Linux-Advocacy Digest #575, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. (Steve Mading)
Re: Don't believe the hype ("Vann")
Re: I Will Survive (without Windows) ("Ken McFelea")
Re: Linux is awful (David M. Butler)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Don't believe the hype (Terry Porter)
Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot. (Terry Porter)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: 1 Dec 2000 00:36:35 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Chad, there won't be any company left to visit after they take the road down
: linux loosers lane... I mean, I don't know anywhere they've dropped windows
: for linux and survived more than a fiscal year. In fact, I consider it an
: automatic lie when I hear "We replaced our windows boxes with linux" - I
: read: I snuck a copy of linux into a partition I resized with partition
: magic (nothing like it in unix world of course) and it's running my own
: private ftp site so I can leech files I download at work home.
Translation: "I, Conrad Rutherford, will simply denounce out-
of-hand any evidence I don't like, claiming it was just made
up. I hope this lets everyone out there know where I stand
with respect to honesty."
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Don't believe the hype
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:41:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:29:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>I have now used Linux for 6 months (Redhat 6.0)
>>
>>According to the press its a stable operating system - YOU MUST BE
>>JOKING.
>
> Linux is stable if it sits running in cli mode in the back of some
> closet somewhere serving up web pages or directing traffic. If you
> attempt to run X and then some real applications under kde or Gnome that
> is where Linux starts to collapse. Sure most of the time Linux itself
> doesn't crash but to the user browsing or running her application what's
> the real difference except that the other users on the box may still be
> up.
>
> I have found even the latest version of Mandrake 7.2 to be abysmal
> compared to Windows 2000. It's not bad as far as Linux is concerned, but
> it looks like crap and it is quite unstable with kde locking up all the
> time.
>
Stop talking as if you are speaking facts. I wouldn't trade blackbox for
Windows 2000 any day. It takes up far less memory, and I think it looks
and feels better. My father, who is computer illiterate, uses linux and
blackbox everyday, and the last time we reset the computer because of
XFree86 going bye-bye was one time, about eight months ago. ( I looked
for my problem, and it turned out it was my nvidia drivers, which are BETA
anyhow, were the cause of the problem. ) Gnome and KDE, to me, are heavy
and awkward, just like Windows. This is why I don't use them. You can
still use Blackbox and all the QT ( KDE) and GTK+ ( Gnome ) apps you want
( As I write this, I am running pan, xmms, gaim, gkrellm, the gimp, and
grip - all of which use GTK+ and Gnome libraries to function. ) Also,
please, I beg of you, realize that saying linux is awful becaose KDE or
Gnome crash/lock-up often is saying your car's engine is awful because the
tires explode all the time. Linux is just the kernel, considering any of
the *other* parts can be exchanged for something else, and still have
"Linux" running. KDE or Gnome don't float your boat? Well, just like
you'd get new tires if your tires exploded, you'd get a new window manager
if the current one locks up your computer, or doesn't suit your taste.
>>
>>I would have loved to have found linux was stable and usable however the
>>truth is it lacks quality.
>
> In terms of usability, consistency and quality of applications,
> especially the kde and Gnome applications, it is pathetic how amateurish
> these applications look compared to Windows applications.
>
> But still, if you want that all and powerful cli and love to type
> commands and churn out code and control literally every aspect of your
> operating system, Linux may be the ticket.
>
> claire
I agree fully with your latter statement, and partially with your first.
I think running an application because it is professional looking is
ridiculous. I use Word 2000 on a regular basis, and it looks
professional, but I can't stand how it works. It tries to guess what I
meant to type constantly, both in spelling/grammar and the layout of my
page. I just want a word processor that processes words, not one that can
read my mind via my fingers and magically write my papers for me,
especially if it rarely get it right! I use AbiWord frequently ( I'm the
first to admit it is crash prone, so I just save often ) or Corel
WordPerfect 8. My father uses the latter for his buisness, and adores it.
Bah, forget HTML, Usenet needs a <rant> tag.
------------------------------
From: "Ken McFelea" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I Will Survive (without Windows)
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:47:38 +0600
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "kiwiunixman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dedicated to those who find the transition from Windows to Linux that
> little bit harder:
>
> First I was afraid, I was petrified Kept thinking I could never live
> without Windows by my side But I spent so many nights thinking how you
> did me wrong I grew strong I learned Linux and carried on and so you're
> back using Hard disk space I just walked in to find you here with that
> BSOD look upon your screen I should have changed my stupid lock I should
> have made you leave your key If I had known for just one second you'd be
> back to infect me
>
> Go on now, delete off the disk don't return around now
> 'cause you're not welcome anymore
> weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye you think I'd
> crumble you think I'd lay down and die Oh no, not I I will survive as
> long as I know how to code I know I will stay alive I've got all my life
> to live I've got all my knowledge to give and I'll survive I will
> survive
>
> It took all the strength I had not to fall apart kept trying hard to
> mend the pieces of my partition and I spent oh so many nights just
> feeling sorry for myself I used to cry Now I hold my head up high and
> you see me somebody new I'm not that chained up little person still in
> addicted to you and so you felt like dropping in and just expect me to
> be free now I'm saving all my disk space for someone who's won't BSOD on
> me
AMEN! I'm telling ya, AMEN!
