Linux-Advocacy Digest #592, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 21:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Windows curses fast computers (mlw)
10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED! (sfcybear)
Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Poor Linux ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Chad Myers")
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ("kiwiunixman")
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux ("kiwiunixman")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Poor Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:06:31 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:32:01 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 13:30:27 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[snip a heck of a lot]
>
>> >> That's not GNOME, that's a higher level application.
>> >
>> >Then we need to define what we are comparing.
>> >To be exact: What's windows? What's Gnome?
>>
>> Programmer services.
>>
>> End user services.
>
>Can you be a bit more verbose?
Why do you need it broken down into monosyllables?
You're supposed to be a programmer. You should have some
idea what parts of KDE are built primarily to enable the
building of other applications and which ones are 'terminal'
in that they're not expected to be built on further and
just 'executed' by the end user.
When it comes time to deploy those Win32 apps on other
platforms, no one cares about explorer.exe. They want
to know where the win32 libraries are and how they
can recompile their win32 source.
>
>> >Because we obviously are using different definitions.
>> [deletia]
>>
>> Mine's consistent with 20 years of Unix design
>> philosphy. I'm not quite sure where you're
>> getting your ideas from.
>
>I am trying to guess yours, too. Applying Unix design philosophy
>to determine what is part of a OS that is not Unixy is, let's
>say, radical.
>
>If windows is not the whole OS, then what is the OS beneath it?
I didn't windows wasn't the whole OS, I merely stated the
OS isn't explorer. As far as how far back the code itself
goes: it's impossible to really say. At the very least,
the current windows represents a continuously developed
and deployed programming interface that dates to at least
1990 if not earlier.
There could still be bits of DOS from 1983 lingering in
Windows ME. Without a code review you can't say.
>If windows is the whole OS, comparing it to GNOME in isolation is
>stupid.
No it isn't.
GNOME can be isolated from the rest of what you want to
bundle together. GNOME just isn't a Linux envroment.
Even gtk itself isn't limited to X. It was specifically
meant not to be.
Really, it's more comparable to OpenStep.
Also, I didn't tie Windows to DOS. I only refered to the
release history of those products actually called Microsoft
Windows. I never included anything that one could clearly
separate from Windows.
So, you aren't even characterizing my position correctly.
--
The LGPL does infact tend to be used instead of the GPL in instances
where merely reusing a component, while not actually altering that
component, would be unecessarily burdensome to people seeking to
build their own works.
This dramatically alters the nature and usefulness of Free Software
in practice, contrary to the 'all viral all the time' fantasy the
anti-GPL cabal here would prefer one to believe.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:18:34 -0500
Salvador Peralta wrote:
>
> Why do I suspect that Funkenbush is going to pretend that your post
> never made it to his newsserver?
Because there is no excuse that can be made for Microsoft's negligence.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 10,000 to 20,000 Linux/Alphas - CLUSTERED!
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:07:57 GMT
WOW!
http://computerworld.com/cwi/story/0%2C1199%2CNAV47_STO56666_NLTpm%2C00.html
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: M$ *finally* admits it's OSs are failure prone
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:28:09 -0600
"Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Based on nubers from Netcraft and Uptimes I would find this claim hard
> > > to believe. Just guessing without documentation to back it up is
hardly
> > > being realistic.
> >
> > Really? Why don't you list every Linux system listed in Netcrafts
database
> > and give the average uptime of all of them combined.
> >
> > I'll bet you it'll be a lot worse than the MTTF listed in this report.
> >
> > Provide the statistics, since you claim to have them.
>
> I have already posted a semi-random selection of uptimes from Netcraft,
mostly
> including sites run by the software's own vendors. Linux beat W2K by over
> 4:1.
semi-random? As in "I posted the sites that met my criteria". You can have
100 sites with 10 year uptimes, but if you have 10,000 sites with 1 day
utimes you're average is going to be quite low. Since you chose to ONLY
include high uptimes in what you posted, that is not a valid statistic.
