Linux-Advocacy Digest #653, Volume #31 Mon, 22 Jan 01 12:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windows Has Lost (Craig Kelley)
Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice (Bob Hauck)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Windows Has Lost (Ian Davey)
Re: Loki has trouble playiong their own games under Linux!!!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. (Mark)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why "uptime" is important. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:11:42 GMT
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:11:12 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 17:43:43
>>On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 04:16:35 GMT, Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Really? StarOffice is 90% Microsoft Office format compatible, yet no
>>> one is using it. Why? Well, the horrible interface, the
>>> overcomplicated documentation and the amazing lack of performance is
>>> seems to have acquired on all platforms.
>>
>>No. It is because of the 90% interoperability, or rather the _fear_
>>that something important might not convert. Even 100% compatibility
>>would not be good enough if MS can plant enough doubt.
>
>Don't forget uncertainty. Uncertainty is very important, too.
Exactly. A big part of the worry is the fear that MS will do something
to break compatibility and then we'll be screwed. That's the source of
the doubt and uncertainty.
>And the ironic part is that in a competitive environment, where everyone
>*wasn't* using the same wordprocessor, files would be *easier* to
>interchange
Good point. If there were five packages each with 20% of the market
there would be incentives for someone to create an interchange standard.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:24:49 GMT
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 19:29:41 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Of course not. That's what choice means. Things aren't forced into a
>> consistent mold.
>
>But isn't that what standards are all about? If we have, say, Bloggs C and
>Smith C, and they don't follow the ANSI standard, how you can you write
>anything in C in either one?
I'm not sure how this applies to the question of how common dialogs
_look_ when using different toolkits. The fact that they look different
is at most an inconvenience, while not being able to compile is broken
functionality. The former causes a moment's hesitation the first time
you see the new dialog, the latter can cause days or weeks of work.
>> In my mind the real value of KDE and Gnome is not "consistent look and
>> feel", but in having standard programming API's with modern features.
>> This makes it easier for programmers to come up to speed, resulting in
>> more apps being available.
>
>But Gtk and Qt/KDE are totally different. It makes it difficult to write an
>application that is neither KDE or GNOME centric.
So? Either system can run the apps written for the other. All that's
needed is some libraries, which your installer can install if need be.
And if the standard is that all distros come with both systems (which is
what seems to be happening) then what's the big deal? There is a degree
of interoperability as far as drag-and-drop and session management and
other user-level features, so the user is not going to be too put out.
What you're complaining about is really a developer concern rather than
an end-user one. You are worried that if you use one toolkit or the
other that you will be locked out of part of the market. I don't think
that is the case, but I can see how it would concern you.
>> > 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).
>>
>> Oh, I see. You are primarily concerned with choice in window dressing.
>> Kind of a Doublespeak definition of "choice", don't you think?
>
>Seems reasonable to me.
I think that the popularity of "skins" and things like Object Desktop
proves that the market wants variation. People are in fact willing to
put up with different programs having different UI's. One File dialog
is much like another and people quickly adapt to the differences.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: 22 Jan 2001 08:28:16 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >HTML is an interesting thing to use for an example. I have never seen
> >> >any WYSIWYG that produced HTML that was very usable for anything other
> >> >than a static page. Certainly difficult to integrate with PHP, ASP,
> >> >java, etc. I often end up "post editing" my web pages in vi, because the
> >> >graphical programs always mess up the HTML.
> >>
> >> All my pages are static and I've written every one of them in Emacs. It
> >> is really very easy, especially when your only objective is to inform.
> >>
> >> I might try some of that "dynamic" stuff but I don't have the slightest
> >> understanding of it...
> >
> >I always write web pages in vi. I do some dynamic page creation, usually
> >with C or AWK or shell scripts (depending on how quickly I want it to
> >run or write it). They just chuck HTML to the standard output which is
> >redirected by Apache to some port. Obviously, you need to be up to speed
> >with HTML to do it, but its not very hard.
