Linux-Advocacy Digest #432, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 05:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (mark)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? (mark)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? ("Adam Warner")
Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4 (kiwiunixman)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? (mark)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? (kiwiunixman)
Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it? ("Adam Warner")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 09:07:36 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
>mark wrote...
>> >> According to your own history, you've not used NT, you used win9x, OS/2
>> >> and then Linux.
>> >
>> >I've used NT before and I said so before.
>> >
>> >This is how it went:
>> >
>> >Win3.1 1994-1995
>> >Win95 1995-mid1996
>> >OS/2 mid1996-mid 1998
>> >WinNT mid1998 to Jan2000
>>
>> So no linux (or beos) experience to speak of.
>
>I have no BeOS experience to speak of. I have not installed Linux since
>installing Win2k.
Yet you specifically mention BEOS further down in this post - why?
>
>> >During the OS/2 to NT transition, the latter three of the above OS's were
>> >installed on the same system, as well as RedHat Linux. I did this with
>> >the aid of PowerBoot <www.blueskyinnovations.com>.
>>
>> I don't see the dates further up. This lacks credibility.
>
>Look, I don't have to prove anything to you. I cannot prove anything to
>you in this forum. I certainly have no reason to be lying.
You made the claim in the first place. If you can't back it
up, then please don't make it.
You have lots of reasons to be lying.
>
>> >Win2k Jan2000 to present.
>> >
>> >I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
>> >familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it offers.
>>
>> So you haven't used it, I guess you haven't had these magic
>> applications you previously referred to?
>
>What magic applications?
>
>You seem to be reading what you want to.
I'm reading what you're writing. What are these magical
applications?
>
>> >BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
>>
>> Which is enough time to, err, well, err, not enough to find
>> these 'equivalent applications' you spoke of.
>
>I never spoke of any for BeOS. Where did I?
You mentioned it 4 lines above, not me.
>
>> >MacOS, I've used on my friends machines. I've tried every viable
>> >alternative OS.
>>
>> Your friend uses exactly the same apps as you need? I suspect
>> not.
>
>Our basic application needs are pretty much the same. Birds of a feather,
>flock together. :=)
So what are these applications? Apparently they now run on a Mac
as well?
>
>> >> I recall someone predicting a few months back that we'd start to get
>> >> the 'I used to use Linux but now Win2k is out it really rocks'.
>> >
>> >No, I'm not one of those. :=) I've never seriously used Linux before
>>
>> Indeed - that's what I was referring to.
>
>When I say seriously use, I mean, actually did meaningful work with it.
>I've however done more with Linux that many people have done with
>Windows.
>SLRN, Mutt, StarOffice all running. I couldn't get my scanner to work the
>I installed it, I configured it. I had WordPerfect, The Gimp,
>last time I tried so that's about when I backed off. I also generally
>didn't feel comfortable with the apps I tried. This is in contrast to
>OS/2 where the apps were generally better than the Win95 offerings at the
>time. I can't say the same now, since Win32 applications are now vast in
>numbers and some really great picks are out there if you look for them.
Again, lots of words, but no apps referred to. What are these apps,
you've managed to list some Linux ones, but you've still not said
at what point in your diary that linux was even installed, or which
one or whatever.
>
>Another important thing. Can I now sample sound from various input
>devices in Linux. I sample music from my tuner, old vinyl's and tapes. I
>then burn them to CD. I didn't see any means of doing this in Linux. This
>is a recent requirement over the last year and a half or so. :=) I do
>this quite easily with DartPro (ever heard of it)?
Does this mean that you've been using Linux over the last year, but now
that Win2k is here, it's just so much better? This reads as I noted
above to me.
>
>> >because I've never had it doing everything that I'd want to do with my
>> >computer. If you've found decent sanctuary in Linux, I doubt you'd
>> >migrate to a MS solution since Linux is improving.
>>
>> You mentioned finding equivalent applications, you seem to be
>> backing away from that.
>
>As I said, I don't have to prove anything to you. If you don't believe
>me, that's your prerogative.
You made the claim, not me. I think you can't prove because you
haven't actually done what you claimed.
>
>> >> I really couldn't imagine making a rational OS decision on whether
>> >> I've _yet_ had a BSOD.
