Linux-Advocacy Digest #638, Volume #31 Sun, 21 Jan 01 14:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: Poor Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Pete Goodwin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Pete Goodwin)
VMWare? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime ("Davorin Mestric")
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Tear down the Wall (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("David Brown")
More to think about... (sfcybear)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Edward Rosten)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Bruce Scott TOK)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (spam)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:22:36 GMT
On 21 Jan 2001 17:34:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>This whole thing would have been much more interesting if youd sworn
>that you used a Tascam or something for your mixing requirements.
Tascam?
You've just proven how much you know about the subject :(
>Not that I would have been impressed, but I would have been more likely
>to believe that you were telling the truth about doing sound engineering.
SoundCraft Ghost.
Mackie 8 Bus
Allen Heath GL
Go look them up....
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:27:28 +0000
Bob Hauck wrote:
> That is a very flawed analogy. For one thing, if the "type 18" gas
> doesn't work at all in my car that requires "type 27", then that is a
> much more severe impairment than Goodwin's not wanting to learn what to
> click on if the "save" dialog looks a little different. The former is a
> lack of functionality, the latter is a nearly trivial inconvenience.
It's not about what I want to learn.
The way various dialog boxes work, and the fact that some work better than
others has got nothing to do with learning how to use it.
> To make the analogy reasonable, you'd have to postulate 50 kinds of gas
> that all smell different or are different colors but which have only
> trivial differences in functionality.
He chose the correct analogy. You're trivialising it so as to discredit it.
> > Or what about if there were were 20 different telivision standards?
> > You'd need to buy a TV that handled all of them, or be stuck watching
> > only those channels that your TV supported.
>
> Another flawed analogy, for the same reason. Total lack of
> functionality is being compared to a trivial inconvenience.
Again, you're trivialising something very important.
> > In many situations, too much (or even any) choice is BAD for the
> > consumer.
>
> Yes, but user interfaces for computers doesn't happen to be one of those
> situations.
If it were only a difference between style of buttons...
But it's not.
Take a good look at the different styles of file open/save dialog between
MOTIF, Gtk and Qt. They are very different, they work in different ways.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:25:54 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:23:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I would expect that Linux has had automount for a number of years. Can
>>somebody confirm this?
>
>You'll know for yourself in a week or so.
>
>
>
>
>Flatfish
>Why do they call it a flatfish?
>Remove the ++++ to reply.
How sad the Microsoft supporter is these days.
He's loosing market share to a ghost OS which can't die,
and he just keeps on trying to plug the holes in the dam anyway
he can.
This is incredibly funny.
When will you EVER learn that COLA is hardly read by anybody.
People don't go to newgroups first to get their information
about operating systems.
Business's don't give a damn about your feelings about Windows
as they already know better.
So go ahead and post another 2,000 articles about how you
think Windows is great and Linux sucks because it doesn't
matter to anybody what you think.
You are purely a psyco jerk.
You couldn't be from any marketing organization I've
ever heard of. But if you were, I know it would be
Microsoft marketing as they are the MOST disconnected
with reality...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:29:51 +0000
mlw wrote:
> Oh, I understand, I just don't have the patience to deal with the idiocy
> every time the electricity hups.
Mine reprograms itself from Teletext, which constantly broadcasts the time.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: VMWare?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:32:16 GMT
I'm considering the VMWare Express package to help me over "the
application barrier". I'm wondering if the performance hit that I've
heard about is just with the Windows apps, or will the 'thin layer
between hardware and OS' that VMWare talks about slow down Linux itself?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:37:02 +0100
"sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Remeber
> Uptimes? I went though and showed that even if the W2K comuters had ALL
> the uptime attributied to ALL the MS OS's (NT, W2K, Win9*) and the
> average uptime for W2K was calculated based on this inflated number, W2K
> would STILL have an average up time that was far LESS than the average
> uptime of Linux!
i don't understand this. how can adding win98 computers in the mix increase
the average uptime?
------------------------------
From: "Davorin Mestric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Comparison of Linux/Apache versus Win2000 server uptime
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:38:29 +0100
somehow there was no doubt that the best representative would be choosen
from the group. :)
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I think you should not just select one Linux distributor but look at
> >all of them.
>
>
> Sure, here's some
>
> Site OS 90 day avg max
> www.microsoft.com W2K 16.20 18.76
> www.redhat.com RH_Linux 21.56 96.11
> www.debian.org Debian Linux 26.73 92.23
> www.suse.com SuSE Linux 192.65 192.65
> www.mandrake.com Mandrake Linux 116.70 160.50
> (note mandrake was reported as a 28day moving avg, instead of 90)
>
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:42:45 +0000
Tim wrote:
> Once you know your OS, you shouldn't have to rely on a GUI to do
> everything for you.
Well, I don't want to know my OS. With Linux that option is not easily done.
