Linux-Advocacy Digest #741, Volume #29 Thu, 19 Oct 00 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (mlw)
Re: Astroturfing ("Chad Myers")
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Why the Linonuts fear me (mlw)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad Myers")
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! ("Chad Myers")
Re: IBM to BUY MICROSOFT!!!! (2:1)
Re: The Linux Experience (Terry Porter)
Re: Astroturfing (.)
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (Roger Blake)
Re: Why Linux is great. (2:1)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (mlw)
Re: Why Linux is great. (2:1)
Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE (Terry Porter)
Re: The Linux Experience (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:19:17 -0400
MH wrote:
>
> 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."
Actually, it was a typo, it was supposed to read "OTOH is at least as
good as MS..."
And, it is not fud, not at all. Just search through the MS knowledge
base. You'll find a few.
>
> Neither of the statements about MS office are backed up with factual data.
No.
> What is said is designed to make office sound like a completely unreliable
> product that will take down your operating system.
It is.
> It invokes fear,
> uncertainty and doubt about office.
Well, technically perhaps. But FUD, to be fud, is usually groundless.
These statements are backed up with knowledge base entries and personal
experience. I have seen Excel crash NT by printing. Admittedly I would
say that it was a printer driver problem, but it was only in excel. And
why should printing be able to do that? Because the GUI is in kernel
space, and they use the GUI to print.
I have seen MS Word crash while doing an autosave. I have had my mother
call me and ask what she should do when the computer doesn't do anything
anymore. (she was using word). I have people at work losing work, at
least once a month, on MS office. (We look at a lot of foreign language
docs)
MS Office does crash, and it frequently does take down Windows. Every
regular user of MS office I know has experienced it at least once.
Let's not even get into OutLook (which is part of MSO)
My cousin's kids play games on the Windows box in their room, but do
school reports on the Linux box because the Windows box has crashed
twice in two years and they have lost work. To a conditioned Windows
user that does not sound bad, to a kid (and as it should be to everyone)
it is horrific.
MS Office is a widely used today because of MS monopolistic practices,
and the human quality of being able to be conditioned to accept anything
by repetition like a pavlovian dog. "Just reboot that will fix it."
When, in fact, rebooting fixes nothing, it simply cures the symptom of a
larger problem temporarily.
>
> "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
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:07:17 GMT
"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when the
> > install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
> > mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
> > amount available.
>
> You have an awnser to your problem, but your not interested in it. Why
> bother to ask?
Are you penguinistas so devoid of common sense that you cannoy see the
obvious?
Who's the leading seller of buisiness PCs? Dell? If not, Compaq, right?
Let's talk about Dell then...
What's Dell's leading PC? The OptiPlex line And/Or the Dimension line?
The Dimensions and the OptiPlexes range form Celerons at the low
end to PIIIs at the high end.
The Celeron boxes all use the 810 or 810e chipset, and the PIIIs use
the 815 or 815e chipset, which isn't too much different.
Shall I now explain to you why water is wet?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:09:27 GMT
"Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8smrcp$dbi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "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 $550 per
> tpmC."
>
> It looks like you are wrong, and Win2K/SQL2000 best the competion at *both*
> performance and price/performance, with regard to your "they never include
> the cost of running that type of configuration in a commercial environment,
> which has been proven to be more expensive in the long term that having two
> big fucking servers" argument.
>
> Well, according to TPC-C anyway, which was a great benchmark when Sun was
> dominating and now utter trash now that Windows kicks butt and takes names.
Well, duh, Paul! Microsoft somehow rigged the competition because they
obviously COULDN'T be THAT good! Er... um... right?
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:18:36 GMT
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dNwH5.7761$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:HjvH5.9936$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8sl9ui$jab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> >
> > > > Do you have the courage of your convictions?
> > >
> > > Yes. I have the courage enough to state that to my knowledge, Microsoft
> > does
> > > not write its products so as to deliberately cripple competing
> companies'
> > > products. Its applications have no innate advantage over other
> > applications
> > > on the same OS.
