Linux-Advocacy Digest #574, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (bob_more)
Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4 (Steve Mading)
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: lotus notes (Gary Hallock)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Russ Lyttle)
Re: Linux is awful (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux is awful (Spicerun)
Re: Linux is awful (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux is awful (Jerry Peters)
Re: Linux is awful ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Whistler review. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: linux on a 486 (Russ Lyttle)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:55:01 GMT
Airbus Aircraft have much nicer sets as well, on the boeing 737's it
feeling like ya wedged between two brick walls. :)
kiwiunixman
Bennetts family wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> 1. Comparison: Windows is like a Concord, is has been riding high for a
>> long time then it will crash and burn in a big heap as it's viability is
>> reduced by better, more well designed aircrafts.
>
>
> Windows being a Concorde implies that it goes incredibly fast and high for
> ~25 years, despite being horrendously expensive, before secumming to a piece
> of metal that fell off another plane. That last bit seems accurate ;-)
>
>> 2. Comparison: I see Microsoft like Boeing, it has been the major
>> producer of large, commercial airliners, Linux is like the Airbus,
>> although in the past, only a small number of airlines bought their
>> aircrafts, however, they have gained some very lucrative contracts with
>> airlines such as Qantus recently.
>
>
> No doubt you've noticed that both M$ and Boeing are based in the general
> vicinity of Seattle. Coincidence? I think not...
>
> --Chris
>
>
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
From: bob_more <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 18:54:11 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (J.C.Posey) wrote:
"Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Rozzi, my good friend, there's that thing called brain that you need to use
> in order to succeeed with Linux. Apparently you lack the above mentioned
> item, or don't know how to use it properly.
This is the kind of elitist attitude that kills Linux in the general market.
Most people are *not* programmers, and *not* computer geeks. They just
want to be able to turn the computer on and do their work.
I'm all for Linux, and am slowly making the shift to only Linux, but the more
I'm involved with it, the more I get the feeling that the Linux community is
not really interested in helping the average user. In fact, they tend to
view the average user as a 'luser' which is pathetic really.
Linux users wake up! Don't slap new users in the face.
Jake
jake, many times newbies come here in get help, but the fact is that there is a
lack of tolerance for those who come in here and scream and demand help if they
are to "accept" linux. Realize that with man pages, and documentation, and info
pages and howtos, there are literally thousands upon thousands of page of
documentation at the other end of a simple web search.
You are not in the windows world with linux any more than you would be with a
mac. And when you have an issue you're stuck on there's nothing wrong with
asking for help, but demanding it is another thing. there does come the point
where you begin to piece it yourself, and if one prick is rude you, ignore
them, most lEET hackerz linux god wannabes are clueless anyway.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4
Date: 30 Nov 2000 23:50:57 GMT
mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <9048d4$fta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading wrote:
:>matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>
:>: I use 2.4 test kernels full time and the only thing that I have upgraded is
:>: modutils and ppp. Everything works great and I can't wait until 2.4 is
:>: released because then I will be able to try out all the new stuff going into
:>: 2.5.
:>
:>Really? What about the tools that use the /proc system, like 'ps'?
:>Aren't they pretty dependant upon matching exactly to the kernel
:>version?
: No.
Must have been my imagination then the time I upgraded from one of
the 2.0's (forgot which) to one of the 2.2 kernels, and it caused
ps and pppd to break (which was a mess because of all my scripts
that used ps for important things). A note on the download page
for the kernel mentioned that I needed to update a few programs too
(like ps) because the kernel's change also included a change to
the layout of the struct used to pass process info via a system call.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:35:27 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <904172$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <903r8i$594r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <8vulpl$5pbkd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > When did you last used MS OS?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Today at Work......Win2K. Performs like garbage compared to the
Sun
> >> >> >system
> >> >> >> in the next cubicle. Performs like garbage compared to my Linux
> >> >laptop.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How is it set up?
> >> >> >On what hardware?
> >> >> >What is it doing?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I'm not seeking answers to this question, btw.
> >> >> >I'm showing that there is a lot more to how well the OS perform
than
> >the
> >> >OS
> >> >> >itself.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Ah, a question that's not a question. So glad you could clarify,
> >> >> otherwise we might have thought that you *really* wanted to know
> >> >> what's wrong with NT5/Win2k
> >> >
> >> >It's calls a rethoric question.
