Linux-Advocacy Digest #583, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:04:22 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:13:59
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Who cares? I would wonder if any of Microsoft's *customers* have
>> confirmed this to be a problem; you seem to assume Microsoft works
>> perfectly until proven otherwise. Luckily, the market is not required
>> to weigh rules of evidence; we will assume the bug remains in W2K until
>> we know otherwise, for a fact.
>
>Well, if you got your head out of your ass and tested Windows Me & 2000 with
>an ACPI system, you would know, wouldn't you....?
What are you, kidding? You couldn't pay me enough to waste my time
trying to sort out that kind of mess.
>> You may also wish to engage in a game of russian roulette, solo. Or,
>> you could replace the monopoly crapware with the emerging de facto
>> standard: Linux.
>
>You could also get a clue, but I doubt this will happen, so let's continue
>on, shall we?
No; I have plenty of clues, Kyle. I got a fucking big-ass trunk full of
clues.
>> >IBM May also have a more ACPI compliant BIOS available for your lappy.
>> >
>> >Or, you can install Linux on this machine, and bypass your ACPI problems
>> >alltogather. No ACPI support, No problem!
>>
>> Indeed, this would be my preferred solution.
>
>That's because your a moron.
My, what scathing wit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:18:05 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:16:53
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Was that you? I thought it was flatfish that was having this
>> discussion. Or was it Claire; I get them confused so easily. Either
>> way, its worth noting that your sentence above is internally conflicted
>> about whether you "deal with real people" or are "fortunate as [you] are
>> to know what [you] know."
>
>You just hate it when someone who assumes multipul aliasas has a good point,
>don't you?
No, I hate it when anyone assumes multiple aliases. I've never seen
anyone with a good point do so, so I'm not sure how I'd feel about it.
It doesn't really take any brains to be a troll, Kyle.
>> No, REAL people only bought Microchannel systems if they were idiots or
>> stuck inside of True Blue shops. I don't see what this has to do with
>> Linux. Other than to highlight that open, standards-based technology
>> generally beats proprietary crapware, but I think that's the opposite of
>> what you were thinking.
>
>??? Who?
>
>The only part of this paragraph I understood was Open Source standards being
>superior to, something propriotory.
Well, Christ, Kyle, it didn't go away after the first time you read it.
Read it again, for god's sake. If it still doesn't make sense, maybe
you should go ask someone for some help; apparently, you're missing
something. I didn't say it was easy; many have often remarked that my
phrasing is somewhat convoluted. But if you're just going to give up
after the first read, perhaps you should stick with alt.newbies.
>Yet, Open Source software all seem to
>have hideous UI's, making them unpleasent to they're closed source
>counterparts.
Their. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me. It might well stay that way, in
fact, until the last profiteer has gone out of business, and it is no
longer necessary to be anti-competitive in order to produce software.
Perhaps, then, (perhaps not) open source software will spend resources
polishing GUIs, rather than innovating and developing superior solutions
to common problems. Your rather naive assumption that a GUI is
pre-eminent in defining the PC platform kind of flies in the face of the
fact that the PC platform originally became "popular" as DOS, a
command-line only environment, and this continued even after the Apple
redefined microcomputers with the Lisa and the Mac. In fact, Microsoft
is still having a hell of a time trying to kill off DOS, now pushing it
to a putative "Whistler Personal Edition" as the "final unifier", when
consumers will finally have no choice but to pay for a server-priced OS
on their next upgrade.
I'll see, soon enough, how good the GUI apps on Linux are. I am looking
forward to it, but I'm not naive. I'd prefer reliable and functional to
polished, at this point; its been too many years of monopoly crapware,
and I've had it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:07:36 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:46:54
>Don't worry Charlie, you'll graduate from college soon, you'll end up
>recommending Linux to some poor idiot who is going to listen to you, get
>your ass sued off for making such a dumb recommendation.
Boy, this is too easy. You just sit around and wait for them to say
something incredibly stupid, AND THEY DO. :-D
>Of course, if you knew what the requirements in an office situation for
>desktop and mobile platforms was, you would know Linux didn't have a
>snowballs chance in hell actually FUNCTIONING on those platforms.