>> >
>> >Oh, come on Mark, don't play the ass and say something like that.
>>
>> You made the suggestion, I find it rather silly.
>
>I suspect you're a kid or something.
>
>English isn't perfect.
>
>Look, if what I suggest implies something silly but could have a more
>meaningful meaning within the context of what I'm saying, I expect you to
>take the cue. But of course, since you're all riled up to play the
>difficult, asinine kiddy, you choose the silly interpretation to
>capitalize on. Furthermore, I clarify the situation, and you insist on
>carrying it further. That's a very weak way to argue and it only earns
>disrespect as you now have with me.
You've not clarified this at all. You specifically stated that you'd
'not yet had a BSOD' and listed this as a good reason for using Win2k.
Where is this clarification?
>
>This is my last post directly to you on this matter. Of course, like a
>typical kiddy and in true form, you'll very likely say that I'm backing
>out because I can't stand up to your questioning, but as I've said to Max
I've some kiddies of my own, 4 and 6 years old. I'm rather older than
that and may be older than you.
I suspect you're backing out because you don't have the information
to back up your claims.
>
>> >
>> >I only brought that up because the Linux advocacy mantra is 'oh it's so
>> >stable .... I've never had an unscheduled reboot in XXXX days" :=)
>> >Stability and reliability are two very important ingredients, both of
>> >which I have no problems with, when running Win2k. Does that mean that's
>> >all that concerns me and the only deciding factors? If you wish to play
>> >the ass then that's what you'll think.
>>
>> Linux is extremely stable. This is one of its major capabilities.
>> Of course, if these apps which you need but never mention are not
>> available, then that might be a problem. According to your timetable
>> above you've not actually run Linux at all, but then in a separate
>> para you imply that maybe you actually might have had some Red
>> Hat. Which rpm was doing your package thing, then?
>
>Wow! But I can't remember. Do you expect me to remember that?
I expect you to be able to give me some clue as to what magical
package was available for all these different systems at the dates
you claim. Or some functional equivalent. I still haven't seen
the answer.
>
>> >> I'm fascinated by exactly what applications were available for
>> >> Win9x in 1996,
>> >
>> >A lot.
>>
>> you cut the 'and which were also available for'...
>
>A more decent question would be what applications were available for
>OS/2. If I'm labelled as being a Winvocate as you did later, I'll not
>waste time writing those down. My knowledge of those are a given being a
>Winvocate and all. :=)
That was not the question, nor was it your claim.
>
>For OS/2 the apps that I used included (don't expect me to list every
>striking one of them here now):
>
>WinOS/2 - Corel WordPerfect Suite
>OS/2 Native
>
>Word Processors - Papyrus
> - Clearlook
>
>Photo-editing -- Embellish
> PMView
>
>E-Mail -- PMMail
> MR2/ICE
> Post Road Mailer
>
>News -- PMI News
>Fax --- PM Fax
>Internet Dialer -- Injoy
>
>Shell Enhancers -- Object Desktop Professional
> Stardock Themes
> CandyBarz
>
>FTP -- (EmTecFTP)
>
>File Manager -- Initially DiskJockey and then FileStar\2
>
>Other Uitilities
>
> GammaTech Utilities
> Unimaint
> C-A-D Commander
>
>I didn't have a CD Burner or Scanner at the time.
>
>> >> OS/2 at the same time (or at least functional
>> >> equivalents),
>> >
>> >Do you seriously want a comparison?
>>
>> I want to know which applications you were using on Win9x in 1996
>> for which you switched to OS/2 functional equivalents at the
>> same time. This was your claim - what were these packages?
>
>I'll leave the Windows applications from way back then alone, OK? Not
>worth mentioning. :=)
>
>> and you missed (ie., cut) 'and also available for'
>>
>> >
>> >> Linux at some undetermined point after 1996 and
>> >> up to and including today, (wonder which version & which
>> >> distro?), and now Win2k with its somewhat restricted set of
>> >> available apps?
>> >
>> >Restricted apps for Win2k. Hehehehe. What apps are you looking for that
>> >gives you this impression? Or is this second hand information that you're
>> >stating?
