as an objetive fact, indeed I do
> use Word 2000 to write texts, even when I have Staroffice,
> abiword and LyX perfectly usable at my computer. I find it more
> featured, faster and prettier. Again it is an opinion.
I disagree (here are some observations, they are factual) I sit across
from the IT guys. In a company of about 20 people, they have to
reinstall either MS Windows or MS Office (or both) about once a week
because word, excel, or other program crashes Windows, and people can't
do their work. I used to be a Windows developer, I still do some
consulting in that area, it isn't stable.
Right now, I am burning a CD, loading a SQL database running on this
machine, and compiling. I would not dare to do this on Windows, because
I know interrupt latency on Windows would cause the burner to screw up,
and a usable SQL database does not run on Windows (NT or 2K, yes, but
not Windows)
>
> > I have relative that uses linux to serve web pages out of his house
> > using Linux.
>
> I do use and recommend always GNU/Linux to do this, in this
> case your opinion and mine are the same, a honest competition
> between Apache and IIS should be done to prove something.
Having used IIS in the past, and watching people trying to use it in the
present, I see little point.
>
> > I know a couple companies using linux as a development environment.
>
> Well, this depends a lot on what you are developing, for some things
> GNU/Linux would be fine for me, obviously not for developing Windows
> applications ... that like it or not, has the bigger market share nowadays.
This is the paradox, isn't it? There may be a market for SWB (shrink
wrapped boxes), but unless you have a specific type of company, you
can't make money doing it. Game geeks are lean mean companies. Run of
the mill software companies making $100 SWB are having real problems
these days. While Windows is a HUGE market, it is one that is full and
commodity driven, you either have to have something quite unique, or be
a behemoth like MS (and even that does not always help).
>
> > I know (as a witness) a few major companies that use Linux.
> > I personally use Linux.
>
> I do use GNU/Linux for some things at home (even when I think
> Windows does a better desktop), and at my job we use only Linux
> and Solaris as servers, again, what do you try to prove ?
I have a Windows box to test software on my desk. I am always rebooting
it. My Linux box has uptimes measured in months. The desktop does not
mean crap if you can't use the system. Which would you rather have, a
new corvette with no motor, or a Camaro that runs great?
>
> > Windows may have some cool eye candy, but lets face it, when all is said
> > and done, you want to accomplish what you want to accomplish, if you are
> > willing to pay the price of instability, vendor lock, and
> > price/performance penalty for Windows, enjoy.
>
> Again you personal opinion, let's parse it. Cool and eye candy, well,
> I have nothing against that (what are trying GNOME, KDE and all
> the window managers around ?); what's more, I feel Windows interface
> is the best one around, faster and very featured (all in this world is
> improvable). Unstability is a disturbing issue, but when talking about
> home or workstation machines NT Workstation, 2000 Professional
> are rock solid, and even Windows 98 is fine for that in some cases.
> In my opinion Windows NT/2000 Server is not mature as a server
> product.
NT Workstation and 2000 Pro are NOT rock solid. They are better than
Windows, but I assure you they are not nearly as stable as Linux. Just
the fact that the GUI operates in kernel space means it can't be as
stable.
>
> > If what you want to
> > accomplish can be done with Linux, you will find that it will be more
> > reliable and more economically viable than ANY Windows solution.
>
> I agree that if something can be done with Linux it can be done
> more reliable and in some cases with less money.
>
> All of your great Linux defense ends in a blind hate to Microsoft
> and Windows,
You have no right to think this. You have no knowledge about my motives.
I have no love for Microsoft, true, but you don't know why I have my
opinions, whether or not they are "blind" as you say. My opinions are
quite rational and arrived at from experience.
> and in the conclussion that Linux makes a good and
> economic server for a lot of things, given that you have some one
> that knows how to manage it.
All servers require knowledge. Point and puke, or text based, it makes
no difference. You need to know the technologies to ensure your server
is correct, regardless of the UI.
> On the other side, at the desktop it
> can be used too (and being done by some people) given you like
> computers, you have the time to spend on it and you want to do
> some kind of things less productive than you would do in Windows.
This is a common statement amongst Windows proponents, and as far as I
have seen false. No "average" windows user sets up their machine, it
either works out of the box (or from IT) or it goes back to be fixed.
