Linux-Advocacy Digest #604, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 08:13:02 EST
Contents:
Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Mark Lindner)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("David Brown")
Re: The Sins of William Gates ("Flacco")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (Ed Allen)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Adam Warner")
Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (Ed Allen)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:46:14 +0000
Everyone goes on about how Linux offers me the 'choice' of which desktop I
can use, unlike Windows. However, choice here does not equate to consistant
style.
If I want all my file save/open dialogs to all look the same - like the KDE
style, or MOTIF or Gtk, can I do that with the Linux desktop? No I can't -
my choice is restricted here to whatever toolktip the application is
created with.
If I restrict myself to KDE only applications then I lose certain system
configuration tools as there isn't one written for KDE (that's certainly
true of the Mandrake distribution). Linuxconf is one example, it can run in
text mode or GUI - but uses the Gtk toolkit.
It is true that on Windows, application do use different styles of file
open/save dialogs - however, there is a system wide _standard_ that 99% of
applications use. Unfortunately, you can't change this standard - like have
different shapes buttons etc. (and this is what I would call a "choice" -
not the varying standards Linux offers).
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
PS: Now, before someone starts a discussion on semantics about how Linux is
not X or KDE, when I say Linux, I mean "Linux + X + KDE" or "Linux + X +
your favourite Window Manager".
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:48:19 +0000
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Heh. With any luck, they'll significanlt improve it with future
> releases. It will be pretty good if they do that.
They have yet to fix random crashes from all their previous versions.
Also, I thought V6 was supposed to be based on a smaller, lighter library.
Instead it seems slower than before.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 10:52:58 +0000
J Sloan wrote:
> > Yes, and Linuxconf is a Gtk tool, not a Qt tool.
>
> Wrong - linuxconf is a system tool.
It uses the Gtk library. How am I wrong? Does it use the Qt library? No it
doesn't.
> You can access it through a web interface.
I tried that, it died for some reason.
> You can access it through a color terminal interface.
Yes I tried that too. Unfortunately, it obscures any error message it
reports making it a less than useful system tool.
Besides, using a CLI tool on a GUI desktop is no better than using multiple
CLI's. That's not a GUI at all.
> You can access it through X, if you install gnome-linuxconf.
Yes, the Gtk library. The whole point of what I've been talking about.
> So, the problem is that you installed gnome-linuxconf, and then
> complained that it used gtk libraries?
No, my complaint is that a system tool installed on Linux Mandrake forces
me to use GNOME style on a KDE desktop. There is no KDE equivalent.
> > What's a Gtk tool doing
> > mixed with a KDE desktop?
>
> Obviously it works just fine -
It works but it's a different style. Haven't you been reading anything I've
said?
> So uninstall gnome-linuxconf. use the web interface or
> the color terminal interface. problem solved.
Unfortunately, the text version obscures error messages. The web version
doesn't seem to work.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Mark Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:08:19 GMT
J Sloan wrote:
>
> JS PL wrote:
>
> > Easily. I just built a system last week. And it played an mp3 perfectly
> > while simultaneously copying 600mb worth of other mp3's from the cd drive to
> > a folder AND installing office 2000 from the other cd drive. Didn't skip a
> > beat. It was probably "accessing" the internet too, I forget.
>
> Sure, and I'll bet it cured your cancer too...
>
> Meanwhile, back in the real world, my friend just mentioned
> that he clicked on the icq button the other day and windows
> 2000 spontaneously rebooted.
This happens to me quite regulary. When Microsoft claimed in their recent ad,
"Say goodbye to the Blue Screen of Death" they weren't kidding. The crashes
are still there; you're just blessed with a spontaneous reboot in lieu of the
BSOD.
Other bugs are still there, notably the (recurring) bug in NTFS where the
kernel sometimes forgets to clear the "in use" flag on files that were open by
an application which has since exited (essentially a bug in what is arguably a
stupid OS feature to begin with).
The printing subsystem fails after I've used my scanner for a while...a
meaningless dialog box stating "Printing failed" pops up when I try to print,
and I'm forced to reboot to remedy the problem.
Performance is *incredibly* sluggish, especially when launching and shutting
down applications.
Buggy applications have caused quite a few Win2K crashes on my system as well.
Overall, I find Win2K to be far less reliable than NT4.0sp5.
My UNIX box has been up for 155 days without a hitch. The last reboot was due
to a power outage. My Win2K box needs to be rebooted once every two days, on
average.
If Windows 2000 is so much better, so much more "modern" and so much "easier
to use" than UNIX, as Windoze advocates are so apt to claim, then it would
stand to reason that if I can install UNIX on a machine and never have a
single problem with it, then I'm sure as hell capable of properly configuring
a Win2K box that won't fuck up and crash every day or two. However, experience
consistently proves otherwise.
Cheers,
Mark
==============================================================================
Mark Lindner http://www.dystance.net/
==============================================================================
"Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel."
