Linux-Advocacy Digest #682, Volume #31 Tue, 23 Jan 01 16:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Steve Mading)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Games? Who cares about games? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (Steve Mading)
Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe (Steve Mading)
Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice ("PM")
Re: Windows 2000
Re: Windows 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:16:48 GMT
Said FranckA in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 19:45:33
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said FranckA in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:06:23
>>>First and foremost, teach them how to INSTALL linux in both GUI and text
>>>mode.
>>
>> Least and last, teach them how to install.
>
>First problem most people have when trying Linux for the first time, is
>getting through the Install process. Accomplish that and the rest is
>usually fairly easy to learn and they feel a lot more confident.
Its a senseless hurdle to put in front of a new user. Most new users
today might have to do an install first (me, I bought a pre-load), but
it is still not what you would call a common procedure, as most will
only do it once.
>>>Teach them about Partitioning and using fdisk, fips etc.....
>>
>> Next to last.
>
>Was I going in order of importance? Again you are incorrect. Most users who install
>Linux already have another
>operating system on their pc, so it is imperative that they learn to
>partition without destroying their data and not to mention other
>operating system. It's not fun to learn but still a very important part
>of the learning process.
You forget that the object is to teach people how to *use* Linux. I
never said to keep them ignorant about disks and partitions; I said it
is not something that a competent instructor would cover anywhere near
the beginning of a newbie class.
>>>Teach them about the different X window managers and how to install and
>>>load them during bootup.
>>
>> How to run them after bootup.
>
>ok, you have me there.... I should have said after bootup.
>
>>
>>>TEACH THEM ABOUT LILO !!! and especially about the 1024 cylinder limit
>>>
>>>Teach them how to use BOTH emacs and vi, but also show them the GUI
>>>options.
>>>
>>>Show them how to connect to the Internet using ppp. This will most
>>>definately be one of the questions they will ask. Show them how in both
>>>KDE and Gnome, and also netcfg....
>
>> Well, I agree about the ppp.
>
>why thank you...
I am seriously interested in this discussion, BTW. I would gladly
contribute a bit of time to hammering out a working 'standard
curriculum', as a service to the community. We should contribute as we
can, and I don't know jack about programming, but teaching computers
happens to be my specialty.
--
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.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:18:29 -0000
On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 20:50:41 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> "Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:94bvv0$cq7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > >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.
>>
>> And this is hindering Linux in what way? Microsoft doesn't OWN The PC
>> platform, they just run it. Linux can also run it, but people don't like
>> Linux as much.
>
>Wrong. Large percentages of people who use Microsoft don't like it.
>The only thing is...most don't even KNOW that there is an alternative.
Just the other day I bumped into a woman that apparently is
far too hard on WinDOS. I presume that WinDOS was the OS in
question due to Microsoft's market lock.
However, this woman is so adept at crashing computers that she
just plain has her male kin navigate into applications for her
to the point where she doesn't even interface with the OS
directly anymore.
If she does for herself, the system ends up locked up.
>
>Why? Because Microshaft threatens extortion if any large retailer
>offers pre-installed Linux.
[deletia]
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:25:51 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Also, why the 64 bit Windows is far behind schedule, being beaten to
> Itanium by every other OS on the planet, just about.
Until Itanium is released, all itanium code is still beta. You can get a
beta of Whistler with IA-64 support today.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:20:08 -0000
On 23 Jan 2001 16:32:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:35:45
>> [...]
>>>I think distributing PDF format files is an excelent idea. Even if it does
>>>max bandwidth. [...]
>
>> PDF files are generally much smaller than their Word document
>> counterpart.
>
>In this vein, guess what happens to a W2K machine when you use office2000
>to read a document you converted in staroffice from .rtf to .doc?
Now, why exactly would you bother?
>
>Thats right kids, it locks up solid. Powercycle nessesary.
>
>What was it exactly that windows does well again?
[deletia]
I'll have to try that trick now... '-)
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 23 Jan 2001 20:14:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Start a new thread, I told you. This thread is talking about Fortune 500.