The "average" Windows user does not know or care about what they use.
Put a properly setup Linux box in front of them, and it will do
everything that they need.
My cousin's highschool kids use his Linux box to do school reports
because the Windows box "loses their work." (It crashed on them twice in
two years, but they learned quickly.)
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hartmann Schaffer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 18 Oct 2000 22:07:57 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>>I agree with what you say, but my point is that, these days, using a
>>computer for word processing is all about content management. A good
>>word processor will provide you with better facilities for this than a
>>program that evolved from a typesetting tool.
>
> Actually, that sounds backwards. Better content management should
> be achieved by tools that segregate content from formatting. Tools
> like Latex do this more cleanly and produce more easily parsable
> output.
how would latex help with content management. i would assume for that
you would use sgml or xml
hs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hartmann Schaffer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 18 Oct 2000 22:18:51 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>>>Like it or not, the standard is Office. Spreading lies and FUD does not help
>>>Linux's cause. If you had said simply that "SO can open many standard office
>>
>>this statement coming from an ms junkie must be the usenet joke of the
>>year
>
>No, he's right; the standard *is* Office. Witness:
i didn't argue about that. my objection was to the use of the term
FUD. as far as i could see most of this thread is about tex vs
wysiwyg, what to use if you have to deal with word documents on linux
(probably also other unixy systems). i really didn't see any fud
> ...
hs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hartmann Schaffer)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: 18 Oct 2000 22:21:09 -0400
In article <8sk66f$qfb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sean Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>jazz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> ...
>: Unfortunately the world uses Word, and since I coauthor papers, I have to
>: use it or something compatible.
>
>: Thanks
>: Jim
>
>
>Which journal doesn't accept Latex files then?
apparently his coauthors use word
hs
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: who's WHINING dipshit!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:31:24 -0400
More Linux BS. Windows has a very large driver database. WinMe found my
Matrox video card, yamaha opl3 sound card, both cd roms..in other words
EVERYTHING.
I had to tell Linux what was what. I did find installing a creative
soundblaster card in linux a very good experience. Windows has only once
not found my video card on install. That was a #9 revolution 3D card, and it
was being installed on NT4. BTW,win2K FOUND the very same card on a fresh
install. Linux has never found the #9 card, and half the time that card is
no good because Xfree insists on using the I128 driver for the card when
it's not compatible...and you get mangled output now and again when going
between X and the console. Could be a card problem with #9.. I don't know,
but X's support of the card sucks in any event.
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS/PL wrote:
> > It was enough of a pain in the ass getting it to see
> > the modem and work the video card, which Windows manages to do all by
it's
> > self.
>
> That's utter bullshit and you know it. Windows does not see anything
> more than a VGA card by itself. You give it drivers and tell it
> explicitly what card you have. So you had to do the same thing under
> linux? So fucking what? How does this now make linux worse?
>
> -Ed
>
>
> --
> Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
> binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
> first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
> commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:39:09 -0400
This is FUD
"SO 5.2, OTOH is as good as MS office in that it doesn't crash like MS
office, and it
does not take down the OS like MS office."
Neither of the statements about MS office are backed up with factual data.
What is said is designed to make office sound like a completely unreliable
product that will take down your operating system. It invokes fear,
uncertainty and doubt about office.
"Hartmann Schaffer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8sllmb$jn3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ...
> >>>Like it or not, the standard is Office. Spreading lies and FUD does not
help
> >>>Linux's cause. If you had said simply that "SO can open many standard
office
> >>
> >>this statement coming from an ms junkie must be the usenet joke of the
> >>year
> >
> >No, he's right; the standard *is* Office. Witness:
>
> i didn't argue about that. my objection was to the use of the term
> FUD. as far as i could see most of this thread is about tex vs
> wysiwyg, what to use if you have to deal with word documents on linux
> (probably also other unixy systems). i really didn't see any fud
>
> > ...
>
> hs
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:54:09 -0400
You may feel that way. That is fine. But seeing as how you don't address one
single issue that I raised I deem the 'argument' over for all intent and
purpose. -You lose.