-Horace Walpole
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:07:52 +0100
. wrote in message <94bm7v$5ov$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:94a0ud$lqs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>
>>> : - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
>>> : cards)
>>> : - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for
editing
>>> : - Save raw video file for posterity.
>>> : - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
>>> : - Save edits to video file
>>> : - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
>>>
>>> Alarm bells went off when I read this. How long is this video that
>>> it takes 2 GB at 192x144 size?? Does the video last all day?
>
>
>> Well, thank you for clipping the part that answered your own question.
>
>> By the time its resized, it's rarely 2GB. However, we did have some
>> videos that, when resized to 192x144, were still over 2GB (they were
>> 30-45 minutes in length). This was before heavy amounts of
>> compression.
>
Stored as 192x144 bitmaps, with 3 bytes per pixel, at 25 frames per second,
a 45 minute video would take 5.6 GB (192x144x3x25x60x45). Why anyone would
use that format, I don't know (even assuming you want to avoid lossy
compression, there should be no problem reducing that to a fraction of the
size using lossless compression). With lossy compression, MPEG4 can get a
full DVD onto a single CD without noticeable reduction in quality - are
these college lecture videos taken with such brilliant camera work that DVD
quality just does not them justice?
I was under the impression that this was a low budget system - the hard
disks must have cost a fortune.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Sins of William Gates
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 06:41:09 -0500
> The article is very biased, and could hardly be more apropos for a
> MS-sponsored hack job. Who's footing the "bill", Derek?
I tend to think Derek was just trying to be cool and counter-counter-culture
by standing up for poor old Bill while the rest of the world (according to
D) despises him.
Motivations aside, it was an embarrassingly uninformed, inaccurate, and
poorly written piece of crap. No research at all. Sounds like the result
of a brow-furrowed conversation he had with himself over a bowl of Cap'n
Crunch that morning.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:00:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:25:31
> [...]
>
>No, it never really did have anything at all to do with quality, or even
>'popularity'.
>
>>> Even when it was still just OS/2 and Win3x, Microsoft was the
>>> owner of the definitive version of "what everyone used".
>>
>>They still used it because it WAS superior to do what they wanted. And
>>that's what matters.
>
>No, they used it because it was superior to not using anything, and
>those were the only two choices. That's what matters.
>
No, given the choice of paying for Win3x and then paying more to
replace it with OS/2 or just resigning themselves to Win3x all but
an insignificant few accepted the monopoly crapware because it was
less expensive to capitulate.
>>> Quality had nothing to do with it.
>>
>>It had enough quality for them.
>
>Is that why its become traditional to always upgrade to the newest
>version?
>
M$ keeps the quality low enough that they can urge paying for the
upgrade as the caller's only hope of getting their current
irritations fixed.
With the upgrade, and every service pack, come a new set of
misbehaviors to be learned, worked around, and finally become so
fed up with that they are willing to take another spin on the
upgrade torture wheel rather than continue their current pain.
No, M$ does not want quality anywhere near their products. The
contrast would expose their scam for the fraud it is.
>>If something had come out with better
>>quality AND ease of use, along with documentation and support, Microsoft
>>wouldn't exist today.
>
Because of the OEM preload contracts, which all OEMs need or they
will go out of business, an OEM could not accept *payment* from
the vendor of that better software to install the better software
on any of their products.
We know that because of testimony from Compaq who was offered
money by Netscape to have them preload Netscape software and were
looking forward to the agreement until M$ threatened to charge them
full retail prices for all M$ software if they took Netscape up on
the deal.
Compaq knew that they could not sell any computers under that
condition so they backed out of the agreement.
Netscape was told about the threat by the negotiators as they were
closing down the talks. Netscape went to the DOJ.
Compaq refused to talk to the DOJ until M$, under threat of contempt
citation, released them from the gag clauses of those OEM contracts.
M$ admitted to making the threat but declared they never intended to
actually carry it out.
Imagine how far a mugger would get with, "It should not be armed
robbery because the gun was not loaded."
>If Microsoft didn't exist today, a lot of people would have come out
>with better quality AND ease of use, along with documentation and
>support. Ironically enough, we know this to be the case because
>Microsoft has 97% of the market locked in to a Win32 OS monopoly. If
>they were competitive, they would have competition.
>
For those who still think that their having no competition is
evidence of their quality I suggest you read the thread about uptime
and then consider that Linux would cost an OEM half of what 98
does and deliver more than W2K sever editions do at ten times the 98
price.
>>The consumer agreed, and more games were made for Windows & DirectX
>
>The consumer had no choice; of course they'd want their games to be on
>whatever OS they're using. They didn't choose it to begin with, so the
>monopoly has no problem making sure that if consumers want Windows, they
>have to accept DirectX. Meanwhile, Microsoft is running around like a
>mad-man spending millions of dollars to coerce game developers into
>supporting DirectX, so if consumers want games, they have to accept
>DirectX, thus locking them further into having to accept Windows.
>
>This fucking monopoly shit is really insidious. I only wish I was half
>as crazed as describing it makes me sound; perhaps it wouldn't scare me
>so much, then.
