Linux-Advocacy Digest #451, Volume #30 Sun, 26 Nov 00 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:08:07 -0500
mark wrote...
> >Why not. I mentioned installing it and removing it after two days. I
> >spent hours on end fiddling with it. It's a passing experience certainly
> >worth mentioning. :=) If you don't consider it worthy of mention, then
> >say so and move on. Don't accuse me of blowing my BeOS experience out of
> >proportion, because I didn't. I told it like it was. It's for you to
> >decide whether or not you'll credit it any value.
>
> Your previous thread lead down a road of indicating there were
> applications which you've used (or functional equivalents thereof)
> on all of the OSs you've used.
*You* led it down that road, not me. I've clarified this, I think three
times now, and YET you persist.
> That appeared to me to be the
> main thrust you were using to demonstrate that Win2k could meet
> your needs - ie., you have the apps you need. You also stated
> various dates and OSs on which you'd been using them from I
> think 1996 onwards (or maybe before, I can't remember and I'm
> not going to look just now).
Too bad for you. The thread isn't that long and what's worse, I requoted
it all in this very message to which you're replying. This is how bad
things are with you and the fact that you will not read, comprehend and
remember.
> I don't see how the Beos fits in with this - only 2 days usage
> is not enough time to determine whether you have functionally
> equivalent apps, unless their function is amazingly simple.
I said I ran and fiddled with it for a about 2 days. I said nothing about
running equivalent apps. I requoted what I said in this very message. I
won't requote again.
> These functionally equivalent apps (or possibly ports as I
> suggested,
You're damn right *you* suggested them. :=)
> although they do not need to be), were used in
> some context not made clear, although you did mention the
> medical profession, so perhaps that's a clue, and perhaps it
> 's not.
Reread what I wrote about BeOS. That's all I meant. A simple sentence is
all I wrote and not a paragraph. It's not hard to understand.
> I called them magical because they ran on so many different
> OSs over a wide time range, and you later went on to say that
> you'd used a friend's machine and decided that they were on
> that one as well (a Mac?).
You have manufactured all this in your head. I note, yet again, your
resistance to any clarification on my part. Doesn't suit your agenda does
it?
> >> >> >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?
> >
> >You coined the term 'magical application'. I asked what you meant (see
> >above) and I ask again.
>
> I've explained this loads of times - apps which ran on all of
> these OSs at the times you stated etc., etc., etc., Just read
> back, it's pretty simple.
I have run no such magical apps that have been ported to all these OS's
I've used. Not even StarOffice. I stopped using OS/2 before it was ported
to it. StarOffice isn't available for the Mac either.
> >> >> >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.
> >
> >I said I installed BeOS once above. How does that amount to finding
> >equivalent applications for it. (Lie one)
>
> You mentioned the equivalent apps in the first place, not me.
I explained what I meant and that it was contrary to what you *think* I
meant. You persist on ignoring this.
> >BTW, let me lay something straight with you. If I use application X in
> >windows and I manage to find one in Linux that provides at least the same
> >functionality with at least the same ease of use, I've found an
> >equivalent application. That's what I meant when I said that. This may
> >involve using ports of a some applications but this isn't true in most
> >instances. I've made this clarification before but you choose to ignore
> >it.
>
> Where did you make this clarification - I really didn't see it.
Take the time to read. I took the time to quote what I said in some of my
earlier posts with no effect whatsoever. Why should I do that now? I
respect you enough to write to you and requote stuff to clarify things to
you. You don't do the same. :=/
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >Really? :=)
>
> That's an interesting cut resulting in an amazing misquote. I do
> not see apps being listed which run on OS/2 and eg., Linux. I've
> stil not seen when you were supposed to have used Linux either.
I requoted what I wrote in my first message in this thread with you. I
requoted and reformatted it so that you could plainly see it different
from everything else in the message. The requote is in the message you
just replied to. Read it!!
> >You:
> >
> > According to your own history, you've not used NT, you used
> > win9x, OS/2 and then Linux.
> >
> >My response:
> >
> > This is how it went:
> >
> > Win3.1 1994-1995
> > Win95 1995-mid1996
> > OS/2 mid1996-mid 1998
> > WinNT mid1998 to Jan2000"
> >
> > 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>."
> >
> >Do you want more clarity that? You are neither reading nor interpreting
> >correctly.