In true Cola fashion, when confronted with a position you can't counter with
the usual cola tactics, you turn to #1 --attacking the poster rather than
address the issue. I note that you tend to use #2,
supply opinion as fact, use fuzzy analogies, throw percentages around like
you just discovered how to find a ratio\proportion, and IMO, push
undocumented and unproven technical background like a chucker to back up
your assertions.
Go back to #2. You're much better at that tactic. The above reply to a
sensible argument is as weak as water.
Any how , It seems to work for you here in cola, and you have been a regular
in here for years now.
--- Oh yeah, don't forget to vote for Bush. He shares your rhetorical
stance.
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MH wrote:
>
> I have dealt with you before ubercat. It has been my experience that
> arguing with an idiot is pointless.
>
> --
> http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux to equal NT 3.51????
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:00:29 -0400
Once again, these "experts" such as MW and MLW and the rest, really don't
know how to *even use* the product they are denigrating. Makes you
think..."hmm...I think I know why they were having so much trouble with
windows now....."
It's so silly, really. This guy takes the time to tell us all about
something windows does not have, when it is there all the time. No, I take
that back. It's not silly, it's plain sad.
If these are our IT experts, we're in deep shit people!
"LinuZ TorvaldZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:O4qH5.2857$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It was the Sat, 7 Oct 2000 12:09:08 -0700...
> > ...and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > One annoyance I have with the windows explorer vs KDE's Konqueror, is
> that
> > > Konqueror lets you "drill down" the dirtree, just grab a file, and
drag
> it
> > > over a dir, and after a half second, the dir opens and you can drop
down
>
> errrr??...Windows 98 has that...witch Windows was the last you tried?
> Windows 3.11?
>
>
------------------------------
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 15:01:59 +0200
"Gardiner Family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> what has the site "texas church planters" have to do with Windows bench
> marks. Second, the "speed rating" that is used is inaccurate because it
> uses many machines (clusters) of servers running Windows 2000, however,
> they never include the cost of running that type of configuration in a
> commercial environment, which has been proven to be more expensive in
> the long term that having two big fucking servers, the first is the
> primary one, the second mirrors the first and automatically takes over
> if the primary server fails for some unknown reason.
>From http://www.tpc.org/faq_TPCC.html
"Q: What do the TPC's price/performance numbers mean?
A: TPC's price/performance numbers (e.g. $550 per tpmC) may not be what you
think they are. When first analyzing the TPC price/performance numbers, most
people mistakenly believe they are looking at the cost of the computer or
host machine. That is just one component, and not always the major component
of the TPC's pricing methodology. In general, TPC benchmarks are system-wide
benchmarks, encompassing almost all cost dimensions of an entire system
environment the user might purchase, including terminals, communications
equipment, software (transaction monitors and database software), computer
system or host, backup storage, and three years maintenance cost. Therefore,
if the total system cost is $859,100 and the throughput is 1562 tpmC, the
price/performance is derived by taking the price of the entire system
($859,100) divided by the performance (1562 tpmC), which equals $550 per
tpmC."
It looks like you are wrong, and Win2K/SQL2000 best the competion at *both*
performance and price/performance, with regard to your "they never include
the cost of running that type of configuration in a commercial environment,
which has been proven to be more expensive in the long term that having two
big fucking servers" argument.
Well, according to TPC-C anyway, which was a great benchmark when Sun was
dominating and now utter trash now that Windows kicks butt and takes names.
> matt
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 12:49:05 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > http://www.realworldtech.com/page.cfm?articleid=RWT101600000000
> > >
> > > That's the headlines once they fail to support this chip.
> > >
> > > Linux will be supporting it just like they currently have IA64 working!
> > >
> > > Microsoft doesn't even have the IA64 working!
> >
> > They don't? What world are you living on?
> >
> > Win2K and whistler both have been demonstrated numerous times.
> > A cursory search on Google will return the results. There are
> > numerous press statements on Microsoft's press site about the
> > events complete with links to news agencies covering the
> > events.
> >
> > > Microsoft is NOT keeping up with technology!
> >
> > At least they can detect RAM in every PC out there. Linux
> > can't seem to do this on even a small number of them.
> >
> > -Chad
>
> Have you always been a compulsive liar (hint a ow awnser will be funny)
"a ow awnser"? Have you always had a 1st grade reading/writing comprehension
level?
What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a simple
fact, check it.
-Chad
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