> >> >
> >> >I've done phone support before, email support is even worse, because
you
> >> >don't get real-time feedback.
> >> >I'm not going to try and provide you with support you could get if you
> >would
> >> >find a non - advocacy group about windows.
> >> >news://microsoft.public.win2000.general is a good place to start
asking
> >> >questions.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Whereas you think that cola is a good place to *not* ask questions?
> >
> >advocacy groups are not the place to find support.
> >
> >
> >
>
> But they are a good place to pose a question and then deny that it is?
Advocacy is a place for arguments, arguements also mean asking rhetoric
questions.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 01:37:33 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <904176$4tc0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <903nuc$4etg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <8vupqd$5an6e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:3a22e1cf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> >> Well you fuck off you GUI dependent mumma's boy. So, not only
you
> >can
> >> >use
> >> >> >a
> >> >> >> GUI but a mouse ooooooooooo you must very bright, you fucking
> >nittwitt.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >As a note, Whistler should give you the option to turn off the GUI.
> >> >> >Which is something that can be very useful for a server machine.
> >> >> >I'm not sure if the workstation has it, or if it has, how to do
this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Er, what use is that with something with no cli?
> >> >
> >> >It has cli.
> >>
> >> You said it didn't. Are we now saying that there is a cli?
> >
> >When did I said it didn't have CLI?
> >When I mentioned that it doesn't have dos? Dos isn't mandatory for cli.
> >
> >> >> I know that's the hook you're looking for - go for it, Ayende!
> >> >> What colour is the 'new' cli?
> >> >
> >> >Any color you like, of course.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> What's the shell?
> >
> >What do you mean here?
> >
> >
>
> If we have no dos command processor, then what is the shell?
You've a dos command processor. As they would in nt/2000
Exactly what do you mean by asking what's the shell.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:10:31 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lotus notes
"W.Edwin van der Meijden, Alforto" wrote:
> ls,
>
> does anyone know of Lotus Notes running on Linux?
>
> W. Edwin van der Meijden
Yep, Lotus Notes, both version 4.67 and 5.03 works quite well under
Wine. Take a look at:
http://www.winecentric.com/
Gary
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:18:28 GMT
Andy Newman wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >PVCS is/was, I thought, a PC version of CVS. It's been while since I've used
> >it.
>
> No PVCS is quite an old product - Polytron Version Control System (I used it
> over 12 years ago on MS-DOS) and it appeared very much to be inspired by RCS
> but totally reimplemented with a few twists to achieve portability between
> various platforms popular at the time (Unix, MS-DOS, VMS etc..). When I used
> PVCS it was essentially a clone of RCS, no concept of collections.
My recollection is much the same as yours, except for reimplemention. I
don't have a copy to do a "longest common substring" comparasion on
though. I also need to write a good program for doing that kind of
search. "diff" doesn't quiet do the job.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:16:48 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> Qt: 2.2.1
> KDE: 2.0pre
> Konqueror: 1.9.8
>
> Someone did say that they thought "2.0pre" meant it was V2.0, as this was a
> bug that didn't get fixed for the release.
>
>
Yeh., I have some some 2.0pre version numbers in some places. As far as i can
tell, they just missed some messages. The code should be at 2.0.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 23:34:17 +0000
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> No-Spam wrote:
>
> > You seem to be establishing yourself as a Wintroll Goodwin, is that
> your
> > intention ?
Seem to be? He has established himself as a Wintroll. It would have been
one thing if Goodwin had made constructive criticisms about Linux complete
with constructive suggestions about making it a better OS <without turning
it into Windows>, but instead all his criticisms of Linux (in one form or
another) are all about how Linux isn't working like his beloved
Windows.....and then has the nerve to tell us how Linux should be changed
to look and act more like Windows. Forget it, it isn't going to happen for
now.
> Since I regard you as one of the lesser advocates here in this group,
Sorry, Wintrolls can't promote or demote Linux advocates.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 19:23:19 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> The advocacy in this group appears to consist of the following:
>
> 1. Someone posts a topic criticising Linux. They may or may not use
> "inflamatory" language.
>
> 2. Immediate response is to deride the poster. It doesn't matter if they
> are legitimate problems or not.