>
>You didn't, and now you do.
>
>Let's see if you learn.
From... Kyle? You defining what are universally and unilaterally "the
requirements in an office situation for desktop and mobile platforms"
for us now, Kyle? Or mayhap you're just observing, in your own
dull-witted fashion, that Microsoft is illegally monopolizing PC OSes?
Doh.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:30:24 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Jan 2001 04:02:02
>On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 02:08:10 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 12 Jan 2001 15:40:08
>
>>>No one is paying Roberto to write KDE. You're putting the cart before
>>>the horse here -- he works on KDE because he likes it, not the other
>>>way around. (It's not as if he couldn't have worked on GNOME instead)
>>
>>I've got mixed feelings about that, honestly. ;-/
>
>How so ?
Yea, like that. Remind me again of threads gone by, pretending you
didn't contribute to them. Perhaps....
>>Yes, it is. Sorry for catching you in my blatant trolling. I *really*
>>would like to hear a lot more about GNOME.
>
>http://www.gnome.org. This website has a bunch of information varying
>from info about apps to news to tutorials on developing GNOME apps.
>
>Also, if you follow www.slashdot.org or www.linuxtoday.com, they always
>carry the latest stories on GNOME.
I'm not interested in "the latest stories about GNOME", I'm interested
in the stories about Linux mentioning GNOME as often as it mentions
Kthisandthat. Well, not so much 'interested', as noticing I don't.
That's all.
[...]
>I don't think there's any less noise on one or the other, maybe you're
>just listening in the wrong places. Also, if you're not following it,
>you'll here things like "Helixcode", "Nautilus", etc and not realise
>that they're actually talking about GNOME. KDE applications and projects
>usually start with a 'K' which is a dead giveaway. GNOME projects aren't
>identifiable as such from the name alone.
>
>I'd say KDE is functionaly better
>overall, but there are also several excellent GNOME based applications.
>
>>>I think you'll find some of the KDE applications pretty convincing.
>>
>>That's what I'm afraid of; KDE applications will be 'pretty convincing',
>>and mostly in comparison to a general malaise from everywhere else.
>>Leaving me in scarcely better a position to benefit from competitive
>>development of middleware than with Microsoft.
>
>Well I don't think you should even make these kinds of comments until
>you've given it a try. Instead of enumerating your fears, why not just
>find out ? BTW, several of the GNOME applications are quite good IMO.
My fears don't have anything to do with "giving it a try". You seem to
think the issue is whether I will "like" the applications. I'm not that
shallow; I'm wondering if they're a good bet to invest my priceless time
in bothering to even look at, let alone try, let alone learn. I'm
looking for twenty year apps, not just whatever moron GUI they came up
with next. Whether I *like* them will have far more to do with my
cognitive assessment of whether they are a sound investment of my
attention, not whether they will be pretty. Or even "quite good".
These aren't any "fears" I'm "enumerating"; they are the minimal
threshold of interest. Is there some compelling reason I should bother
looking at all at KDE, when a "more" open source alternative is
available?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:17:42 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:06:41 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> That doesn't matter.
>
>I see.
>
>The fact that I've demonstrated you are wrong doesn't matter.
You demonstrated no such thing.
[deletia]
You even had the gall to claim that what I wrote in a post
supported your position when nothing of the sort that I
was asking for (host/domain configuration) was listed in
the manifest, for the dialogs in question, in the post.
You can't even bother to read what's right in front of you.
--
Section 8. The Congress shall have power...
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries;
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:13:01 GMT
Said Russ Lyttle in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:34:26
[...]
>I'm really beating up on Erik for having an untenable position. It
>doesn't matter which came first, Mac or PC. Either the file formats are
>compatible or not. You can't claim Office is crossplatform, but has
>different file formats for each platform! I think, but don't know that
>cases b) and c) above are true.I claim that case "d) the file formats
>are the same but converted on the fly" should be true.
As much as I understand the pleasure of raking Erik across the coals, I
gotta say you're going a little overboard here. Yes, you're right,
there isn't really any *reason* for the formats to be different, and it
does mar the claim to being 'crossplatform', but it is the user
operations, not the file format, which actually defines a program, and
so as long as the application procedures are nominatively the same, you
can claim Office is 'crossplatform'.