>>
>> So, to put the words back - what were these applications which
>> you claim were available on Win9x, had functional equivalents
>> on OS/2 (all this in 1996), and at some undetermined point after
>> 1996 had equivalents on Linux, and apparently have equivalents
>> on Win2k today?
>
>Are you still referring to apps that were ported from one OS to the
>other. I never meant this if that's what you meant. Anyway, I already
>listed the main applications that I went out of my way to try in Linux.
>These were some of the apparently viable replacements to what I'm using
>in Windows at present.
I am still waiting for this list of magical apps which was
available for all of those systems at the times you claim.
>
>When I'm not liking what I'm seeing I don't go any further. I'll choose
>to learn Linux itself more, when the applications I can run appeal to me
>more, making the whole change worth my while.
>
>Linux carries with it a steep learning curve if you wish to have to
>administer your machine and run your apps, i.e., use the platform. If I
>don't like the apps, I will not waste my time getting down and really
>dirty with the OS.
My 4 and 6 year old kids have no problem with Linux at all. With
all your claimed experience of all these OSs over this huge period
I would expect you to be capable of running anything.
>
>> >> I'm kind of suprised you haven't worked Solaris in somewhere.
>> >
>> >I have never even *seen* Solaris running.
>>
>> I'm still surprised you didn't try to work another OS in
>> there somewhere. Maybe cpm?
>
>I have never even *seen* Solaris running.
>
><reads any better now?>
Perhaps minix, or one of the BSDs?
>
>> Lacking in facts it certainly is - what were those apps
>> which were available in 1996 - ah, you can read back.
>> Please don't remove parts of the paragraphs & sentences
>
>Part of basic usenet netiquette if you bother to read the relevant RFC,
>is that you should appropriately trim your posts. This is not a freaking
>court room or some official support discussion where the support team
>asks specifically not to trim posts.
>
>I comment on the parts I wish to comment on, and I'll quote those parts.
>
>> to try to change my apparent intended meaning, it really
>> doesn't look very good.
>
>What do you know of respecting intended meaning, even when it's clarified
>to you?
That's better, thanks.
>
>> It kind of looks like you
>> winvocates are making all this up, and perhaps lying a
>> lot here.
>
>You Winvocates? It always amuses me that you Linvocates can never accept
>when someone makes an informed choice and it's not Linux. :=) You all set
>out on this ridiculous crusade to attempt to prove that it's not an
>informed choice.
>
>BTW, I'm not a Winvocate. I'll defend Linux when appropriate. It's just
>that there's so much crappy generalisations being made about Windows,
>that I'm busy enough talking about them. Afterall, I chose to use Win2k
>and disagree that it's merely unstable monopoly crapware. :=)
Ah, yeah, you used to use Linux, but now that Win2k is here, win2k
really rocks, right?
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:20:29 +1200
Hi Mark,
> Is it just me, or do I read 'we don't believe the time is ripe'
> followed by ' already implementing'.
>
> This seems to lack credibility.
I don't believe I lack credibility. One of the URLs stated "we don't believe
the time is ripe". I thought that comment by a University might interest
people, that's all. If I was just trying to push one viewpoint I wouldn't
have included it at all!
> I don't believe that universities will go this way without Microsoft
> giving them vast amounts of kit & software.
Do you mean it won't happen or it will? Microsoft is quite capable of
helping large institutions implement Microsoft solutions.
I posted those University of Auckland URLs because I have a close
association with them (number of degrees, research work) (and the links were
available on Goggle by the way). If you check out the Word document URL I
posted you will see it states that the U of A is intending to have
large-scale student systems using Active Directory by 1 January 2001, and
all systems using it through 2001.
That's a pretty impressive implementation rate for a Microsoft technology
that only came out of beta this year with the release of Windows 2000.
So there you go. How internationally widespead this is I'm not sure. But I
found it easy to find info about other Universities that are also planning
the implementation of Active Directory.
Regards,
Adam Warner
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 09:24:26 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >Grow a clue. uptime.exe works over the network. And it reports accurate
>> > >uptimes, even on NT4.
>>
>> > What period does this addon work over (ie., how many days before
>> > it rolls over to zero)?
>>
>> It works on all periods and does not ever roll over to 0. The reason is
>> that it works by reading the event log for a startup message then subtracts
>> the time entry of that startup message from the current time of day.