I have survived!!!
Ken McFelea
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:47:45 -0500
Eric Meyer wrote:
> >They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
>
> I have many times. It may not be as easy as installing Office (or the
> like), but it's still a hundred times easier than linux.
I'd love to see how you came up with a factor of 100. Here's my experience:
Windows install: Insert CD, boot computer, format drive, wait awhile until
it finishes.
Linux install: Insert CD, boot computer, format drive, wait awhile until it
finishes.
They both took about the same amount of time and properly detected
hardware.
Only difference installation and hardware setup-wise was when I upgraded my
Motherboard and CPU. Went from an AMD K6-III 400 and a MB with a VIA
chipset, to an AMD Thunderbird 900 and a MB with a VIA chipset. Windows
laughed at me and said, "Whoa, buddy... I am NOT going to touch that thing
unless you reinstall me!" ... Linux said, "I love you," and that was that.
Otherwise I've had no more trouble with Linux than Windows, or vice-versa...
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:48:27 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>
> It's definately not the SNMP counter. Likely, there is some little known
> HTTP request that retrieves the uptime, considering that netcraft only seems
> to operate on sites that have web servers, that seems reasonable.
>
> Now, if you can point me to a standard which states that this little known
> HTTP uptime request requires a specific resolution, I'll gladly admit that
> the function doesn't follow standards.
To settle the matter I've taken an empirical approach. Instead of
speculating, I asked netcraft. It turns out that you might be right, and
I might be wrong. That's the response I've received;
Subject:
Re: Uptime
Date:
Thu, 30 Nov 2000 20:16:31 +0000 (GMT)
From:
Mike Prettejohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: I participate to a Newsgroup where a debate has arisen about
: Windows NT uptimes, using the netcraft information.
: I don't know how much of the method you're using is
: proprietary, and how much you're ready to unveil, but you
: could help to solve this point: does your method exploit in
: some way the sysUptime function accessible through SNMP, or
No.
: is it something totally different?
Yes, that's right. Sorry not to be more specific.
Mike
--
Mike Prettejohn http://www.netcraft.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone +44 1225 447500 Fax +44 1225 448600
Netcraft Rockfield House Granville Road Bath BA1 9BQ England
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Don't believe the hype
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Dec 2000 00:45:00 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 17:29:12 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have now used Linux for 6 months (Redhat 6.0)
>
>According to the press its a stable operating system - YOU MUST BE
>JOKING.
The Windows press who get to sell some extra copies by including a Linux
CD all 'full of goodies' you mean ?
>
>yp / ldap (take your pick - you will end up trying both!) just don't
>work.
I havent used them.
>
>Gnome leaks and locks up frequently, machines reboot and run out of
>memory.
Course it does, its early software, I tried it , love its presentation,
shame about the lock ups tho. I wish my coding was up to the point
I could contribute, but as its not, I'll just have to wait for the Gnome team.
(Kudos to the Gnome team, you guys rule, I'm drooling over Gnome).
>
>In short most of the software may be free but it certainly isn't
>finished.
Lots is however, try Blackbox, Windowmaker etc, you wont have any lockups.
>
>If you value your time then Linux is not free.
We all value our time, and Linux was never free as in 'free beer' please
at least try and understand what is meant by 'FREE' ?
>
>Oh yes and I haven't even touched on gdb (use Visual Studio then try
>gdb ; its like the dark ages - again IT DOES NOT WORK).
Your kidding ?
gdb and DDD rule. I even can use DDD with the SDCC Linux 8051 debugger, now
you havent lived till you can do that!
>
>I would have loved to have found linux was stable and usable however
>the truth is it lacks quality.
The truth is you dont have a clue, Windows boy.
Any one who listens to this person and believes them, will be doing themselves
a diservice. I have used Linux since Aug97 and Linux has proven to absolutly
blow Windows away in terms of reliability, application software and cost.
I came to Linux to get the free engineering software and never looked back, as
it would cost me at least $10,000 to get what Linux has provided for free.
Ive designed programs and hardware thats running RIGHT NOW in industry, and has
earnt me a nice sum, and its ALL been done on my Linux *only* machine.
Youd have to admit, someone like me finds your claim totally lafable. Get the
reliable Window Managers out there, *fix* your problem.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 6 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 Dec 2000 00:53:06 GMT
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:47:04 GMT, kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete, just ignore him and he will go away.
Goodwin is the Wintroll, Perry is a long term Linux user.