>
> I would like to know how to do "include files" in HTML, like I do in
> Fortran...
Server-side includes ususally take on the form
<!--#include file="/path/to/file" -->
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:17:19 GMT
In article <%nwa6.185740$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> J Sloan wrote:
>
> > The kde equivalent of linuxconf is linuxconf.
>
> Huh? Linuxconf is built with Gtk. So how is that the KDE equivalent?
Do you suffer some sort of hysterical blindess?
Linuxconf can be built without the Gtk+ dependency.
In that case, Linuxconf provides either a CLI interface, or
a web interface.
Both of them, specially the web interface should work just fine in
a "pure KDE" environment (so should the Gtk+ one, but you seem to
be hellbent on not using it, that's why we bother telling you,
for the 241st time how not to use it).
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Has Lost
Date: 22 Jan 2001 08:34:13 -0700
Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "." wrote:
> >
> > Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Craig,
> >
> > > That perspective is fascinating. I have checked up and the XBox does NOT
> > > have firewire (http://www.xbox.com/xbox/flash/specs.asp). It only has 100Mb
> > > Ethernet. Even so that speed would enable Microsoft to expand the XBox later
> > > on: keyboards, extra storage space, printers, etc. It may be in Microsoft's
> > > interests to make special XBox-only hardware.
> >
> > You realize that it is indeed possible to run linux on a dreamcast...
> >
> > I wonder how long it will be before someone sticks it on an xbox.
>
> Not very. As the Xbox is pretty much a PC, it won't take much work,
> seeing as it wou't need a new compiler.
Oh, I dont' know: they could do any one of a hundred tricks to keep
rogue software out of the system. What if the hardware presented a
challenge to the operating system, and if the response was bad it
would lock the system down? What if the hard disk was encrypted using
a proprietary method, such that it was impossible to examine the disk
for any security routines without breaking the encyption first? What
if the Pentium III used in the system were modified to prevent people
from monitoring pinouts and data transfers?
Linux/BSD will eventually run on it, but it may be more work than it
seems. If they don't lock it down at all then it'll be a great Linux
workstation.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Multiple standards don't constitute choice
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:36:25 GMT
On Sun, 21 Jan 2001 18:27:28 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Fine, I'll accept that. But it is still a small thing. You easily
figured out how to use each of the various dialog styles. My argument
is that other users are just as smart as you in this respect and you are
blowing this issue out of proportion. Yes, it might be nice if the
various toolkits were more consistent. No, I don't see this as a huge
problem.
It is far more important to have toolkits will modern features than it
is to have only one such toolkit, IMO.
>> 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.
No, I am not. It is a bad analogy. Even _if_ there are differences in
user productivity between toolkit A and toolkit B, they are not very
great. A user can easily figure out what's going on in literally seconds.
This is not at all the same as cars being matched to their type of gas.
>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.
So? Does this hinder anyone's productivity? Is it really a _problem_
or is it more of a _preference_?
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:30:11 GMT
In article <Jgwa6.185739$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> J Sloan wrote:
>
> > Typical nonsense from kyle - can you produce a single post
> > where a Linux user said anything remotely like that?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> I think he's referring to the strong feeling of "don't use a GUI, use
the
> command line" that comes across sometimes.
>
> And the insult that "a typical Windows user can't get anywhere unless
> there's a wizard" and that HAS been said, although by someone not
worth
> listening to.
>
> > > GUI's are a mess under Linux,
>
> [snip]
>
> > Not to say that there is no room for improvement, but to say
> > the Linux GUI is "a mess" is just plain idiotic.
>
> But true.
>
> You have at least three different toolkits for widgets - now that's
fair
> enough in itself, but take file open/save dialogs. Gtk and MOTIF are
> similar, KDE is similar to Windows. They work differently, enough to
be
> confusing and distracting when you try to use the desktop on Linux.
That's
> the "mess" I mean and the one I think Kyle is referring to.