>
>You would be surprised.
So it would be zero immediately at startup?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 09:33:02 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>mark wrote:
>>
>> In article <G90U5.279316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike wrote:
>> >
>> >"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<big big snip>
>>
>> > has no inherent equation
>> >capabilities,
>> equation markup is being worked on, it is not yet stable or
>> in production browsers that I'm aware of.
>>
>> > or much of an ability to handle complex page formatting,
>>
>> What exactly is 'complex page formatting'? If this is trying
>> to put characters or objects at specific points on a page,
>> I would point out that the nightmares caused by docs written
>> for eg., letter size paper that are printed on eg., A4 are
>> , well, nightmares. It's just bad writing style.
>>
>> This is where the concept of a markup language is so far
>> away from the traditional word-processor.
>>
>> It's probably also why word processor usage is dying a
>> rapid and in my view timely death in my organisation.
>>
>> >not
>> >to mention references, footnotes, page numbers, and on and on. That's not a
>> >bad thing: HTML is great for browsers. But trying to substitute HTML for a
>> >word processor isn't viable unless you don't do much.
>>
>> Trying to substitute a word processor for writing in HTML is
>> short-sighted - document access technology has massively moved
>> on. It's interesting to note that people over about 45 still
>> tend to print their documents to read them - people under
>> that age tend to do it on-screen.
>
>I'm in the middle...it depends on the document.
>
>Short documents, I read on screen.
>
>Long documents...I want to print and read on the couch,
>(unless I'm just looking for a specific bit of info).
>
>
Ah, there's always a fine structure to any apparently
firm division when you look close enough.
This has been the bugbear of atomic physics since atoms
were found...
Mark
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:38:14 +1200
By the way Mark,
Did you also read this from the URL I previously posted:
http://www.auckland.ac.nz/itss/interconnect/2000/may/ADS.html
"Since mid 1998, ITSS has been investigating options for the provision of a
single network directory service (explained below) for the University of
Auckland. This led to negotiations with Microsoft in late 1999, and the
signing of an agreement with Microsoft in January of this year to trial
their newly released Windows 2000 / Active Directory Service. (W2k/ADS) "
Thus it appears the University of Auckland had already signed an agreement
with Microsoft to trial the Win2k/ADS before it was even released. The
University of Auckland is the largest University in New Zealand (over 25,000
students).
This is obviously not the only University/College/Institute where this will
be occurring.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:44:45 +1300
From what I read, the only progs. that will have problem will be ones
that directly interact with the kernel itself, anything else may simply
just need a recompile.
kiwiunixman
Matthew Soltysiak wrote:
> Yea, it does... But i'm worried about capatibilty.. I would love to use
> 2.4, with the new features and performance enhancments, but it looks like
> it will break the capatablity line with 2.2 binaries and OS structures. I
> hope not...but...oh well
>
> kiwiunixman wrote:
>
>> Below is a fairly complete analysis of Linux 2.4 for the Intel Plaform:
>>
>> http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-11-23-017-06-NW-LF-KN
>>
>> Looks like a complete kernel overhaul, USB support, new devfs and loads
>> of performance improvements, looks very promising.
>>
>> kiwiunixman
>
>
> --
> Matthew Soltysiak
> Comp Sci/Soft Eng
> ICQ: 3063118
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 09:48:40 +0000
In article <8vqkkm$ov8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Warner wrote:
>Hi Mark,
Hi Adam,
>
>> Is it just me, or do I read 'we don't believe the time is ripe'
>> followed by ' already implementing'.
>>
>> This seems to lack credibility.
>
>I don't believe I lack credibility. One of the URLs stated "we don't believe
>the time is ripe". I thought that comment by a University might interest
>people, that's all. If I was just trying to push one viewpoint I wouldn't
>have included it at all!
I didn't say that you did or did not have credibility - I said that
the statement seemed to lack it. I apologise for confusion on that.
>
>> I don't believe that universities will go this way without Microsoft
>> giving them vast amounts of kit & software.
>
>Do you mean it won't happen or it will? Microsoft is quite capable of
>helping large institutions implement Microsoft solutions.