I support Perry anyday over this-blow in Wintroll Goodwin!
>
>kiwiunixman
>
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>> Perry Pip open his mouth and uttered forth a pile of drivel:
Your the expert in drivel land Goodwin.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Hit a nerve did I?
Yes, and I guess you feel pretty happy about it, Wintroll ?
>>
>> When someone dare's to challenge the Linux advocates here, down into the
>> muck they go! Out come the insults! YEEHAA!!
Same old Wintroll comeback, havent you picked up any pointers from Claire yet
Goodwin ?
>>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 day 6 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:34:22 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 30 Nov 2000 13:18:40
> >"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> If anything the GNU/GPL will force the developers
> >> at comming up with NEW material. Not the
> >> same old crap, over and over again.
> >
> >And what would pay the bills while they are at it.
>
> You seem to be under the delusion that programmers are authors in the
> modern software industry. They do work for hire. Trying to worry them
> about Open Source making them poor isn't going to really work very well.
> The stockholders and executives, however, are scared shitless by the
> idea.
At some point, someone has to pay the bills.
Exchange programmers for who-ever-pays-the-bill and you see the point.
GNU or GPL is a good thing when you make an in-house application which you
don't intend to sell, and release the code for the general public to
improve.
I vagually recall something about about this for both MySQL & Apache.
> >You can sell GNU software, but the problem with it, that if you intend to
> >make *profit* from GNU software, you don't make it from selling it.
>
> Actually, that's the solution. The problem is that with copyright
> wrapped in a trade secret, you can make money just *owning* it, without
> ever selling anything at all.
Please repeat that, I don't think I understand what you are saying here.
If you can, would you provide an example of what you mean?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:39:25 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:10:51 -0500;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >Take graphics editing software for instance. What is there for Linux?
> >Which OSS efforts are underway .... The Gimp .... what else?
>
> You still wish to forget that there isn't a free market. Why are you
> trying to use the lack of free market competition to indict OSS or
> Linux, then?
No free market? In Graphics editing software?
I'm not very good in graphics, so I lack a lot of knowledge in the field,
but I do believe that the only applicaitons that MS released which can do
graphic editings are PaintBrush (Yes, *that* is a deaththreat to photoshop)
and some graphic application that come with Office 2000, whose name I can't
even remember.
What "no free market" exist in graphic editing software?
This is really ridicilous, you know.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:51:35 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:10:51 -0500;
> >What about applications that have a niche audience or userbase. Even
> >worse, niche applications that require a lot of coding and a requirement
> >for not much tech support or recreational apps. Games come immediately
> >to mind. How will that market survive in an OSS setting. Yes, you'll
> >have the game here and there, but not the booming market that exists in
> >the commercial arena.
>
> Bullshit. What you fail to grasp is that, if OSS isn't a commercially
> feasible licensing model, then it isn't. There's no religious zealotry
> going on here. The difficulty I have hearing Winidiots harping about
> how the OSS model "won't work for some software" is that they are
> convinced that they have the ability to point to what will and what
> won't work. The same fundamental failure in reasoning which leads them
> to be Winidiots to begin with: an assumption that their conscious
> second-guessing of other people's actions is a valid substitute for free
> market competition in making such decisions. It doesn't take a very
> smart person, or even a real understanding of OSS, to guess that games
> might well not *all* be OSS. You seem to fail to grasp the point,
> however, that most games in the "booming market" gave away limited
> versions as shareware until quite recently (now, they focus on demos and
> cut-scene movies, a cycle which repeats continuously, shifting back and
> forth between form and substance). People are more than willing to pay
> a lucrative price just for professionally developed scenarios; you could
> give the game itself away for free, in many cases.
There is a *world* of difference between giving away a limited version of
the game, without any code btw, to show you what the game can do, and giving
away the source of the game.
You mean that they would *give* the engine of the game? And don't try to
suggest that you are only talking about binaries.
A> You are talking about OSS, which mean giving away the engine of the game.
B>Binaries of the game are *useless* unless you've the scenario & movies and
all the rest.
Unreal, Half-life, QoukeIII *all* made a *handsome* profit from licensing
their engines to other companies, why would they want to give up this
profit?
Give me one reason for them to do it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:56:54 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 30 Nov 2000
> 05:03:22 GMT;
> >Curtis wrote:
> >>
> >> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> >>
> >> Uhm, you say that many in the know that are in your acquaintance prefer
> >> OS/2 to Win2k.
> >>
> >> I said the opposite and you said that I'm wrong. I'm saying that you
are
> >> wrong in saying that I'm wrong. I'm not saying that your initial
> >> statement was wrong.
> >
> >In logic or sophistry, 2 wrongs can make a right.
>
> Oh? Does that mean that two rights make a wrong?
In some languages, two negatives makes positive, in others, three negatives
makes negative, but in no language two positives makes negative.
YEAH RIGHT!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