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:29:17 GMT
don't use them, so I don't care!
kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 04:39:39 GMT, "kiwiunixman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Listen to my sonny, I have a Sound Blaster Live!, TNT2 32 MB Graphics
card,
> >and a SwannSmart II 56K Modem (Aussie made = quality), and mine work
> >perfectly under Linux (SuSE Linux 7.0 Pro), with out an problems. So, I
> >don't know what tree you fell out of, but it must of been a very long
fall!
>
> Tell me how you get digital output from the SBLive via spd/if
> connectors?
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:38:19 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:94agkc$amc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Let me ask you a question. How long is WIndows supposed to wait?
> Suppose
> > IBM introduces a new drive with a 10GB buffer in it. It takes 10
> minutes to
> > flush the buffer to disk. How long is Windows supposed to wait before
> > shutting down? The drive provides no way for the OS to know when the
> buffer
> > is fully flushed, so what is the OS supposed to do?
>
> Windows is supposed to wait long enough for the buffer to be safely
> written to the disk. And yes, the drive can tell you if that has
> happened.
Fine, the please provide the ATA spec reference that shows how the drive
does this. I can't find it in the spec. Since the spec isn't available
publicly, you can just give me a reference and i'll look it up in mine. The
spec is called NCITS 340-2000 and is available from ANSI for $18.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:19:54 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 21:54:25
> [...]
> >Who knows how many back doors are in OpenSource software. It took them
> >6 months just to find this one in this product. There are thousands
> >in Linux that they're finding all the time.
>
> Lie.
Not really. When the (false) news came out about Win2K having 65k
bugs, Debian's bug list had somewhere in the 12-13k area. And that
was just Debian alone. Yes, I know Debian != Linux, but some of those
were generic Linux related.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:20:53 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:17:11
> [...]
> >But no one knew about it, there were no cases of exploitation.
>
> This is the ultimate fallacy which requires your argument to contradict
> itself. You assume that it was not exploited, because no one knew about
> it, and believe that your not knowing about it indicates it was never
> exploited.
Have you seen any reports about it being exploited? Search all the
security sites. I searched a few major ones and turned up nothing.
How 'bout you?
So your basic argument is that you think there were exploits, but you
have no proof of it.
-Chad
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:36:48 GMT
or the news group postings could be fucked up on his ISP's news server.
kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:18:26 GMT, "kiwiunixman"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Why have you replied to mine off topic?
>
> Because he is running a crappy News reader, and if he read the
> original post he would have known the distro I used was Mandrake 7.2.
>
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
> Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:38:16 GMT
if you are planning to run something like Windows Whistler, you'd need
something as powerfull as that!
kiwiunixman
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> > Not as good at the SGI Origin Server I have in my living room, or the
s/900z
> > sitting in my basement :)
>
>
> Yeah, well I've got a starfire *cluster* in my college room, just next
> to my P133.
> -Ed
>
>
> > kiwiunixman
> >
> > "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:942k6n$etp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I know these stories have been popping up often, but it's hard to get
too
> > > blas� about 2 Teraflops of computing power.
> > >
> > > http://lwn.net/daily/ibm-ncsa.php3
> > >
> > > (No crosspost to nt.advocacy because that would just be mean :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Adam
> > >
> > >
>
> --
> Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
> weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
> - The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
> |eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:41:02 GMT
JS PL wrote:
>
> That story kind of reminds me about how my mp3 player in Linux plays exactly
> 1 mp3 per system boot. I try to make it a good choice since I get to only
> play one until I reboot though.
You sure fucked up your configuration then.
Or you're absolutely lying. What a wienie.
--
Flipping the Bozo bit at 400 MHz
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:42:30 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:32:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Damien in alt.destroy.microsoft on 19 Jan 2001 23:41:17 GMT;
>>On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:21:30 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
[deletia]
>>Actually I'd rethink the whole thing. I wish I'd deleted my Windows
>>partitions a lot sooner then I did. I can't imagine how much time I
>>wasted rebooting to switch OSen, or rebooting because something was
>>going wrong with Windows.