The real problem, of course, is the use of the term 'platform'. The
points raised in the government's recent brief address this rather
directly. By using their OS monopoly to fend off emergence of
middleware, Microsoft has mangled the market definition of 'platform'.
Historically, a platform was the OS itself. But, as evidenced by the
software development industry, any set of APIs to which an application
developer can 'write to' or utilize to support or provide functionality
is a "platform", and this is in no way limited to just an OS. The
concept of 'middleware' has developed over the last few decades,
identifying a more-or-less comprehensive set of such APIs, which might
provide sufficient support and services to application developers that
they no longer need be concerned about which OS the middleware itself is
running on. Win32 has become, in effect, middleware (and its
cross-platform, too, running on both DOS and a VMS-like thing that MS
developed). Microsoft has been 'forced' by their desire to prevent any
other company from presenting APIs, particularly cross-platform APIs,
which consumer applications may be able to take advantage of, to extend
what was their OS into a "its got everything you need so there's no
reason to use anything else" *platform*.
Classically, the term "cross-platform" means it works on multiple OSes.
But that's generally because there was so little overlap between
platforms. To a Mac person, "cross-platform" means the MacOS and any
other. To a Unix person, "cross-platform" means it works on multiple
Unix, and maybe potentially non-Unix OSes. To a Windows person,
depending on their context, they might mean "not relying on Win32", if
they're anti-MS, or "WinDOS and NT", if they're Microsoftheaded.
The real problem is now evident, and will become much more so once
Microsoft is prevented from monopolizing. And that is that we don't
really have any "platforms"; just OSes. But once Win32 becomes a market
rather than a predatory strategy, we'll probably see middleware emerge
as truly cross-OS, allowing the term 'cross-platform' to be further
disputed. Properly, it should refer to an application which can use
multiple middleware systems.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:07:02 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001
14:43:03 -0600;
>"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Fzn86.57932$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Can't you just, for one minute, stop thinking about how the computer
>> > industry works today and think about how it worked 10-15 years ago when
>> > these formats were created? There was no interoperability then, it wasn't
>> > an issue. This is just the result of legacy code.
>>
>> 10-15 years ago there was already a long history of wildly different
>> CPU types with variations in word size and bit/byte ordering - and
>> unix already ran on most of them with interchangeable data files.
>> You can't pretend that the lock-in that the Microsoft file formats
>> caused was not intentional - unless you want to claim that they
>> were complete idiots, unaware of the rest of the industry or even
>> the Macintosh.
>
>Yes, there was a long history of such in the scientific and perhaps even
>banking industry, but not the *PC* industry.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:07:04 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 14 Jan 2001 07:25:35
[...]
>I'm 99% sure that consumer protection laws protect consumers against
>products that are completely useless (such as shrink wrapped obligations
>that the potential licensee doesn't see until they open the box). I
>believe that the software industry has been lobbying hard to make it
>possible for users to "agree" to licenses they haven't read though.
Maryland recently (a couple years now, I think) passed a law which does,
in fact, enable a software producer to be entirely and completely free
of all liability for the fitness of their product for *any* use. It
short-circuits all the consumer protection laws protecting the consumer
in this regard, and may well support the kind of licensing scams you
describe. Many software producers are, of course, drafting their
licensing agreements under Maryland law (which they are free to do if
they do any business at all in Maryland, which isn't tough), I am told,
though I haven't checked up on this personally.
>> If you purcashed a copy of Sun Microsystems StarOffice 5.1 from your
>>local CompUSA, Sun Microsystems will not be refunding your money (neither
>>will CompUSA, but I digress).
>
>You're not purchasing a *license* from Sun Microsystems. But I suspect
>that you would be able to return the product to the store.
Well, software resellers normally use the same 'copyright paranoia'
justifications to short-circuit consumer protection in this regard, as
well.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:31:01 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 15 Jan 2001 00:31:34
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 15:19:13
>> >"Giuliano Colla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Chad Myers wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> [snip]
>> >> >
>> >> > Hmm, oh well. Never had a reason to really. The past two jobs I've
>> >> > worked at, Linux couldn't be used AT ALL because of all it's
>> >> > shortcomings, so this "option to be configured" really doesn't
>> >> > mean dittly squat.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Where did you work? At a gas pump?