>
> > >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
> > I thought you were still waiting for Linux to get there ?
>
> I still am. It's nearly there.
>
That's not been my experience. The problem is that there are a number of
trolls here (or really, only a few, with multiple names). We know when we
see a post from one of these trolls. So, even if the troll happens to say
something that might actually be a valid criticism of Linux, it is taken
with a grain of salt. You have to learn how to weed out the trolls from
real people. Claire is one of those trolls with at least a dozen
personalities.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:25:20 GMT
In comp.os.linux.x Eric Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
> Em
I'd say about the same order of difficulty. The main problem I've
always had with windows is lack of documentation - since it's supposed
to be so easy, there's very little available about what to do when
things don't work automatically.
With Linux (in my case Slackware) you need to read the documentation
before starting, and actually _plan_ your install. You also don't get
much practice installing Linux. I've been using it for 6 or 7 years
and only done 2 installs. This through many hardware upgrades. Again,
a little planning in advance makes a hardware upgrade easy. Also,
unlike windows, Linux doesn't seem to like to destroy itself. This
must be one of the "innovations" that MS keeps telling us about - a
self destroying OS.
Jerry
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:02:15 +0200
"Robert Wiegand" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Guy wrote:
>
> > windows is easy to use...no brainer to use most of the time plus you can
> > get support up the wazoo...but its unstable, erratic, and downright
> > bloody annoying...
>
> Windows may be easy to use, but is is *not* easy ti install.
>
> A big problem is that many people compare a pre-installed Windows
> to a install-it-your self Linux. Then then complain that Linux
> is too difficult.
>
> They should really try doing a Windows install before complaining.
I installed windows *many* times.
The win9x installtion is a easy if you've fat partition (and impossible
without, and yes, it sucks)
You're asked several simple questions, and then windows install itself.
Linux installation is comparable to NT/2K installations now. Mainly because
both systems require you to choose a partition and partition type.
Personally, I think that this is a mute issue. Installing linux shouldn't be
a problem to anyone with a moderate knowledge in computers.
Take a look at Corel Linux, it's just as simple as win9x, and suffer from
much of its flaws. (Defaults to running as root with blank password being
one of them.)
Using linux for the email/browsing/word proccessing is not an issue, as
well.
There are plenty of good tools that will do it for you (But not StarOffice,
please, that is all I ask)
The main problem with Linux is that it isn't friendly to the end user, the
newbie, to learn.
Requiring an end user to learn too much, too soon, in order to do too
ordinary tasks.
The steep learning curve is one of linux's biggest disadvantages.
Too many people are looking at this, and thinking, "This isn't for me, it's
too hard."
Tools such as LinuxConf make life much easier for those people, but they are
simply insufficent.
LinuxConf looks crowded, full of options, and it is hard to find exactly
what you need in there.
I rather have something like the Control Panel, which is far less
intimidating to the average user, but doesn't give up the flexibility and
power.
You see all the options you can choose from, no need to scroll down to get
them, or guess them if you don't know what they are.
All the main keys (and some of the sub keys) could be there, allowing quick
access to all the options.
For that matter, another big minus on linux is that all the application use
text files for their configuration, all of them in different formats, which
makes the work of tools such as LinuxConf much harder than it should be.
And it makes editing those files manually a hard task, which either require
you to keep all those configuration formats in memory an almost impossible
task for most people, or keep a copy of the reference nearby.
IMO, that should be abolished. You shouldn't have to refer to the manual in
order to administer your computer.
Does LSB include standard for conf files?
I checked http://www.linuxbase.org/ and didn't find one, but I didn't look
very deeply.
I wrote the following file while learning XML:
http://www10.ewebcity.com/ayende/lmc.xml
It's really pretty simple, I don't think that it is sufficent, I mainly
wrote it because I wanted the practice.
Take a peek, you'll probably laugh at this attempt, but that or similar
syntax should be able to do the work.
Assuming that this or similar (or not-similar, as long as there is a
standard) would be *very* good, it shouldn't be a problem to build a program
to handle those files.
This gives you the ability to write a single tool to do all the
administration on linux in GUI or CLI in an easy to use tool, while retain
the ability to be edited via any text editor.