This argument is getting so boring I could spend the whole 20 minutes it
would take and provide you, for your use only, a replacement KFileDialog
that is bug-compatible to Motif's.
--
Roberto Alsina
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Windows Has Lost
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 15:50:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oh, I dont' know: they could do any one of a hundred tricks to keep
>rogue software out of the system. What if the hardware presented a
>challenge to the operating system, and if the response was bad it
>would lock the system down? What if the hard disk was encrypted using
>a proprietary method, such that it was impossible to examine the disk
>for any security routines without breaking the encyption first? What
>if the Pentium III used in the system were modified to prevent people
>from monitoring pinouts and data transfers?
If they lock it down too much they'll make it more difficult for XBox
developers, which'll be the last thing they want when launching a new
platform. If they reach a strong position you can expect this to change of
course...
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Loki has trouble playiong their own games under Linux!!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:13:51 GMT
On 22 Jan 2001 09:00:25 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote:
>This article is dated a year ago, idiot. Since that time XFree 4 w/DRI
>has been released and is standard in nearly all dists.
Talk to T-Max, he posted it.
>10 minutes per machine?? Of course, now on mosts dists DRI works out
>of the box.
Sure it does.
Not,
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:14:35 GMT
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 22 Jan 2001
04:38:40 GMT;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> It is not a convention. Look up the appropriate RFC's. The private IP
>> address ranges should never appear on the Internet.
>
>Still, Windozzzzzzzz will broadcast a private IP, and it will show
>up in the logs. I used to see 192.168.100.1 quite often.
Linux will happily do the same, as will any TCP/IP stack or router,
unless they break the rules. Those with a purely theoretical
understanding of 'private address blocks' tend to forget that whether
one is in the 'private area' or the 'public area' is identical to
whether one knows what to do with one of these addresses, or not,
respectively.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:15:08 GMT
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 03:52:38 GMT, "Lloyd Llewellyn"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> almost coherently wrote:
>> If I could get her on Linux, i.e. get a good tax package for her, I would.
>
>Yes - on the desktop it comes down to applications...
I agree. The uptime advantage is primarily useful on server machines,
which is why I run linux for my firewall. I'm a big Linux advocate,
but I still run Windows on my desktop. Here are just a couple of
reasons, maybe some more knowledgeable than me can refute them:
* Game playing - I like to play cutting edge games, and Windows is the
only PC environment for that
* Office applications - I've tried StarOffice, I've tried Applixware,
and I've tried a couple of other smaller offerings, but none of them
seem to match up with office applications for Windows. MS Office is
SLOW, but StarOffice is slower, and Applixware crashed almost every
time I used it. I've yet to find any decent accounting package for
Linux.
* Frustrating installations - I've noticed with many graphical
products for Linux that installation is not straight forward. I think
this is an unfortunate side effect of open source offerings. Many
times I've downloaded something only to find in the README file "you
also need to install package A and B and C before this will work". If
I have time I'll go hunt down those packages, but more often than not
I give up at that point.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:18:59 GMT
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:49:24 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Your argument is having been weaned on Windows; that's a story as old as
>Bill Gate's monopoly. Yes, its all about the application barrier;
>haven't you read the conviction?
>
>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
>http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
Personally I could care less one way or the other.
I use a product because it works for me, not because of some mission.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:23:59 GMT
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 03:57:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on 22 Jan 2001 02:36:08 GMT;
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> On 22 Jan 2001 01:41:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>Tell me claire, exactly why it is that while linux recognized my secondary
>>>>PCI IDE controller (ATA/100) instantly and with no configuration nessesary,
>>>>windows decides that its a 'new device' every time I reboot and incorrectly
>>>>names it a "PCI RAID CONTROLLER"?
>>
>>> Because you say it does.
>>
>>It does, actually. One of the very many reasons that I only very rarely
>>run windowsME, and then only to play unreal tournament.