> >
> >I then said:
> >
> > I had linux installed 4 times along the way. Just fiddling and
> > familiarising myself really with what it's about and what it
> > offers.
>
> And I get very confused again - 4 times here and above you say once.
<sigh> One is a subset of the other. I speak of the OS/2 to NT transition
as one period and from 1995 to the end of 1999 as the other time period.
The former is a subset period of the latter. You're supposed to READ and
understand this. It's simple English. Is English your first language?
> Which is correct?
Both.
> >I did just, i.e., clarify that for you.
> >
> >Now, concerning BeOS, this was my initial statement:
> >
> > BeOS, I installed once. It lasted about 2 days on my system.
> >
> >From that simple statement, you're now asking me what equivalent
> >applications *I said* I installed in it when I made no such claim. (Lie
> >three)
>
> No, I said that you didn't have time to check for any equivalent apps
> in the time you had it there.
For the last time; no, I didn't. I never claimed that I did. Now quit the
BeOS strawman argument.
BTW, if you visit the BeOS home page and have a look at the apps
available for it, you very quickly realize that application support is
not one of it's strong points. When I installed BeOS, it wasn't even to
check for it's viability as an alternative platform for my purposes.
That's pretty much a given. I was just curious to see what the OS was
like.
> >In fact it's so amusing what this has come to, let me requote all of what
> >I initially wrote that started this whole thing.
> >
> > Mr. Presumptuous strikes again. I migrated from Win9x to OS/2 in
> > 1996 because I disliked Win9x. It was too damn unstable and OS/2
> > provided a better environment to work in. A better shell.
> >
> > I put aside all the Windows apps I was using and bought OS/2
> > equivalents. I learnt how to use them. I also learnt OS/2
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > itself.
> >
> >It's that word there 'equivalents' that set you off. I have clarified
> >what I meant above and you choose to ignore the clarification.
> >
> >I then said:
> >
> > Linux provides a better solution today than OS/2 did in 1996.
> >
> > If Win9x were all that MS offered, I'd either be still running
> > OS/2 or now running Linux. There's no doubt whatsoever in my
> > mind about that.
> >
> >You ignored that part since it doesn't suite your anti-winvocate
> >obsession crusade. :=) Not to mention your accusing me of claiming that I
> >migrated from Linux to Win2k when it came along.
>
> Er, no, I didn't, it just doesn't really say anything.
... that supports your strawman arguments?
> > Win2k irons out a lot of the hangups I had with NT. I installed
> > it in January and am yet to experienced a system lockup or BSOD.
> > Do I need better stability that this for my purposes?
>
> So when did the Red Hat come and go? You're amazingly quiet
> on the dates for this, and yet apparently able to be quite
> specific for the other OSs which appear in some kind of order.
As I said. I have no reason to lie. If I can't be specific then I won't
be. Knowing when I ran the OS's with which I did my work would be very
clear in my mind, especially the transition periods. Migrating to another
is time consuming.
Specifically which time periods I had linux installed escapes me at this
time.
> At one point you say you've had linux 4 times, at another you
> say you've had it once.
I explained that.
> Even your dated list doesn't actually show the NT5 installation
> date.
Does it have to?
Anyway, I actually did. I wrote in my initial post to you:
Win2k Jan2000 to present.
Look and read again.
> >Now tell me; how in heavens name does that testimony on my personal
> >experience with Win2k's stability, amount to this being the ONLY reason
> >why I use Win2k over any other OS? You see, this is the sort of very bad
> >interpretation of what I wrote that get's you into so much difficulty.
> >You must not assume. It makes an ass out of you.
>
> I cannot see not having had a BSOD yet as being a good reason to
> select an OS.
I never really said it was since I had not used it prior to installing
it. It's a statement based on close to a year of using it. The statement
doesn't qualify itself. It's not all encompassing by any means.
> I still see that statement and I still think
> that it is less than rational.
Taken in the context of it being *the* singular reason for using the OS,
yes it's irrational. You wish to paint me as being irrational so if I
choose to correct your error in interpretation, you ignore it.
> You seem to be defining stability
> here as 'it hasn't happened yet'.
>
>
> >> >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,
> >
> >No it doesn't. How could that statement imply this. I also said in one of
> >my previous posts:
>
> So when did you use it?
Read my previous posts. It's said there.
> > I have not installed Linux since installing Win2k.
> >
> >Would you please remember what you read? Or do you remember as it's
> >convenient to you?