>
The Linux tide is almost big enough to overwhelm even the monopoly
barriers to entry.
When the Appeals Court nullifies the OEM preload restrictions then
we will start to see the boom which will come from falling prices
and offering the consumer choices.
I expect dual boot systems to wake the populace at large to the
reality that not every computer must run Windows and then be replaced
with Linux and FreeBSD only systems as they learn that the quality they
have been promised for years can actually be delivered if they avoid
M$ software.
M$ will go into a frenzy of trying to inject quality and being
frustrated by their own people not knowing how to build anything but
crapware.
Layoffs within M$ as they get rid of the ones clinging to crapware
production will be the first sign of true recovery of market forces.
--
"Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually 'invent' Unix."
- George Bonser
"No chance. they only have a finite number of monkeys."
- Thomas Lakofski
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:19:00 +1200
Hi Mark,
> > Meanwhile, back in the real world, my friend just mentioned
> > that he clicked on the icq button the other day and windows
> > 2000 spontaneously rebooted.
>
> This happens to me quite regulary. When Microsoft claimed in their recent
ad,
> "Say goodbye to the Blue Screen of Death" they weren't kidding. The
crashes
> are still there; you're just blessed with a spontaneous reboot in lieu of
the
> BSOD.
I don't know why but I got a BAD_POOL_CALLER spontaneous reboot tonight for
the first time ever. All I did was open another browser window (there were
already lots).
Something real bad can't have happened because I wasn't doing anything
except just browsing. So for Win2k to instanteously decide to halt
everything seems a little drastic.
I've now turned off the automatic reboot after a stop error. To do so
requires me to reboot...
Regards,
Adam
PS: We all know that Microsoft did not cause this error. Microsoft's
analysis *example* gives the game away:
http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/Q265/8/79.ASP
"The preceding text indicates that the driver is used by a third-party
software package. This driver is most likely the cause of the error."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 11:42:58 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 22:52:59 +1300, Frank Kruchio
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>http://uptime.netcraft.com
>
>www.suse.com Suse Linux with Apache server, latest 90 day moving average is
>191.45 days
>
>www.microsoft.com Win2000 server, latest 90 day moving average
>is 15.93 days
>
>Does this count in favour of Linux to be reliable as a server ?
>
>What do YOU think ?
>
I think you should not just select one Linux distributor but look at
all of them.
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:00:07 GMT
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : - Import the video from firewire (usually 3:1 or 5:1 with good capture
> : cards)
> : - Load the video into Premiere or whatever app they're using for editing
> : - Save raw video file for posterity.
> : - Perform edits, insert audio, stills, etc
> : - Save edits to video file
> : - Resize video to internet video size (192x144)
>
> Alarm bells went off when I read this. How long is this video that
> it takes 2 GB at 192x144 size?? Does the video last all day?
No, from what I can understand he claims that they performed
all editing on the full size video, and resized only as a
final step. Maybe it's not the smartest way to do it, but if
you want to prove that Linux sucks, you don't care about
doing it efficiently.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:00:51 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
>
>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?
>
Linkname: Welcome to Linux International!
URL: http://li.org/whatislinux.php
Last line of the page:
Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
=====
Use of the trademark is encouraged but abuse of it has and will be
prosecuted in court.
>>>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.
>
One of the reasons we have laws and governments to enforce them is
to prevent abuse by those who will not behave decently without being
forced.
>By 2002, Linux is going to be *everywhere*.
>
As the lies M$ tells developers about not having any market if they
do not write for Windows exclusively are exposed they will rush to
establish themselves before their competition does.
Think of penguins on the edge of the Antarctic ice with the terror of
sea lions in the shallow waters just off shore. Once beyond the
shallows they can outmaneuver the salons but getting there
requires running the gauntlet and the first few might not make it.
Once the first one takes the plunge the others scramble to get out
as quickly as possible because the last few are just as vulnerable
as the first.
>>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.
>
That is because what most people refer to as "the network effect"
is just the monopoly refusing to interoperate.
Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot allow
that.
--
"Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually 'invent' Unix."
- George Bonser
"No chance. they only have a finite number of monkeys."
- Thomas Lakofski
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2001 12:03:25 GMT
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 21:07:47 -0000, "Nigel Feltham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Some countries have consumer protection rules to stop companies selling
>faulty goods.
>Does this mean that everyone who has ever bought a MS operating system can
>claim
>refunds under their own country's consumer protection rules - if a company
>sells for
>example a washine macine or TV which regularly breaks down the customer is
>often
>entitled to compensation as well as full refund (lost time due to software
>failure could
>be a cause for compensation). I think all windows users should get together
>and take
>MS to court for knowingly selling faulty goods for the past 10 or more years
>(MS versus
>over 100 million users should make an interesting case).
>
If they claimed a refund they would no longer be allowed to legally
use the product.
I'm afraid the vast majority of those 100 million users would do a bit
of kicking and screaming if you told them they could no longer use
Windows.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