: Why do you insist on ignoring this? Fortune 500 is, IMHO, as important, or
: more important than the Hot 100. I think it's more reasonable to see what
: Dell, Compaq, Merril Lynch, Fidelity, and many other huge corporations are
: using for their critical web eCommerce infrastructure than what eGroups
: uses for their message boards, wouldn't you?
(Grabbing the clue stick) *whack* *whack* For those companies, the
web stuff is NOT CRITICAL. NOT AT ALL.) It is certainly a benefit
to keep it running, and it certainly brings in more business, but
it is not the only conduit of sales they have. Compare this with
something that actually is 100% web based like Amazon or Google).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:22:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:24:00 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:28:27 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is
>>that out of
>>> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
>>>
>>> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
>>
>>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.
>
> When it comes to graphics, the artist has always been more
> important than the specs of the rendering hardware. Also,
> keep in mind that for all other forms of consumer motion
> picture, that lousy NTSC resolution seems to get along just
> fine.
Pedant point: that "lousy NTSC resolution" has only 5 or so years left. :-)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:12h:31m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:29:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:14:33 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <94gqv9$29c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is
>>that out of
>>> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
>>>
>>> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
>>
>>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.
>>
>
>When X isn't up, they call that black screen in front of you with the
>prompt a console.
Ah, just like good old DOS days, except:
[1] There's more than one (ALT-Fn)
[2] They have an intelligent command processor (bash), with
a very nice CLI (TAB-command and file completion, and
[relatively] easy-to-understand-and-use [*] arrow-key history;
to be fair, DOSKEY had the arrow-key history, too)
[3] They don't crash. :-)
Also, unlike Win/DOS, X isn't an OS and never claimed to be one.
(Yes, I know, Windows has been classified as an OS, and not
classified as an OS. Is it any wonder the developers and users
are slightly confused? :-) )
>
>
>
>
>Hope that helps.
>
>
>Charlie
>
>PS. We knew you played games on your computer.
> Like Newgroups and installing Mandrake for just 2.
I like Koules and DOOM, myself. :-)
[*] Hi Tholen! :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random games here
EAC code #191 0d:13h:56m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: 23 Jan 2001 20:20:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:> > I'm talking about the Fortune 500, now, which is a different argument.
:>
:> Different, yes. But relevant?
: Um, I guess, since that's what most of this thread was about. Have you been
: paying attention? Just because you don't like the outcome of this present
: argument, doesn't mean you can change the subject and declare the old one
: irrelevant.
: The Fortune 500 is never irrelevant.
Yes it is. If the question is about what people use who really have
to rely on their websites to stay in business. That does not describe
Fortune 500 companies.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:31:39 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 15:58:51 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
>>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 01:50:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Here's the way I read your post.
>>>
>>>I would like Linux, except for the fact that Windows has predatorally
>>>maintained an application barrier preventing commercial development of
>>>software on alternative platforms.
>>
>>No.
>>He appears to be telling it like it is and that is from an
>>applications point of view, Linux is crude, disjointed and simply not
>>as easy to use as Windows for a basic user.
Yet despite of all of this, he was completely unable to
go into any actual detail about it. For the most part,
NONE of you Lemmings are. The best you can come up with
are vague generalities or problems that are endemic to
windos as well.
>
>That's roughly what I said. Why did you snip the original, though?
[deletia]
--
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:34:12 GMT
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:12:33 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, your personal opinion doesn't count for much.
Yours counts for even less.
> Which has never been a problem except in lab tests. The 4 million file bug
> was discovered by a guy who wrote a program to test it.
Unless you run a Usenet server on NT. Then, it is quite likely that you
will have 4 million files.
> I've never seen that, well not after NT4 SP3 anyhow. It's certainly not
> a problem on Win2K.
IOW, you've never seen it, except when you've seen it. Can you say
"congitive dissonance"?
> Have you ever shut down a Linux box with ext2fs incorrectly? God help
> you. You have a 90% chance of completely hosing your fs.
That is 100% pure Chad Bullshit (tm).
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:36:52 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:35:34 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:53:35 +0000, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> * 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
>>
>>What computer are you running on? I find StarOffice workable on a
>>P133/72M.
>
>It's a P200, and when I tried it I had 32Mb. I now have 64Mb so I may
>give it another try.