> >
> > Is your lack of knowledge supposed to inspire the rest of us in some way?
>
> Well, gee, I guess I should have answered Weevil in private email then.
>
> Les... if your knowledge is so bountiful... why not list some of these apps
> that were deliberately crippled then.
>
> Come on. You can do it. Your amazing oracular knowledge and brain the size
> of a Mercury Lynx should be able to provide at least *ONE*.
I'll go ahead and answer this one with the Standard List of Microsoft Crippled
Applications from Chapter 5, page 4,292 from the "Penguinista's Guide to Bashing
Microsoft".
1 Dr DOS (with Windows incompatibilities)
2 Lotus 123 (Windows)
3 Lotus Notes (NT4 SP6)
4 Novell NetWare Client *.*
5 Netscape Navigator
To address:
1. Never happened. There was a reported incompatibility in the beta, but the
released version of Windows worked with Dr DOS.
2. Lotus 123 - I can't comment, I remember someone talking about it, but I
don't know all the facts. One can be sure, however, that it was most
likely due to poor programming on Lotus' part.
3. Again, poor programming on Lotus' part. They were using a hack to get to
the TCP/IP layer. When MS had to change the way part of the stack was
implemented, it screwed Lotus. Had they developed as per MS recommendations
and best practices and use the Winsock, rather than direct network comms,
there wouldn't have been a problem. To show that MS was trying to be helpful,
they even re-released the patch that allowed you to choose if you wanted to
implement that specific fix. IMHO, MS should've made the fix, because it
was a security problem and laid the blame where blame was due: Lotus.
4. Every client Novell has ever made has been a hobbled piece of crap. Anyone
who has ever used one will agree with me in these regards. Any
incompatibilities with the client are solely the problem of Novell's
incompetent developers.
5. See 4. Replace "Novell" with "Netscape" and "client" with "browser".
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:19:45 GMT
"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HNwH5.7766$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:HjvH5.9935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > There must be someone who can remember the number of times it happened.
> > Once might have been accidental. Of course MSDOS 4.0 broke just about
> > everything ever used before, so Lotus probably wasn't singled out that
> > time.
> > And it is amusing that it happened again with NT's service pack 6.
>
> And that problem was fixed that same week.
>
> Simon
And, of course, the problem was due to Lotus' poor programming. The
fix MS implemented should not have broke anything, but because Lotus
designed Notes as a hack, it broke.
MS actually had to pull back a security fix to the OS because of Lotus'
incompetency.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why the Linonuts fear me
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:38:31 -0400
FYI:
I usually do respond to reasonable arguments, with reasonable
discussion. When a person decides to start out using phrases like "big
d*ck," it usually means that they are being an idiot and not worth
reading, so I don't.
And if you read my posts, they are, as I know you have seen in the past,
usually quite factual. I am human, and I have made errors, and have
usually fess'ed up to them. I have admitted that I have been wrong on a
few occasions. Also, I do not usually go for the attack posture, and you
know that too.
I also admit that I do incorporate a bit of sarcasm within the text, but
hey, we gotta have fun somehow.
MH wrote:
>
> 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
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:25:35 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:MiwH5.2068$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:D%pH5.85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Wait a minute, here. You worked at Microsoft and you believe that Windows
> > 95 was a genuine operating system that only needed DOS to load?
>
> He didn't say that, he said that once loaded, Windows 95 was it's own OS,
> which it is. Whether or not that OS relies on some functionality of a
> client program is irrelevant to that. Make no mistake, When Win95 is
> running, DOS (even the DOS that Win95 depends on) runs as a client of
> Windows.
Specifically...
Win95 has its own scheduler, virtual memory manager -- a "kernel" if
you will.
Win95 does not rely on "msdos.sys" (which is actually filled with
pound characters in Win95 just so that if you wish to boot into DOS,
it will still be backwards compatible).