BTW, anyone can guess what I meant when I called the file that way?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:08:05 +0200
"Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <905d3b$m8f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <903vm1$4jsk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> >
> > > > Unreasonable to say the least, unless you've a different defination
> > > > of
> > > > application than I do.
> > >
> > > Application == program. Something with a menu bar / user
interface,
> > > an event loop, and some purpose for which it was written. I don't
> > > count
> > > DLL's, plugins, scripts, etc.. something I can double click on and
> > > run.
> >
> > On windows, that would be exe files. Let's see how many I've?
> > 1103
> > How many application do I use?
> > About 100, top.
>
> Sounds great.
>
> I agree, there are some that I use every single day, and others that
> I only use periodically, some perhaps once a year.
>
> The issue I see is - how much work is it to move those apps to a new
> machine? If you have 100 non-OS-included apps on Win32, how hard is it
> to move them to your new system? From what I have seen, typically very
> hard, unreliable or impossible.
Not really.
If you've 100 applications that require installation to work, then it's
quite a bit of work.
Basically you're going to have to export registry key as well as copy the
files in %PROGRAMFILES%\Common Files\ and %Windir%\System or
%Windir%\System32 (to save settings and the DLL)
Most application are built so you can move them around by bringing them and
their DLLs.
You can also save yourself some trouble by trying to make each of those
applications to work, and copying the DLL that they complain about to the
system dir .
But yes, I agree. Moving applications around on windows based systems can be
a PITA.
> > > > For that matter, assuming that the average install of a program is
10
> > MB,
> > > > 1500 applications installed would result in ~14.6 GB on your HD.
> > > > 1,117 will be ~10 GB.
> > >
> > > If the average app took 10MB, your numbers might hold water.
> > > However, many of my apps are under 1MB. I have a 12GB drive on this
> > > laptop, about 4GB free. The Tools folder where most of my apps live,
> > > is
> > > about 2.5GB. There are several dozen apps scattered around in other
> > > locations of course.
> >
> > Have you looked at photoshop lately?
> > Bryce?
> > Poser?
> > Those are 100+ MB on your HD.
> > You are on a mac, so I choose those.
> > Photoshop comes with several executable files, I don't consider each of
> > them
> > to be an application.
>
> Yep, those are big ones. Nope, I don't have many that are that big
> (a few to be sure). I am sure you understand the difference between
> "peak" and "average" however. I see you snipped the part about
> GifBuilder fitting in under 700KB of disk.
Because I don't use that many applications that are of this size.
It's average application size on my system, which is probably not normal.
Sorry for the faulty assumtion.
> > > The biggest app folder I have is probably CodeWarrior, with all of
> > > the docs, Win32 libraries, MacOS libraries, etc etc, gets close to
> > > 800MB.
> > >
> > > Think I'm making this stuff up ?
> >
> > No, but I don't think you've a defination of application that is even
> > close
> > to mine.
>
> Share yours, perhaps I can make it clearer for you.
I don't think that I can quite put it to words in english.
That is the problem.
I agrees with your defination, btw. It's just that I have a slight different
one which I can't really depart from yours.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:19:56 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wA_U5.25816$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:900a34$5s4t8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > As for the whole .NET thing... Remember,
> > > it's a documented fact that MS have illegaly used their power in the
> > > market to enforce their own position.
> >
> > illegally?
> > It's not illegal to use your power to enforce your position.
> > It's illegal to prevent competitors from competing, which MS hasn't
done.
> > That is about as far as my understanding of US laws reach, though.
>
> How did you avoid seeing the news about the long trial and subsequent
> decision?
Luckily, I'm not living in the US.
Nor am I particularily interested with the trial, for that matter.
The judge was an idiot.
If he would've really wanted to make a difference, he would've either force
the GPLing or opening of the source.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2000 02:22:05 +0200
"J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2000 12:43:20 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> [snip]
>
>
> >Because you've not seen what win2k can do?
> >TPC proves that it can do it.
>
> Not necessarily. Under what conditions?
Read the TPC texts.
They detials those conditions to much better level than I could do in a news
posting and on limited time.
> >TPC results are reproducable.
> >Can you say the same about your experiance?
> >
> >I'm not saying that you should take TPC results better than your own
> >experiance, I'm saying that I'm unwilling to accept *your* experiance,
>
> Well, that's your loss then... should I care?