I don't recall office 4.2 being particularly nice with a mere
32M, nevermind what a current version of office must be like
on such a machine...
>
>I also have done absolutely nothing with regard to kernel tuning and
>disk tuning (too many projects, not enough time!), so doing that might
>speed things up a bit.
Clean the sofa and go buy a decent amount of memory.
If you're going to be running windos on that machine
you'll need it even moreso...
--
Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
in once they've made a bad initial decision.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why "uptime" is important.
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:38:51 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:28:59 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 23:37:32 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 17:59:19 -0500, Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:20:49 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
[deletia]
>> ...strange that you would prefer the proverbial Elephant gun then?
>
>As I said, speed was the main issue. MS Office runs with quite
>reasonable performance on a 32Mb Windows system. Star Office did not
...yeah, right.
[deletia]
If speed were really your paramount issue than msword would
not even be an option.
--
In general, Microsoft is in a position of EXTREME conflict of
interest being both primary supplier and primary competitor.
Their actions must be considered in that light. How some people
refuse to acknowledge this is confounding.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: 23 Jan 2001 20:31:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Not only would they have less performance, less reliability, and
: less remote management capability (Win2K terminal services rocks),
Anyone who thinks Windows has better remotability than UNIX is
either ignorant or lying. It isn't physically possible to get
better than what UNIX has, because the only thing missing is
stuff that requires that I touch the machine (putting a CD in
a drive, changing a tape without an autochanger device, etc.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 3100 W2K Adv Servers deployed accross Europe
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:43:10 -0000
On 23 Jan 2001 19:53:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, J Sloan
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 08:08:52 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>nuxx wrote:
>>>
>>>> W2K Advanced Server is an excellent choice for this application.
>>>
>>>it might be made to work, but they could have saved themselves
>>>a ton of money, and gotten better performance, reliability, and
>>>remote management capability by using Unix.
>
>> What streaming server would they use?
>
>Pretty much everything is available for solaris.
<nelson muntz>
Ha Ha...
</nelson muntz>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Games? Who cares about games?
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:46:15 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:22:24 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 21:24:00 -0000
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Mon, 22 Jan 2001 08:28:27 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> I don't know anyone that really plays games on their computers. is
>>>that out of
>>>> the ordinary? When people mention games as an issue, I often wonder why.
>>>>
>>>> I have a Nintendo for games, why would I waste a computer on games?
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>> When it comes to graphics, the artist has always been more
>> important than the specs of the rendering hardware. Also,
>> keep in mind that for all other forms of consumer motion
>> picture, that lousy NTSC resolution seems to get along just
>> fine.
>
>Pedant point: that "lousy NTSC resolution" has only 5 or so years left. :-)
...that too.
However, whenever it gets here PC's will still be capable
of higher resolutions. This crowd will probably be crowing
about those higher resolutions then too...
My favorite RTS runs best at 640x480 on a 256M P3/500. If anything
else of consequence runs, "run" turns into "crawl".
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:49:20 -0000
On 23 Jan 2001 19:48:57 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: Your a programmer genius. When you loose the ability to imagine the perfect
>: user interface in CODE FORM, let us know. You offically classify as a
>: "geek", and as such, no longer can be concidered a valid test case for Linux
>: being bad on the desktop.
>
>: If the world ran by people like you, then we would still be using MS-DOS.
No. It is because of people like YOU that
MS-DOS didn't DIE in 1984.
MS-DOS in 1995 is still why many of us
despise Microsoft as much as we do.
>
>You are operating under the assumption that MS-DOS is a good
>representation of computer geekdom. It is not. It's the
>worst example of a command-line interface you could pick. I
>hate the fact that it is the first thing people think of when
>they hear "command-line". It gives command-lines a bad rap.
Yup. It's also pisspoor beneath that poor excuse for a shell.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: NT is Most Vulnerable Server Software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:49:36 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 23 Jan 2001
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 04:57:00 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>You were full of shit, as usual. :-P
>
>At least I took a crack at it.
>
>What did you do?