Win95 only relies on io.sys being there. I believe command.com is
optional.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:26:08 GMT
"Mike Coleman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > The industry started out with Unix and along came NT beating the crap out of
> > the "xNIX". When the 64-bit version of NT becomes available sometimes in the
> > next year, it'll be lights out for the "xNIX". All of the "real
> > professionals" will be flipping burgers somewhere and they can keep
> > wondering about what hit them.
>
> I'd rather flip burgers in hell than aid and abet in Redmond.
With that kind of attitude, it won't be long then...
-Chad
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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 16:37:10 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "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?
Typo flames are the lowest kind. I meant no. Use your brain (or do you
still have 1st grade intelligence?)
> What I stated about Linux not being able to detect RAM properly is a simple
> fact, check it.
>
> -Chad
No, you lie again, fool. You said that in most cases Linux can't
properly detect the amount of RAM. You are plainly lying. In most cases
Linux can see the amount of ram.
Your `facts' are wrong, not mine.
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 19 Oct 2000 13:48:42 GMT
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:23:56 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Linux is not ready for the desktop. Functionality offered by KDE/GNOME is
>relatively imature and unstable, compared to Windows,
Functionality like remote GUI, multiuser ?
> especially Windows2000.
>GNOME and KDE crash way too often, is slow unless used under root account, and
>has almost no cross-application integration (ActiveX).
I don't use either, prefering more mature Desktops for Linux.
>
>I use many Linux boxes to do data intensive batch jobs. Another friend of mine
>use a personal farm of about 10 identical Linux boxes to do data-mining and
>spamming.
spammers!
>There is definitely use for Linux, just not on the desktop -- yet.
I use Linux on my desktop daily, tho I admit I dont spam like your friend.
>
>Haoyu Meng
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 9 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: 19 Oct 2000 13:51:13 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > I've done that on the second of three installs, it still shows 66mb when the
>> > install is complete. I also have a pretty good feeling that just typing
>> > mem=256M will not magically work if it doesn't already see the maximum
>> > amount available.
>>
>> You have an awnser to your problem, but your not interested in it. Why
>> bother to ask?
> Are you penguinistas so devoid of common sense that you cannoy see the
> obvious?
> Who's the leading seller of buisiness PCs? Dell? If not, Compaq, right?
> Let's talk about Dell then...
> What's Dell's leading PC? The OptiPlex line And/Or the Dimension line?
> The Dimensions and the OptiPlexes range form Celerons at the low
> end to PIIIs at the high end.
> The Celeron boxes all use the 810 or 810e chipset, and the PIIIs use
> the 815 or 815e chipset, which isn't too much different.
> Shall I now explain to you why water is wet?
Not to be terribly argumentative, but it may be worth noting that dell
sells multiproc Xeon machines as well.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 13:51:43 GMT
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:39:09 -0400, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>product that will take down your operating system. It invokes fear,
>uncertainty and doubt about office.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Microsoft Office is completely
justified. I personally have seen the mere act of installing Office
trash Windows to the point where they are unusable, and seen Office
apps develop problems for which the Microsoft Knowledge Base will
tell you your recourse is to wipe out and re-install the operating system.
One of the problems with Office is that it screws around with Windows
internals when it installs. To insure some measure of reliability
there needs to be a solid wall between applications and the
operating system.
Not to mention dangerous nonsense like auto-execute macros -- a "feature"
which appears to have been developed primarily as a vector for document-borne
virii, and the many serious security problems in Outlook and Outlook
Express, etc. I frankly don't know why anyone chooses to use this
software; I simply can't imagine any feature set worth the risk.
--
Roger Blake
(remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email)
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:45:28 +0100
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 ...
OI USE YOUR BRAIN!
You can't be accused of trolling if you advocate something on its own
advocacy group. The group is here for people to advocate linux.
> > 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.
No, 1 fact here, the fact being stated above.
> > 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.
Word prettier than TeX? You must be joking. It is a fact that it is more
cometant at producing high quality text. For instance, it uses
ligatures, such as ffl, ffi, ff, fi, fl, word does not. It also does
other things that word does not. Th see a list of it's features, read
the book.