>
>I have been thinking about win4lin. VMWare was my first choice, but
>that's getting expensive, now, isn't it?
It's also bog slow...
[deletia]
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:50:45 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
> > enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
> > aparently the drive doesn't do this.
>
> You are so full of it.
>
> Microsoft has been dealing with this problem for at least a year. If you
> reference this Knowledge base article:
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q153/2/96.asp
Note this text from the above document:
"The IDE/ATAPI specification does not define a command to determine if a
write cache is present or to explicitly flush the cache. "
There is no way for the OS to know when the cache is fully flushed. As
such, it can only wait a certain amount of time and then shut down, hoping
it's flushed. When IBM added a bigger cache to a slower drive, it caused a
much larger flush time and Windows didn't know anything about it.
Of course the OS has to be patched to wait longer, since the OS must deal
with whatever quirks the hardware presents, but the true fault is with both
the ATAPI spec for not providing a command, and IBM for not providing enough
reserve capacitance to allow the drive to flush and park.
> The last review date is March 2000.
And?
> They knew about this problem and didn't test for it in QA. They have a
> patch for NT 4.0 and 3.51.
Probably because the drives didn't exist then. Windows NT writes much more
data on shutdown than Windows 98 does, since NTFS uses write-back caching.
FAT/FAT32 do not, therefore it wasn't a problem in 98 until IBM released the
slower drive with larger cache.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NSTL, and where are the Winvocates now?
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:53:09 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Seriously, Winvocates have zero credibility left. If Microsoft can't
> > > get NT to stay up on average better than 38 days, how are we expected
> > > to believe all these claims that have been made over the last few
> > > years about NT staying up indefinately? How are we expected to
> > > believe the current claims made about W2K?
> >
> > Microsoft did not conduct the study. Why do you people always distort
the
> > truth?
>
> True, but do you honestly doubt they had nothing to do with the
> results? They paid for the study, and no study can be released
> without the prior consent of Microsoft. Microsoft may not have
> conducted the study, but they certainly had something to do with the
> results.
That doesn't change the fact that you claimed that Microsoft did conduct the
study, stating quite clearly "If Microsoft can't get NT to stay up on
average better than 38 days, how are we extected to believe all these
claims..."
Stop distorting the truth.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:50:24 -0000
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:23:26 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 00:44:11
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
>>> >16 Exabytes ???
>>> >16 billion Giga byte.
>>> >
>>> >I'm not sure exactly *what* you can put into a file to get into that
>>size.
>>>
>>> Precisely what they said about the 2 Gigabyte limit. ;-)
>>>
>>> And they were really sure *they* were right, too. ;-)
>>
>>Difference is in the size.
>
>No, the difference is in the order of magnitude. The principle,
>however, is identical. The point was that NTFS has limits, as all
>systems do. That they are larger in file size is not the issue. The
>efficiency of the market does not call for speculative development;
>Linux became enabled to handle files over 2G once it was commonly
>necessary to do so.
This is in stark contrast to Microsoft in regards to the
ability to seamlessly take advantage of larger than 640K
of physical memory. There were consumer systems sold in
1988 with as much as 4M of RAM. DOS and Windows were quite
crude in the manner that they accessed such a 'large'
amount of RAM (if at all) until 1995.
THAT is one of the reasons why I still ride Microsoft to this
day. They waited 10 years before the developed a consumer
product that reasonbly exploited the full potential of the CPU
of the architecture the OS was built around.
This isn't even getting into the fact that 32bit and flat
memory microprocessors were available a full 8 years before
that as well.
When Pete dies, he will find memmaker gaurding the gates of HELL.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 19:59:14 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
> 01:40:00 -0600;
> >"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >>
> >> > Note the term *MEAN* in Mean Time to failure. That means *AVERAGE*,
not
> >> > peak. That means there were in fact machines with much longer
uptimes.
> >>
> >> Which also means there were machines with much shorter uptimes.
> >
> >What your nicely clipped response fails to show is that yttrx claimed
that
> >it was "not likely" that there were longer uptimes. Of course "mean"
also
> >means that there were less, yet yttrx chooses to put his head in the sand
> >and think that this number means the maximum uptime somehow. Mig
apparently
> >(from his comments) feels the same.