>> >
>> >1.) Video people did tons of video editing with files well over 2GB.
>> >Linux couldn't be used without spending thousands of dollars for 64-bit
>> >hardware to overcome Linux's poorly designed VFS infrastructure. Windows
>> >2000 was the prime choice. It was the best performing, most stable
>> >server software to serve to both the Mac and PC video editing machines.
>> >Never failed us once.
>>
>> I'm sorry, there comes a point where your fabrications become so obvious
>> that no reasonable person could possibly believe they are anything but,
>> in fact, fabrications. That you 'happened' to 'absolutely need' a
>> single file to be larger than 2GB, I can barely believe (it is one of
>> the favorite "what Linux can't do" in many misinformed and ill-informed
>> discussions, generally resolving to a mistaken belief about the
>> relationship between files and data stores <and an assumption they're
>> identical>).
>
>
>No fabrication Max.
Guffaw. Oh, that clears it up, then? Guffaw.
>Sorry that you're incapable of comprehending it,
>but we worked with several minute long, high definition digital videos
>that would range from 1GB to 8 or 9GB in length.
And why would these videos need to be in a single file, precisely?
>We were low on budget and my boss suggested I look into linux.
>
>If you look in the archives, you'll notice I posted an open request
>to several Linux newsgroups asking what the optimum configuration for
>my storage needs would be (how to properly set up mac connectivity,
>how to best squeeze file serving performance from Linux, etc).
>
>It was then that I learned that Linux couldn't handle >2GB files on
>a 32-bit platform (something that it still has a problem with today!).
Well, it depends on whether "a problem" means something you can pick on,
or something people actually have problems with. So far, you're the
only person I've ever heard of for which this is "a problem".
>Well, it was unfortunate, because that was one of the critical
>requirements for this server. Sure, the video team could've broken
>up these videos, but that just adds yet more time to their arduous
>video editing process and they wouldn't have been very happy with me.
I think you mean "it was fortunate", since it gave you an easy excuse to
reject Linux, leaving you with the comfortable chore of dealing with
familiar monopoly crapware, which apparently is your goal.
>> But that it 'never failed you once' is not in the
>> slightest bit credible.
>
>Hmm, well, whatever. The linux system probably wouldn't have failed me
>either, but the problem was, I couldn't use it at all, oh well.
If you weren't so pathetic, you might be laughable.
>Really, the Win2K SFM stuff is really great. The server was set up
>soon after Win2K was released and as far as I know, it's still going.
>I left that place in June of 2000.
Again, something which would have to be well documented before anyone
with more than half a brain would believe you. I'm not saying it ain't
so; I'm just saying it ain't very likely that its so.
[...more dubious claims of NT working better than anyone on the
planet has ever seen snipped...]]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 15:07:06 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 05:23:39
GMT;
>How did you know?!!?!?
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 03:10:40
>> >Of course, I should point out that Microsoft's EULA agreement is totally
>> >outside the bounds of the rights provided them by USC Title 18...
>> >
>> >Therefore, making the EULA unenforceable notwithstanding it's own
>> >provisions.
>> >
>> >Hence, Microsoft has no control over what you do with their software, so
>> >long as your actions are within the confines of the companies exclusive
>> >rights toward the intellectual property that IS Microsoft Office.
>>
>> Well, gee, that's not the take I think anyone expected from you, Kyle.
>> Are you a libertarian, by any chance?
>>
>> --
>> T. Max Devlin
>> *** The best way to convince another is
>> to state your case moderately and
>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>
I could say it was the top-posting and the lack of ability to snip a
sig, but it was actually the fact that you don't seem to have a problem
with having contradictory opinions which obviously haven't had any
critical examination. Its a common failing of libertarians. From your
further comments on the subject of licensing business practices, its
apparent you're a Randite, as well.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 04:54:31 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
>On Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:40:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Well, I don't plan to second-guess, or even have to double-check, any
>>consumers, no matter how braindead, but I would suspect that they would
>>consider Mandrake at fault. I can't see a reason in the world why they
>>would consider Linux at fault, unless
>
>>a) they were aware that Mandrake was Linux, which isn't necessary at all
>>b) they weren't aware that the problem doesn't occur in other Linux, but
>>only on Mandrake.