>>
>>Curiously, one of the MCSEs that I work with has the exact same problem
>>with an entirely different IDE controller, to which he consistently responds:
>>
>>"fucking windows".
>
>Bwah-ha-ha-ha.
I really wish you would learn to use your news reader correctly Max
and quote me correctly.
Yttrx said all the MSCE stuff as well as the "fsking Windows
comment"...
All I said was "because you say it does"..
Jeezzz you can't even use Agent properly, I can't wait to see you use
Emacs or slrn to read news.
Now THAT'S gonna be funny!
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:24:15 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 11:29:56
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Well, let's not stir up the "what is a 'standard'?" question again. It
>> isn't a standard, the way the word was intended. It was a proprietary
>> specification. Now, IBM had a 'standard' use of the proprietary
>> specification, but that doesn't make it a "standard", though if you were
>> to use the phrase "the Microchannel standard", I doubt anyone would find
>> it incomprehensible, though some few pedantic ones might argue the
>> point.
>
>This whole debate is a bit pedantic. It was a standard so far as it was a
>specific hardware protocol and implementation.
It is not an act of pedantry to point out that this doesn't make
something a standard.
>In that, it was as much a
>standard as ISA and S-100 were.
I'm afraid not.
>The only thing "non-standard" about it was
>the draconian liscensing costs IBM inflicted on third party manufacturers. I
>think the wording "widely-accepted-and-implemented-standard" would more
>acurately describe what MicroChannel wasn't.
Standard, it wasn't. Whether it was widely accepted and implemented
does have much to do with that. I think the word you're searching for
is 'specification'. It was a specification. A proprietary
specification, to be exact; about as far from 'standard' as you can get,
except for the special dubious and prone-to-pedantic-problems term "de
facto standard", which Microchannel *obviously* doesn't rate.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:29:49 GMT
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:15:59 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>You trolled for it, you've caught it. A capsule summary of
>your sophomoric sophistry. Babbage cabbage. Fiddling while
>your Rome burns, Caesar Au-Gates-Us with a knife in his OS,
>sipping his lead-laden cup of bile. Your gallium-arsenide
>semiconductor fuctor with Pb. Sipping from a firehose with a
>straw, it gets jammed in your craw.
Yep I sure did, caught one that is...
A certified card carrying Penguinista.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:32:21 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 00:48:21 -0500;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> >Driver problems are not the OS's fault unless it was a driver written by
>MS,
>> >and even then it's MS's fault, not the OS.
>>
>> Driver problems are the OS's fault.
>
>In that case I'd like my $50.00 back on my Caldera Open Linux 2.4 because it
>wouldn't run a Viper v550 out of the box.
That isn't a driver problem. That's a lack of drivers for an
alternative OS. That's Microsoft's fault. A driver problem is one
where the driver fails, not one where it is not available because of the
dominance by the OS market by a monopolist.
I knew the trolls would have a field day with this statement to begin
with, as it require reason to understand why I said it, and thus what I
said, and they'd much rather assume it was meant as an absolute and
universal truth, since they are incapable of reason.
But so that too many people don't mistake the context of my words, I'll
do COLA the favor of saving the trolls the trouble and correcting the
statement. It won't help much, but at least the responses wouldn't be
quite as brain-dead and obvious as JS/PL's pedantic whining.
Driver problems on Windows are the OS's fault.
>Wouldn't run my modem or sound
>card either. Now that you've explained that it's the fault of the OS I'd
>like my money back.
You might check into getting refund on your brain, too, as that also
seems to be non-functional.
>> >Additionally, a program that crashes repeatedly may not be the OS's fault
>at
>> >all.
>>
>> A program that crashes repeatedly is the OSes fault.
>
>You mean the repeated crash reports of Netscape on Linux are the fault of
>the OS??
Wow, I would have NEVER expected you to respond like that. Gee, you
must be really smart.