>
> Actually, and not surprisingly, you're mistaken, Erik. Although your
> confusion is understandable, a "mean time to failure" metric is not a
> simple "average" of times systems were up. It is the projected average
> time before *any* system, statistically, *will* fail. It is *possible*
> a system can be up longer. It is *probable* it will fail earlier, given
> anything but idealistic circumstances.
In a true MTBF statistic, yes. That's not how the study worked though. It
simply took the number of hours monitored and divided by the number of
failures.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:53:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >There is no reason
> >Linux has to be just like UNIX WAS, and the movers and shakers are
changing
> >this, whilst you, the typical zealot insist upon not only keeping the
"glory
> >days" of Linux, but revel in it's useless oversophistication.
>
> Perhaps you mistook the message; it was surely not 'live with it', but
> rather 'learn from it'. There are certainly better ways to do things
> than Unix does. As soon as we figure out what they are, of course,
> we'll make sure Unix does them. I'm not a big fan of the 'useless
> oversophistication' bit, but I'm not silly enough to unilaterally
> declare what is useless. In many ways, its nice to know that if you
> need such sophistication, it will be there. But certainly; improve on
> it, by all means. This is why I like Linux so much, and don't really
> consider it any sort of "bastard" Unix, but rather, now, the de facto
> standard Unix. It is not even just open source, but GPL (viral) open
> source.
How UNIX does things has clearly not been popular to the desktop. So,
therefor, the only other models available are WIndows & Mac OS. Both use
"point-and-click" and "no brainer" interfaces, which seem to be the mark of
Satan according to those Linux zealots. A UNIX that does things the Mac and
Windows way has finally been done with Apple's OSX, which shows
technological advancement over the idiotic, and unnessecary stereotypical
UNIX interface.
Think about it.
Darwin, Quartz (multimedia), Aqua.
All integrated on a UNIX kernel. It just MAKE SENSE. If it were for Intel
platforms, it would blow Microsoft out of the water.
> >That's right, "Steve/Clair/Swango/Flatfish" moves from his home in The
> >Hamptons, hop's Metro North from Manhattan to Poughkeepsie, moves into
his
> >"summer" home, and takes advantage of the Upstate NY/Capital District
Road
> >runner service, just to confuse you. No, REALLY! Get a life...
>
> No, he's a troll which has used reportedly 16 (and supposedly growing)
> aliases. Truth to tell, I don't know what the signature is, but I'll be
> honest and tell you that I have myself recognized his 'posting style',
> and subsequently been substantiated. Obviously, I'm not the one that
> needs to 'get a life'. I'm strongly resisted the urge to suggest that
> you do, but like I said; I don't really know what the signature is. And
> I'm an excessively fair-minded individual.
"fair" enough.
> >Your denying the problem exists, by calling him a liar.
>
> No, I am not. What gave you that impression? I think I was pretty
> specific in saying quite precisely the opposite; that it wasn't whether
> the problems existed that he was lying about.
This is possible; "jedi" likes to obsessively and routinely call
"Swango,Flatfish,Claire," a liar whenever s/he brings up issues reguarding
Linux's imperfection. Rather than admit to problems, or just not saying
anything, there is old, reliable "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" with a post that can
be summed up in four, simple words: "I think your lying". I could have
mistaken his words for yours, and for that, I'm sorry.
> >I'm suggesting you
> >do this reguardless of the evidence. You do this zeallously, for Linux.
> >Put it togather.
>
> Yes, I'm well aware of what you're suggesting. I obviously think you're
> mistaken, and quite frankly would suggest that any reasonable person
> would concur. Provide some such evidence in refutation of my "doing
> this" (whether denying the problem, which I don't do, or calling him a
> liar, which I do, I can't tell) and I will happily prove you wrong by
> "regarding" it. No bets, of course, on what my response will be. Like
> I said; I'm an exceptionally fair-minded person. If I were any more
> fair-minded, I'd be a liberal.