Pointed out you were full of shit, as usual.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "PM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:51:24 GMT
** I goofed and posted this under a different subject **
What you teach depends on just how much time you have. For myself, I'm more
interested in finding out WHAT I need to learn, not so much the details on a
specific program. A list of important progs and config files with a short
description of what they're for would go a LOOONG way in getting a newbie
started. Remember the parable about giving someone a fish? Here's an example
whatis - tells you what something does e.g. whatis ppp
apropos - Lists files that pertain to a topic e.g. apropos ppp
man - masochists manual reader for what apropos shows you
locate - find out where that pesky file actually is
chown - change ownership of files e.g. chown nobody.nobody *
chmod - change what people are allowed to do with a file e.g. chmod 777
mywebpage.html
pico - simple command line editor
vi - the masochists dream text editor
linuxconf - detailed configuration of your linux from menus
setup - configure some basic OS functions and set startup programs
Xconfigurator - configure xwindows to your hardware
kernalcfg - set up loadable modules (network cards etc)
netcfg - configure your network
<add mail/news setup here - I still haven't gotten them to work - I use my
windoze box>.
You'll definately want to go over installing RPMs (and other vendor equivs)
as well as the basics of how to compile (perhaps a list of packages required
to enable compiling - thats another thing I've had zero luck with - I just
don't know WHAT I have to have. libc,glibc what the hell is the difference
and which do I need?)
And don't forget to tell people how to update things like the locate
database (locate -u). I still don't know if you need to do that with man or
apropos...
RTFM is fine and I try to, but if I don't know it exists I can't really read
up on it can I.
And for you *nix grognards out there, vi is NOT easy. It seems a lot like
dos's edlin to me... (hella more powerful I agree, but more cryptic and and
just as conceptually unfriendly!)
Oh and someone please invent a "man -translatethejargonintoenglishplease"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:53:01 -0000
On 23 Jan 2001 19:42:17 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ed Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 22 Jan 2001 10:38:11
>: [...]
>:>>You are so misunderstanding what is being said. I'm merely pointing out why
>:>>multi-platform support, (which this thread had veered into), was/is so poor
>:>>as to be non-existent.
>:>
>:>But you are mistaken; I am not misunderstanding you, I'm disagreeing
>:>with you. I am merely pointing out that the reason multi-platform
>:>support is poor is because of illegal behavior, and that alone. Your
>:>attempts to rationalize it as 'appropriate behavior under certain
>:>circumstances' is a thinly veiled apology for a monopolist.
>:>
>: I would like to inject here that I think the reason, though they
>: would deny it, that M$ dropped the other ports of NT and never even
>: attempted a port of WinDOS was that adapting to other hardware
>: forces a rationalizing of interfaces which would have made cloning
>: like WINE easier.
>
>Actually, I think the reason for it is that the only reason Windows
>is popular at all is because of all the applications that are only
>released for Windows and nothing else, not because the OS itself is
>all that spectacular. Therefore, porting the OS to other platforms
>would be usless unless MS could get all the third-party application
>developers to make all of their software for non-intel platforms
...all they really had to do was ensure that their devkits
for other platforms allowed the developer to target other
architectures with little or no work.
This is how applications quickly get to diverse Unix versions.
QA is quite often more time consuming than the porting process.
>also. If ONLY Windows and maybe Office ran on platform Foo, but
>nothing else did, nobody would want it. MS discovered this, and stopped
>trying to support other platforms. Of course they falsely attributed
>this to people being uninterested in other platforms, when in fact
>they *would* be interested if the Windows world hadn't been
>monoplatform for so long that all the app developers forgot how to
>program cross-platform code. (Consider how Corel ported WP 2000
>to Linux - by using Wine instead of actually doing a real port.)
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 20:53:35 -0000
On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 14:25:51 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Also, why the 64 bit Windows is far behind schedule, being beaten to
>> Itanium by every other OS on the planet, just about.
>
>Until Itanium is released, all itanium code is still beta. You can get a
>beta of Whistler with IA-64 support today.
You could get Linux betas from Intel a year ago.
--
The term "popular" is MEANINGLESS in consumer computing. DOS3
was more "popular" than contemporary Macintoshes despite the
likelihood that someone like you would pay the extra money to
not have to deal with DOS3.
Network effects are everything in computing.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