When Netscape crashes, and you restart it, does it crash again and
again, repeatedly, or is the state restored correctly by the OS so that
it doesn't? Answer: on Windows, of course, a program crashes
*repeatedly*. On Linux, it just crashes. And that, obviously, is the
application's fault.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:36:07 GMT
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 04:38:01 GMT, "Lloyd Llewellyn"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FWIW, I think this thread is instructive in itself. Imagine if a non-technical
>person were to take that big step and give Linux a try. He gets on the
>newsgroups asking about a FrontPage or Dreamweaver analog, explicitly stating
>that he wants a visual design tool. Instead, he is directed to use vi, emacs,
>or even Bluefish for that matter.
Or he is going to be directed to some version.0004 work in progress
that chances are he won't even be able to get installed.
>That person is going to sigh, and then he's going to wipe his Linux partition to
>make room for more Windows files.
It only takes one look, and you know the funny thing?
People who try Linux and have the experience like the example you
used, and most people do have that type of experience, tend to want to
talk about it with others. Kind of like talking about your gall
bladder operation at party.
They tell more people who tell more people and so forth.
That's the beauty of Linux, when people get pissed off at it they get
REALLY pissed off at it.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: 22 Jan 2001 16:36:04 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:28:55 +0000,
Darren Winsper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
>> I play games on my computer. I always have. I've never owned a console,
>> I think a PC does better graphics than a console.
>
>I have to agree with Pete here. After all, how many consoles do
>graphics at 1024*768? And how many can perform anti-aliasing at that
>resolution?
>
>
>> The fact that there is a lack of games on Linux is important to me.
>
>Same here. In fact, I have Windows for the sole reason of games. If
>all my games were available for Linux, I'd dump Windows in an instant
>(As soon as I got a GeForce2 since Voodoo5 drivers for Linux are crap).
>
I for one wouldn't recommend a GeForce even for playing games under
Windows. Basically, the card is designed for benchmarks and that's
about it. The GeForce2 might get your more frames per second, but a
Voodoo5 provides a much higher image quality. Once you've got so many
FPS's the game is smooth enough, quality of the rendering is what
becomes most important.
Now granted, you won't get much of that quality under the current
Linux drivers. However the Linux drivers are open source and the
hardware specs are published, and VA Linux is paying developers to
work on the drivers. With regards to Nvidia, I purchased a TNT2 card
two years ago becuase they advertised on their web site a commitment
to open source. Well they never released usaable open source drivers,
nor hardware specs. Instead they realeased their closed source drivers
long after the TNT2 card had become obselete, meaning my money was
wasted. AFAIC they decieved me. Currently, Nvidia is publishing closed
source drivers under the excuse that publishing source code and
hardware specs would violate their contracts with other technology
providers. But they won't specify who or why. And then there's this
X-box partnership with Microsoft....hmmm...this was announced right
around the same time they said they would close source the drivers..
Nvidia's current Linux drivers require you install files that will
break Linux package management, i.e. whenever you upgrade your RPM or
debian packages, it will clobber your Nvidia driver and you'll have to
reinstall them.
So if you want purchase a GeForce2 go ahead. Enjoy it!! But don't call
yourself an open source advocate.
Perry
P.S.: and now that Nvidia has purchased 3dfx's technology, we'll never
know how much of their technology was stolen from 3dfx. It seems
Nvidia is like Microsoft in may ways.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 16:39:23 GMT
On 22 Jan 2001 14:45:23 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Scott TOK) wrote:
>You should not force your layout on your readers... this is the WWW, not
>a magazine.
One should not have to change the way one is doing something to
accomodate the paltry number of whiners running Linux.
>I only use <pre></pre> tage for stuff like author contact lists, or
>formulae and very simple tables, for example, these ones on fusion
>reaction energies:
>
> http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/phys/fusion-energies.html
Is that why your page looks like crap?
>I just checked that in Lynx so it's OK.
Oh now I see why ^^^^^^^^^^^^
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
******************************