I think that it won't happen without Microsoft effectively giving
the product to the universities, since what's available for
free is so good (don't forget that such as solaris are available
for free, as well as Linux and the BSDs and Minix). Apart from
a few exceptions (such as Oxford or Cambridge), most Universities
are not exactly falling under the weight of their gold. A free
OS solution _must_ be worth considering for a non-profit body.
>
>I posted those University of Auckland URLs because I have a close
>association with them (number of degrees, research work) (and the links were
>available on Goggle by the way). If you check out the Word document URL I
>posted you will see it states that the U of A is intending to have
>large-scale student systems using Active Directory by 1 January 2001, and
>all systems using it through 2001.
How is this being funded? I'm honestly not much inclined to read
a word document out of 'work time'.
>
>That's a pretty impressive implementation rate for a Microsoft technology
>that only came out of beta this year with the release of Windows 2000.
>
>So there you go. How internationally widespead this is I'm not sure. But I
>found it easy to find info about other Universities that are also planning
>the implementation of Active Directory.
Having worked for several years in corporate planning areas, I would
say that the likelyhood of any plan being adopted is inverse squarely
proportional to its target completion date. I would also say that
the probability of any plan going ahead is fairly low, probably less
than about 20%. One important role which planning departments have
is to produce plans for all kinds of contingencies. So lets wait and
see what is actually adopted, rather than might bes.
Having said all that, I would say that this speaks volumes for
Microsoft's willingness to give their OS to Universities, presumably
to counter the current trend of comp sci, elec eng and phys graduates
having good knowledge of Linux and not a great deal with Windows.
This really does illustrate the enormous barriers to entry in this
market for anyone trying to compete with the Monopoly. Giving
away your code may not be enough, you might have to give away the
hardware as well. There are several documented cases of US
universities having whole computing labs funded & built by Microsoft
in return for not teaching anything else.
It's amazing that this monopoly is so powerful that it can actually
fund the abandonment of the academic tradition of hundreds of years
to prevent some things from being taught to our next generation.
Mark.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:55:59 +1300
At the University I go to, we have workstations loaded with Windows NT
(so students can use Borland C/C++, Visual Basic and Office), we also
have two modules dedicated to UNIX/Linux where by we have access to a
server running Debian Linux 2.1. Hence, there is still demand for UNIX
admins (as Windows NT has not delivered the reliability demandede by big
corp's) for servers and Windows will is still stuck to the desktop.
The reason why big corps and people have stuck with Office is that
during the development of Office, it was one of the first to be built to
run on top of Windows, unfortunately by the time some of the other
companys got around to porting to Windows, Office already had a strangle
hold in the market, now that these competitive products have come up to
speed, and in some cases exceeding Office, companies find it hard to
justify changing, as the costs associated with moving say from MSOffice
to Wordperfect to expensive and time consuming. About the only way a
company could break the monopoly would be to give away their Office
suite and absorb the costs of moving a company from one Office suite to
another.
kiwiunixman
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> In article <8vpp6a$2dl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Adam Warner wrote:
>
>> Hi Charlie,
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Adam
>>
>>
>
> Let me solidify how Windows got into the College's in the
> first place. It was business demand which brought it there.
>
> When I was going thru college, CRT's hadn't even been put to
> wide use. Our college was still using card decks as this was
> the industry norm for the oil companies. Windows nor Microsoft
> nor the PC was invented. It would be a decade later that
> PC's were invented and another 5 years before my university
> saw them.
>
> Donations are the name of the game.
>
> It's TRUE that monopolistic power has come into play here.
>
> Since we are 5 years behind schedule at all times, such
> investments in Windows in the present don't really sway me
> that much.
>
> It's also true that academic functions will receive discounts
> that major business's won't.
>
> What a difference between post Viet Nam colleges and today.
> It doesn't seem like we have learned much in 30 years.
>
> Charlie
>
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Response to: MS Office sucks? So why is anyone using it?
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 22:58:41 +1200
Hi Mark,
> I didn't say that you did or did not have credibility - I said that
> the statement seemed to lack it. I apologise for confusion on that.
OK no problem. I appreciated your comments. What I also just posted might
enlighten somewhat. It's not based upon inside information. I mainly know
what's going on from these public sources.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