You shouldn't.
FWIW, I've found this on MS site:
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows2000/news/external/Gigareliable.asp
They are *proud* of this!
I mean, I know it's mainly for PR, but they are actually proud of this.
Lucky for me and Les Mikesell to belong to the happy 26%
------------------------------
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 02:29:43 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Curtis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 29 Nov 2000 22:16:01 -0500;
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) posted:
> >
> >I have no problems with what you wrote but one small thing:
> >
> >| Microsoft is a dying company as nothing seems
> >| to be stopping Linux growth. Microsoft's 1% growth
> >| is just dwarfed by Linux's comparable 47% growth.
> >
> >Watch that statistic. Things are very different when looking at absolute
> >figures. A 47% growth in MS's userbase is basically impossible at this
> >juncture because of it's share size and how much of the total userbase
> >it occupies. In fact it should disturb you that they're growing at all.
> >1% growth for the juggernaut monopoly MS is pretty significant. probably
> >more than Linux. We're talking about 47% of 15 million as opposed to 1%
> >of 400 million.
>
> You seem to be under the delusion that it is impossible for one person
> to use more than one OS. 1% growth for the monopoly is very
> significant; it indicates that their product really sucks, or their
> prices are way too high. Your confusion over growth percentages versus
> installed base and user base indicate you haven't really thought very
> hard about these things at all.
How does using more than one OS has to do with this numbers?
And how does being a monopol with a 1% growth is bad?
On the desktop market, 90%+ are already runing windows.
On the server market about 20%+ are running windows.
How does the growth numbers split on those two markets?
1% growth when you've so much of the market already is very good for MS.
Growing rapidly is not a problem when you are so small.
But MS has reached the point where it compete with itself.
Growing at this point is a Good Thing for MS.
I would expect it to merely keep hold of its market share, not to enlarge
it.
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:35:43 GMT
I agree with everything you say. My first install was on a 386 with 4meg
ram and it worked fine. It was an Iggsydrsil (SP?) distribution. Adding
another 4meg made it run great when compared with the 486s of the day
with the same size ram. Micah will want to pare down the distribution
and probably leave out all the source code, most of the games, all but
one editor, etc. It is still possible to get a full Linux operational in
under 50 Megs. But that is still a lot of disketts to install one at a
time by hand. The smallest I have ever done was three disketts. That was
an "embedded" system that was just a data logger. A command line, couple
of drivers, and a network connection.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Micah Higgs wrote:
> > >
> > > is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with
> > > only a floppy drive?
> >
> > You do need 16 meg RAM. Perhaps "need" is too
> > strong, but things slow down a lot.
>
> "Need" is too strong. Linux uses the hardware better
> than DOS, so ironically even at 4MB or 8MB you will
> see a speed increase when you switch from DOS to Linux.
> Add a 1x or 2x physical memory swap partition, and
> you're doing fine.
>
> > I recommend loading a minimum system from floppies,
> > and downloading the rest over a network if possible.
>
> The problem may be that Micah doesn't have the hard
> drive space for the full system, and possibly not even
> a second desktop to "download from". One needs to
> understand that not everyone has a full gig of hard
> drive space, or even half that, and not everyone has a
> second computer with a CDROM drive and/or network card.
>
> I installed my first Linux computer by floppy-installing
> Slackware onto a 486/50 using floppies generated by a
> desktop at my college. The lab monitors would have been
> very annoyed had I plugged my first Linux computer into
> their network to finish the install. :)
>
> Something to think about: a complete workstation install
> of RedHat 5.2 (base system, development, X Windows, etc.)
> only takes a little less than 500MB of hard drive space,
> if you can borrow a CDROM drive from someone or have a
> network card and an already-functional desktop computer.
>
> > I first ran Linux on a 33mhz 386 and just recently
> > retired my last 486.
>
> I still run Slackware 7.1 on a 486/66 with 16MB of RAM
> and an 800MB hard drive. I wasn't able to full install,
> but I did manage to get nearly everything including
> a base development, networking, and X-Window setup.
>
> Of course, that machine is only one of three Linux
> systems on my home network, the other two being
> a 100Mhz Pentium and a 200Mhz AMD-something (forget at
> the moment).
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