>
>In most cases there won't be a second chance unless the person has a
>really good reason or need for wanting to run Linux.
Yes, but I don't care. Mandrake is the only one that cares. You're
still assuming that the problem means they won't try another *Linux*.
That's rather silly; anyone who wants to try something other than
Windows these days is certainly going to be pretty desperate. If my
RedHat doesn't work out, believe me, I'll try SuZE, or even Debian. Of
course, I'm already knowledgeable enought to know what Linux is, and
what it isn't, and what is what. You're postulating that the user will
just say "Linux sucks!" and be done with it.
And you can keep saying that until you're blue in the face. But it
doesn't happen more times than it does, and there's nothing, despite
your contentions, to stop it from happening more than once, except
there's actually very little likelihood of it at all.
Why does that scare you so much you adopt pathological behavior?
>Average Joe will
>toss the cd in trash and dismiss Linux no matter who's fault it is.
No, they'll dismiss Mandrake. Did you just figure you'd completely
ignore what I said? Or are you trying to subtly indicate you don't
believe its true? I should think having more than a dozen posting
aliases and lying almost constantly should make it rather hard to be
subtle, wouldn't you?
>It's similar to brand loyalty in that even one bad experience with a
>particular brand name can result in the loss of a customer for life.
Whew! A good thing 'Linux' isn't a brand-name then, huh?
Do you know the difference between a trademark and a trade name? Do you
know if anyone has a trademark on Linux? Is "Mandrake" a brand name, a
trademark, or a trade name?
Anybody? Anybody?
>My dad won't touch a Ford since he had a bad experience with one back
>in the 1960's.
See above.
>>I
>>No, its an application barrier. That's going away, very soon. The
>>market itself will probably have it completely dismantled by next year.
>
>The Linvocates have been saying that for years.
Yes, well, they were naive. Truth is, it requires government action to
prevent monopolization. That's why they made it illegal, more than a
hundred years ago.
By 2002, Linux is going to be *everywhere*.
>>No, everybody doing 'design' did a typical job (some great, some good,
>>some mediocre), what matters to the end result is that Microsoft has
>>been breaking the law for more than ten years, at least, and that is the
>>*ONLY* reason, so far as anyone can tell or know, that the application
>>barrier exists in support of a monopoly. It doesn't have squat to do
>>with the applications themselves. (Natural market forces, I think,
>>would simply synchronize the OS and apps markets, so you'd use the OS
>>that was best for the kind of apps you most needed, though there's
>>reason to believe that wouldn't last long, since Linux can probably
>>replace all the various OSes without sacrificing enough to make it
>>inefficient, either economically or technically.)
>
>The fact remains that the applications average Joe wants to use are of
>a much higher quality than similar applications under Linux and THAT
>is the major reason for the lack of Linux on the desktop.
Depends on what you mean by "quality", like I said. They're more
reliable, faster, more interoperable, and overall much less troublesome.
They aren't really GUI polished, like Win32 apps are forced to be, and
they don't have the 'entanglements' which Win32 putatively provides as a
benefit. Most Linux users prefer it that way, actually. If you can't
do middleware right, its best to not do it at all. That half-assed crap
which is "the Windows platform" is a lot more disfunctional than you
would ever admit.
>StarOffice is a perfect example. Do you see it replacing Office? I
>don't. Yet StarOffice is free and considering the expense of MS
>licensing could result in quite a bit of cost savings for larger
>companies, yet I don't see StarOffice taking over desktop's. Why is
>that?
Because whatever people get to replace Office, it isn't going to be
"taking over" desktops. You'll probably never even notice, and nobody
else is really going to care. This stupid misrepresentation of 'the
network effect' that supposedly makes me give a shit what particular
brand of software someone *else* is running is getting fucking tired.
>>You are *such* a sock-puppet, claire.
>
>Huh?
<*snicker*>
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