>
> Does that mean you have Linux on the machine still?
No.
> It really is not clear. Maybe I'm just dumb,
You *are* making yourself out to be dumb. You're confusing yourself.
> but I haven't installed
> Linux on my server for about 4 years, but that doesn't mean
> it's not there.
:=)
> >> but now
> >> that Win2k is here, it's just so much better? This reads as I noted
> >> above to me.
> >
> >Oh, hush now. This incessant need for you to read negatively in my
> >statements to suit your agenda, is getting tiresome.
> >
> >Would you please answer the question if you can, because I'm genuinely
> >interested. Can I sample old vinyl and tape recordings, clean them up and
> >burn said samples to a CD in Linux?
>
> There seem to be a large number of audio apps available, so I would
> have said yes, I think that you probably can but I have not actually
> done it. In fact, I put my SME pickup arm Garrard 301 and Shure V15/v
> away 'cos the kids kept trying to trash it.
I know that there are a lot of audio apps available. A simple visit at
Tucows tells me this. That wasn't helpful.
> >> >> >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.
> >
> >You aren't reading and assimilating. You're being stubborn. You're
> >twisting my words to suit your anti-winvocate agenda. Most of all, you're
> >ignoring my clarifications!!!! What *is* your problem?
>
> I want to know what these apps were which were available at all of
> these times, and I also would like to know when you actually
> did have linux, and if you still do, 'cos I really can't tell.
You aren't reading and assimilating. You're being stubborn. You're
twisting my words to suit your anti-winvocate agenda. Most of all, you're
ignoring my clarifications!!!! What *is* your problem?
[...]
> >> 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.
> >
> >I did just that. Now explain to me how that translates to being the only
> >reason why I use Win2k over the other OS's. I guess, only in your biased
> >head, it would.
>
> I didn't say that it was. I merely said that as a reason for making
> any decision, it is very poor.
.... and in the process, more than implying that it was the only basis
for my decision.
> >> 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.
> >
> >Oh dear. This only gets worse. If you were indeed a kid it would reflect
> >better on you. :=(
>
> Why?
If you were a kid I'd understand your pedantic game playing, but as a
grown supposedly mature man, I'm at a loss.
> >> I suspect you're backing out because you don't have the information
> >> to back up your claims.
> >
> >:=) There's nothing to back out of. All this is really pointless.
>
> What is the point of advocacy - why do you come here anyway?
This is not about advocacy. This is about stubborn word twisting and
misrepresentation.
> >> 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 covered that already.
> >
> >BTW, you didn't answer my question. Do you expect me to remember the rpm
> >package or not. Do you think it reasonable that I would forget
> >considering this was over a year ago.
>
> I said that I expected you to remember or be able to give some hint
> or clue as to what it was. That's a *yes*, but with reasonable
> fuzziness to allow for normal memory failings in real people.
>
> I was trying to be reasonable!
LOL!
> >> >> >> I'm fascinated by exactly what applications were available for
> >> >> >> Win9x in 1996,
> >> >> >
> >> >> >A lot.
> >> >>
> >> >> you cut the 'and which were also available for'...
> >
> >Now that I've reread my posts, would you care to do the same and show me
> >where I said "and which were also available for". I can't seem to find
> >it.
>
> No, I said that and you cut it. You said the bit about using
> functionally equivalent packages (or whatever the exact wording
> was).
This "I said .... you said ... but i said you said" stuff still continues
despite numerous clarifications. Hmmm. Where's the advocacy in this?
> >> >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.
> >
> >My original claim was stated above, which has been clarified. Will you
> >persist?
> >
> >[..]
> >> >I'll leave the Windows applications from way back then alone, OK? Not
> >> >worth mentioning. :=)
> >> >
> >> >> and you missed (ie., cut) 'and also available for'
> >
> >Where did I cut 'and also available for' from.
>
> All the places I put it. But I've added it back.
You never cut it from anywhere. You simply added it and you KNOW it.
Please quote me specifically. The entire statement please which contained
the phrase 'and also available for'. I'm sure you will not be able to.
> >> I am still waiting for this list of magical apps which was
> >> available for all of those systems at the times you claim.
> >
> >I have already clarified what I meant by equivalent.
>
> So what were they called? This is a really *trivial* question
> to answer.