When I drive my car, I'm not terribly interested in how the internal
combustion engine works. True, if I did know, I might be able to reduce my
service costs, but then, manufactures are making it difficult to maintain
cars yourself nowadays by introducing unusual screw heads etc. That's
certainly true of my current car, where the spark plugs are in the most
awkward place imaginable under a bracket with non-standard bolts.
When I program with Windows, I'm not terribly interested in what's
happening under the hood. I want to install it, let it run, and let it get
on with that. I want to learn how to program a GUI, but not how to be
system manager for it.
I've been System Manager for a VAX machine. It was interesting at the time,
but no longer.
I've designed and built my own machine, but that no longer interests me
either.
I've gone towards black box designs where I use something but don't really
need to know what's going on inside.
Now, I agree, sometimes it is useful to know, but usually you don't need to
know.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Tear down the Wall
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:42:56 GMT
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/2000/4/ns-13122.html
Linux picking up its game
Fri, 04 Feb 2000 08:26:32 GMT
Robert Lemos, ZDNet News US
3-D gaming components of Linux to be done by summer, say
graphics chip makers and game developers
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Ballmer says Linux is Microsoft's No. 1 Threat
Date: 21 Jan 2001 19:42:03 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
>> Why do people think the Windows GUI is so important to mimic?
>
>Nothing amazes me more than seeing a screenshot of a Linux box running a Windows
>look-alike theme.
It's ugly, isn't it... all that icon clutter... advertising to all the
owner is too stupid to find things.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:45:28 GMT
In article <94f7tn$fno$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, choad_leyers wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:04:23 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>
>>>I find it hilarious that this Myers asshole calls me "Mr. Personal
>>>Attack", when I see people posting messages under the name
>>>"[email protected]".
>
>> If you make fun of him he'll put you in his killfile. That'll show you.
>
>It sure showed me.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
>
Well, I didn't post this last message but I feel compelled to reply
to it.
Chad Myers doesn't even know what on HP-9000 is, he's never been in
a real datacenter a day in his life, and if he knew his head from his
butt he wouldn't be spouting off about Microsoft superiority to anybody
--- especially since Microsoft keeps moving their OS more and more towards
UNIX every day.
Let me explain what Linux is so we all know.
Linux is a very pliable *nix which runs on embedded devices all the
way up to the 390 series of machines. Linux is the has the BROADEST
footprint of ANY os, I think NETBSD would come close. Very good
security if you choose Debian. And that comment goes the same for
the footprint, if you choose Debian. Linux is being used by the
$$$ research labs to build the worlds largest supercomputers.
There have been a number of races amongst groups to build the
biggest super computer from Linux.
So Linux covers a very wide spectrum of devices from WEB appliance
to super computers.
Microsoft is a company which started off with DOS in the early 80's
and ended up cloning the MAC OS to make WINDOWS later. They
started off on the IBM PC and clones in the home market and
worked their way into business's sometime in the late 80's early
90's. Microsoft doesn't have 30 years experience behind it like
Linux does. Microsoft is ONLY liked because it was the first
mass marketed product and home users are used to it.
Microsoft never produced an OS which could compete with the likes
of the BSD's or Linux or any *nix.
They simply never achieved the raw industrial power and control
and security it takes to make it into a datacenter.
They are trying to do this, but at the rate they are building
it might be 15-20 years before we see a product we can't laugh
at.
Microsoft is mainly a home game and home use platform which is
intended to be turned off every night.
Microsoft is NOT intended to be a 24 X 7 product with outstanding
quality nor security. Hackers mainly go after datacenters, not
home users.
The big difference between Linux and the other *nix's is the #1 -
GPL LICENSEE - which is the REASON it's gaining so much popularity.
#2 - It has support for almost as many devices as Microsoft has
right now. #3 - Kids like it as you CAN play games on this one!
And it's very stable with machines reporting up-times approaching
4 years.
Linux also has built in Web servers thanks to Apache.
Linux has built in FTP servers, SSH, TelnetSSL, HTTPS,
CVS networking, Dozens of IRC, America On Line hosts and
clients, ICQ clients, Netscape navigator -the browser which
was working before Microsoft even came into the fold, compilers
for many languages, several different types of word processors,
spreadsheets, 4,400 total packages come with Debian 2.2 R 2.
There are too many to type here and it's all FREE to you
to download and use forever thanks to the GPL license.
With Windows you end up getting an operating system, some
card games, Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, and nothing
else. And the full install of W2k is $350.
People like Chad Myers can preach until their heads fall OFF,
my wife and my family will continue to use Debian from here
on out as we think it works better and FASTER than W2k.
My family went from NT and 98 to try out W2k and they were
all upset about the lack of performance from W2k, the
seemingly lack of change from their previous desktops,
and it's inability to use their existing 98 and NT applications
such as napster, Star Office, and proprietary hospital medical
software which my wife MUST use.
We are all much happier useing the quicker Debian with Gnome
for our desktop than we were using W2k. W2k really SLOWS
down your MACHINE to a CRAWL. It takes FOREVER for programs
to get STARTED! It's a real PIG and an expensive PIG at that.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:48:50 +0100
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said SomeoneElse in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 12:57:13
>GMT;
>>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:02:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>The simplest workaround is to avoid using gcc, and using kgcc instead.