See above paragraph.
> >Yes, the market is called A TECHNICAL WRITER, it's a nice job for people
who
> >can understand technical references and translate that into end user (or
ANY
> >user) readable writing. It's how documentation is made. These people
> >should HIRE ONE For god sake.
>
> Well, like I said, there needs to be, as you observed, a little cash
> flow transaction stuff going on, there. Illegal monopolies have a way
> of kind of you know "restraining trade". Happens.
I don't see Microsoft putting a strain on the resources of Technical
writers, how about the people who created the FreeBSD documentation? Are
they also too busy? The state of Linux documentation is in serious
dissaray.
> >The point-clicky thing works just fine for Windows,
>
> Oh, p'shaw, if it didn't suck balls, we wouldn't want to get rid of the
> shit, y'know? ;-)
Except the mentality of this is to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
All the "innovations" in the Linux GUI front are coming at the expesne of a
very obvious, underlying problem; functionality. Sure, there are good
looking interfaces, but when things like GNOME programs have no ability to
recognize KDE assoications, and KDE menu's aren't GNOME menu's, and the K
control panel has no ability to configure real system wide settings (like
administrative level settings), this is where we hit a problem, caused by
the STRUCTURE of Linux.
> >and works just great for
> >Mac, why can't it work for Linux?
>
> No, no, you're mixing things up. Mac isn't "pointy-clicky", its point
> and click. It has to be; its the only way to do things, by design.
> Fine, I guess, for those who like it (certainly a million times better
> than Windows.) As for Linux, well, you need a GUI, which is why Unix
> has had a competitive market in GUIs, so to speak, for decades.
> Unfortunately, those were the same decades when that whole illegal
> monopoly thing squelched most all innovation in GUIs. But, yea, Linux
> can do the whole "its a real OS, but uses a GUI, too".
The X Windowing system has been updated in commercial X servers, why can't
XFree86 catch up? Because it's free? Commercial X servers have substantial
structural changes that make it easier for the end user to do things in,
XFree86 in comparison is a dinasour. XFree86 is the structural backbone of
any Linux desktop system (because I don't think ANYONE owns that Commercial
X server for Linux, of which the name I cannot remember...)
> Can't quite match that "middleware" thing, but that's a different issue,
> as I'm sure you'll be entirely ignorant concerning.
"middleware"? Are you refering to the "component" status of XFree86 in the
hirarchy of Linux "things"?
> >Because it's too much work to institute?
> >Now who'se being lazy? Clearly the wonderful success of the TV is lost
upon
> >you Linux nuts. Elegant simplicty is an artform, and a talent. COPY IT
FOR
> >GOD SAKE.
> >http://www.linux.com/news/articles.phtml?sid=93&aid=10678
> >
> >PROPAGANDA.
> >
> >Read the "Are you KIDDING" comment at the bottom. I loved this one.
>
> You mean the "Are you joking?" comment?
>
> "Claiming that Linux is easier and more user friendly than Windows is
> pathetic, and it is maybe to people which "favorite accounting program
> [is] (GNUCash)". But for 99% of other people windows is faaaaar more
> user friendly,"[...]
>
> Obviously, to the author. The 98.99999999% of other people may wish to
> speak for themselves.
But this answers the evidence requirement showing that Linux.com is nothing
more than a loud propaganda source, sorta like PC World Magizene for
Microsoft.
> >And RedHat is just as in tune with they're own bugs, right? So, when
RedHat
> >shits on their customers it's Ok?
>
> Oh, heavens yes. Well, with me, anyway, unless I'm a Redhat customer.
> Uh-oh.
And that's when it hits you...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:03:33 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:29:17 GMT, "kiwiunixman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>don't use them, so I don't care!
>
>kiwiunixman
The word "supported" when using in conjunction with the word Linux
takes on a whole new meaning.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 02:04:06 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:36:48 GMT, "kiwiunixman"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>or the news group postings could be fucked up on his ISP's news server.
>
>kiwiunixman
True...
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