Look, I never ran any magic apps as you describe them. I therefore cannot
name them. I never ran any apps that were ported to each platform as I
moved along. Please note that as I said before, I used 4 OS's primarily,
Win95 then OS/2 then NT and now Win2k. From Win95 to OS/2 involved a
complete change of applications except for Corel WordPerfect Suite which
I ran in WinOS/2 and Netscape for which there was an OS/2 version. The
apps I changed to were 'equivalent' in that they offered me at least the
same functionality I had when using similar type Windows apps. Moving to
NT involved a similar overhaul since many new Win32 apps had come on the
scene. However a few of the apps I used in OS/2, now had Win32 versions.
These included Embellish, PMView, PMMail98, Getright, ICQ, Object
Desktop.
WRT Linux, I never seriously used it. I however, installed the OS on 4
separate occasions, all different versions of RedHat Linux starting with
version 4 and ending with version 6.1 in a NT-VMWare VM. I've installed
and fired up various applications which I mentioned before, fiddling with
them to see what they were like. I had printing going. I could dial up
with my modem. I even had sound ( I had an SB AWE 64 at the time so that
wasn't hard). Since uninstalling NT, I haven't felt the urge to reinstall
Linux. This is mainly because I really haven't had the time. I now have
some time on my hands and will soon install it again using VMware to see
where things are with this rapidly progressing OS.
> >I wouldn't expect otherwise. Mine wouldn't have a problem with any OS you
> >place them in front of either, considering the context in which the OS is
> >being used.
>
> My 6 year old likes setting up and playing multi-player doom games.
Geee, isn't that sweet? Doom?
> >> With
> >> all your claimed experience of all these OSs over this huge period
> >> I would expect you to be capable of running anything.
> >
> >That's not a huge amount of experience. That's only 5 years of computing.
> >:=) Are you now going to claim that I said I have a huge amount of
> >experience with the OS's I've had the opportunity to run at some point?
> >That would be typical of you.
>
> No, but you've said you've run every not entirely obscure OS which
> has existed over the last 5 years. That's pretty impressive,
> and far more than most people ever do.
Indeed. For an user with pretty average needs it is damn unusual.
You of all people should be aware that most people have only used
Windows.
> >> >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?
> >
> >Using Windows, doesn't make you a Winvocate. Ask T. Max about it. He
> >posts here using Forte' Agent. Saying that Win2k is a better solution
> >than Linux as a desktop OS and defending this claim doesn't make you a
> >Winvocate. There's way more to Windows and MS than using Win2k as a
> >desktop OS. In fact, it's really a minority of individuals that use
> >Windows as a desktop OS, that use Win2k. Most use Win9x/ME.
>
> I agree with the whole of this para.
... and from what you write immediately afterwards, you seem to be
assuming that I said it just for the hell of it. Again, here is a classic
example of a clear implication being made and you choose to ignore it
because it doesn't agree with your aim.
> So why don't you tell me
> what these apps are, and back up your claim regarding the desktop
> OS question? Otherwise, you are, in my view, Winvocating.
You keep repeating yourself. I guess that's the only way to continue all
this, but I'm done. If you don't feel it's time to back off at this
juncture then I don't see myself getting through to you. I'll either not
be answering or trimming a LOT.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:comphobbyist*at*hotmail*dot*com
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 18:08:14 -0500
mark wrote...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
> >mark wrote...
> >> >No, the user is an idiot.
> >> >An installer is an "it", no a "he"
> >>
> >> Er, the user is an idiot because microsoft's CD was broken?
> >>
> >> Wow I love windows people.
> >
> >You're doing the same crap with Ayende I see.
>
> Que? I'm still waiting to see this list of apps
> which run on all those different things which
> you claimed.
Let's leave that to the other thread which is tiresome as it is already
is. <mutter> This one is tiresome as well </mutter>
> If the user didn't know what to do when faced with a broken
> Microsoft install CD (which apparently had _only one_ file
> broken - something very rare indeed), then they need help
> and support not calling an idiot by you or by Ayende.
A solution was offered to him. Ayende told him what could be wrong and
how to go about fixing it assuming it was just one file that was
corrupted. A single file corruption is a reasonable assumption
considering the OS installed and ran just fine otherwise. He refused to
attempt this and tried installing again as if the problem would magically
go away on the *third* attempt.
--
| ,__o
!ACM _-\_<, A thing is not necessarily true because
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ a man dies for it.
mailto:comphobbyist*at*hotmail*dot*com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