--
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: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:58:09 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:MiwH5.2068$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:D%pH5.85$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Wait a minute, here. You worked at Microsoft and you believe that Windows
> > > 95 was a genuine operating system that only needed DOS to load?
> >
> > He didn't say that, he said that once loaded, Windows 95 was it's own OS,
> > which it is. Whether or not that OS relies on some functionality of a
> > client program is irrelevant to that. Make no mistake, When Win95 is
> > running, DOS (even the DOS that Win95 depends on) runs as a client of
> > Windows.
>
> Specifically...
>
> Win95 has its own scheduler, virtual memory manager -- a "kernel" if
> you will.
>
> Win95 does not rely on "msdos.sys" (which is actually filled with
> pound characters in Win95 just so that if you wish to boot into DOS,
> it will still be backwards compatible).
>
> Win95 only relies on io.sys being there. I believe command.com is
> optional.
Actually what happens is that the VMM creates a virtual DOS environment
around the existing DOS system. This is nessisary because services like
DMA and interrupts must be handled within the 32 bit "flat" environment
because, in 32 bit virtual mode, DOS no longer has a real address.
Windows still uses the real mode DOS by simulating interrupts into the
system virtual machine. AFAIK it even makes BIOS calls.
I would not go as far as to say Windows is an "OS," unless you can say
that Windows 2.1/386 was an OS, or that Qemm was an OS. They have
qualities that are OS-like, but I hesitate to call them an OS.
>
> -Chad
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux is great.
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:51:22 +0100
Philo wrote:
>
> 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 :)
The eterm is one of the prettiest, most useless programs I have seen :-)
For the real reason that we like the command prompt, try running a 14"
moniter at 180x80 (text). Less pretty, but equally useless...
-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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 challenges GNOME/KDE
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 19 Oct 2000 13:59:25 GMT
On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 09:34:54 GMT, Haoyu Meng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Windows 2000 is rock solid.
> I have used it for almost half a year. Only
>had to reboot twice, both times due to conflict from newly installed
Then you need to revise your understanding of "rock solid" !
>hardware devices.
My Linux pc has been running for 3 years, and apart from power outages (no
ups) it has locked up *3* times. Thats once per year, not 4 times a year like
your "rock solid win2k" , and two of those times were when this box was nuked,
this is a OLD kernel, 2.0.36.
>
>Windows 2000 is stable, powerful, and easy to use. So does anyone see it
>as seriously challenging the relevance of pushing Linux to the desktop?
Not me.
>
>Personally, I had been a Linux fan since Kernel version 1 with Slackware
>floppies downloaded over 28.8k modem. While in college I used Linux as
>my main workstation OS, with Win95/98 relegated to secondary role. But
>Win2k changed all of it. Right now, all the workstation frontends I use
>at home at work is win2k boxes with the headless Linux servers tucked
>away on a network link to do only number crunching and code comping.
Lotsa Linux fans about, some never get to the Linux Desktop.
>
>Any similar stories?
I doubt you'll find them here, I think you need a Windows advocacy group.
>
>
>Haoyu Meng
>
>Telpic Internet Solutions
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 10 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Experience
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 16:53:15 +0100
Haoyu Meng wrote:
>
> Linux is not ready for the desktop. Functionality offered by KDE/GNOME is
> relatively imature and unstable, compared to Windows, especially Windows2000.
> GNOME and KDE crash way too often, is slow unless used under root account, and
> has almost no cross-application integration (ActiveX).
>
> I use many Linux boxes to do data intensive batch jobs. Another friend of mine
> use a personal farm of about 10 identical Linux boxes to do data-mining and
> spamming.
> There is definitely use for Linux, just not on the desktop -- yet.
>
> Haoyu Meng
I use Linux as a desktop machine, therefore it has a use on the desktop.
I know several people who do the same. The functionality offered by
Linux as a whole is much mature than what you get with windows
I aslo don't loke the windows GUI - too cluttered.
-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
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