>>>>Reason is that kgcc is the previous version of gcc, which will work
>>>>correctly, unlike the gcc that you'll have with RH.
>>>
>>>Maybe I've been fooling myself all these years, by continuing to think
>>>of Usenet as an intellectual exercise. Why does nobody seem to be
>>>getting this?
>>>
>>Because everyone else is getting it, and you are the person not
>>getting it.
>>The newests open source apps ( whether for Windows or Linux or
>>other OSs ) almost always come out in source code form first.
>
>Nope, you're still missing it, sorry.
What is he missing? Just because *you* don't want to compile programs does
not make any difference - the whole point of open source software is that
the source is available, and many developers leave it at that. They write
their fine new program, and distribute the source when it is ready - if some
distributer like Red Hat wants to make a nice binary package, then fine -
but the developer's source is the newest version. Perhaps the developer is
running on a PPC - lucky for you it is the source he gives out not his
binaries.
I can understand you not wanting to use something that is *only* available
in source format - these are typically programs under heavy development, and
are aimed at more technical and experianced users.
People compile new versions of programs to get personalised, optomised
binaries that are configured for their particular needs. You are stuck in
Windows thinking with your rejection of compiling programs yourself. With
Windows, it is easy - you install the binary, which is supposed to be
reasonably good for most purposes. With Linux, you can install the binary -
which is supposed to be reasonably good for most purpose - or you
re-configure the package and re-compile, getting exactly what you want out
of the program, with no more and no less.
>
>>After a lag time, sometimes long, sometimes short, the prebuilt
>>binaries come out. If it's a highly niche item, they sometimes never
>>come out.
>>
>>As a result you will at times have to compile stuff.
>
>This conclusion does not follow from your previous statements, I'm
>afraid.
>
>>It doesn't matter
>>that you don't know C from FORTRAN. You should still be able to
>>compile.
>>
>>Otherwise you leave yourself out of all the newest innovations out
>>there.
>
>Perhaps if you thought about it *really* hard, this last sentence might
>finally give you the clue you need. Perhaps not.
>
You wanted bleeding edge stuff, and you said you were prepared to bleed from
it. Were you in fact meaning "I want a Linux system that works like Windows
without the crashes, and I am prepared to put up with less efficient
configurations, older program versions, and upgrades consisting of 5MB
binary rpm downloads instead of 50K patch downloads + re-compile" ?
>>>What am I getting myself in to?
>
You've been hanging around here for a while - did you really expect anything
less?
------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: More to think about...
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:52:12 GMT
I have spent most of my time avoiding working on IBM's bigirons....
http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/01/22/010122hnlinux.xml
Could it be we are headed back?
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:04:08 +0000
> Just trying to explain it would be revolting.
> "O.K. grandma, to play the cd you'll have to mount the cd drive." NO NO
> STOP!! Step away from the computer granmdma!!
You don't need to mount CDs to play then
--
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: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 14:02:53 +0500
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:23:11 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I would expect that Linux has had automount for a number of years. Can
>>somebody confirm this?
>
> You'll know for yourself in a week or so.
>
Or you could just tell him the truth. automount works fine on linux and
has for quite some time.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK)
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: 21 Jan 2001 19:57:48 +0100
I liked this piece:
In the meantime, vendors suggest turning off power management,
which turns off the Windows Me automatic shutdown feature. Then
you just need to save your work and wait a few seconds before
you shut down, to avoid data loss.
This is what we Linuxers do when things freeze up! That is, it is an
emergency fallback. In normal times the OS does the protection
properly. I agree with mlw: this "feature" of Windows is scandalous.
Not only the fact of it but the fact that it has been so for many years,
perhaps from the beginning.
--
cu,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
------------------------------
From: spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 11:08:39 -0800
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 00:49:43 GMT, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Cliff Wagner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:43:52 GMT, Bob Hauck typed something like:
>> >On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:52:25 GMT, Chad Myers
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>If there's a Fortune 500 company whose business depends on their web site,
>> >>or a significant part of it, and they choose IIS, this means something.
>> >
>> >Please name one Fortune 500 whose business depends on their web site.
>> >Boeing...no. IBM...no. GM...no. Dow...no. GE...no. Well, there must
>> >_one_. Please enlighten me.
>
>>
>> Aww, c'mon Bob, everyone knows that if Boeing didn't sell their
>> quota of 777s off their website, they'd go bankrupt. Hell,
>> I bought 3 of them for christmas, then went to www.chevron.com
>> to buy the fuel to fly them to my parents house. What would
>> we ever do if the F500 didn't have web sites????
>
>(Bob Hauck is on my killfile for just those type of ignorant statements)
>
I've been reading Bob Hauck's and your posts for years and I easily
know which one of you commonly makes ignorant statements and it isn't
Bob.
----
Glenn Davies
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
