Linux-Advocacy Digest #566, Volume #32 Wed, 28 Feb 01 20:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Mircosoft Tax ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Bob Hauck)
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hijacking the IP stack ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: KDE or DOJ ? (CyberCFO)
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (John Travis)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Windows guy. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: I say we BAN "Innovation" ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: What the hell is MS thinking? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Marten Kemp)
Re: KDE or DOJ ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Mircosoft Tax (.)
Re: The Windows guy. (Marten Kemp)
Re: The Windows guy. ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:43:20 +0000
Robert MacGregor wrote:
>
> I love Linux, I really do, and have used it for years as my li'l home
> web/mail/dhcp/firewall server and have always enjoyed my opportunities
> to administer it (which I always love is practically never).
>
> And I've been going back and forth on switching my desktop to it for
> just as long. Each release of Redhat that I've seen (7.1 is the latest)
> and the strides being made with KDE and all... It gets more and more
> appealing.
>
> My biggest reservations are that I have such an attachment to my windows
> apps.. I've seen some nice apps on Linux, but with all the various
> opensource things out there, a lot of what I have seen has been less
> than impressive to me, a GUI-spoiled brat (hey, I admit it.. and I grew
> up with Macs... but the GUI thing is just as important to me as the
> engineering under the hood.)
>
> I have a list of my most dear apps and I humbly beseech anyone to
> comment on best-match equivalents, if any, on Linux:
>
> * MS Outlook
> * Internet Explorer (i sooo hate Netscape these days.. it just sucks,
> compared to IE!!!!! <not trying to troll!!! please don't hit me!!>
> * Dreamweaver Ultradev
> * ERWin (a top notch database modeling tool.. i'm a web app developer)
> * TOAD (a tool for oracle application developers)
> * Rational Rose
>
> But then there's ones like Flash and QuarkXpress which I know aren't
> available for Linux and I need them both desperately!
>
> Thanks for any suggestions..
>
> BTW.. I know Quake III is available for linux.. will it take full
> advantage of the 3D processing of my GeForce 256?
>
> Thanks,
> -Robert
You say you grew up with Macs? If so, have a Mac *and* a Linux box (if
you can afford it). I think there is a product similar to Rational Rose
on Linux. Try KMonqueror, you may like it, For browsing, I like
Arena. Netscape on X is no worse than Internet Exploiter. I guess
Oracle stuff is available on Linux, so Flash is yr problem. So, get a
mac and a Linux box and have FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:42:50 +0000
>> > I didn't say it wasn't improvement. I said it was more fixing a
>> > deficiancy than improving. Both terms apply, but fixing the
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
>> > deficiancy has a higher ranking in my estimation.
>>
>> Oh, yes. I remember, you're speaking EFed up English. How is fixing a
>> deficiency not making an improvement?
>
> I'm speaking perfectly legitimate english. You seem incapable of
> understanding it, as can plainly be seen by the fact that you are still
> asking me to clarify something I didn't say.
>
> I'll say it again. *I DID NOT SAY THAT FIXING A DEFICIENCY WAS NOT AN
> IMPROVEMENT*.
No need to shout.
> *I SAID, BOTH TERMS APPLY (THAT IS, FIXING THE DEFICIENCY AND BEING AN
> IMPROVEMENT), BUT IN MY ESTIMATION, FIXING THE DEFICIENCY BEST DESCRIBES
> IT*
>
> Are you going to ask me how fixing a deficiency isn't an improvement
> again?
yes.
Look at the line above AAAA. How in hells name can this make sense if
fixing a deficiency isn't an improvement?
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:43:46 GMT
lOn 28 Feb 2001 03:19:11 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 19:12:09 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>If software is a mature business, the sale price should tend toward the
>>cost of production. That's what happens in other businesses.
> In other businesses, the market leader does not make their prices
> cheaper just because they can afford to.
Right, they make them cheaper because there is competition. It is the
presence of competitors in the market that drives the price toward the
cost of production.
> They price their products in such a way that the prices are reasonably
> competitive (eg: $50- for an OEM license)
Who, exactly, is Microsoft's competition for that OEM license? They do,
in fact, have reasons to keep the price "reasonable", primarily to not
create incentives for competitors to get into the OS business. That
"reasonable" price might be considerably higher than it would be if
there were competitors.
>> I don't buy games and so don't know what they cost.
>
> More than Windows OEM (-;
I'm not clear on why you think it is fair to compare the OEM price of
Windows with the retail price of a game. They are different products
that have different economics and are sold in different ways.
>> They sell for a short period and then fade, in contrast to something
>> like Windows that sells year after year.
>
> A given game does, yes. However, id license their game engines, so they
> effectively "sell" the sam codebase several times over.
Do you happen to know what percentage of their revenue is from that?
How much do they charge for it? If you want to make a comparison
between id and MS, then I would think you'd want to compare the price of
this game engine to the OEM price of Windows, rather than comparing the
retail price of a game to the OEM price of Windows.
> What "percentage" profit would they make in a good year ? Their operating
> costs should be relatively low, so their profits could be enormous.
I really have no idea. If it is like the movie studios, they manage to
buy two houses in the Hamptons while reporting a paper loss <g>.
But seriously, in many busineses including music and publishing, most
projects lose money. You hope that is offset by the big blockbuster.
>>> Why don't these unwritten rules about pricing also apply to id ?
>>
>>I thought we were discussing economics, not "unwritten rules". The
>
> Unsubstantiated whining that something is "too expensive" is not worthy
> of the word "economics".
I don't whine about the price of Windows, as I don't buy it. I do
observe that the retail price has been quite constant in spite of the
volume being much higher now than five or ten years ago. I can also
observe that Windows seems to be a higher percentage of the system cost
than it used to be. And I can observe that these don't seem to be quite
consistent with a competitive free market model, as the profit margins
MS makes imply that they are selling their product for far more than the
cost of production.
One could make a case that Windows is reasonably priced by some critera,
which is apparently what you are doing, but how do you decide what's
"reasonable" other thay via subjective things such as "I don't mind
paying that much". I think a case can be made that it could potentially
be cheaper if there were actual competition.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:43:47 GMT
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:05:54 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why do you need plug-n-play? You don't put adapters in your servers?
> No SCSI cards? No Tape Backups? No Modems or Network Cards?
I don't put ISA SCSI or network cards in my servers (except the odd 486
firewall box). Don't need no steenking plug-n-pray with PCI.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:55:25 -0600
"Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Mike wrote:
> >
> > "Tim Hanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I have seen it here that Microsoft used a lot of BSD code in its
> > > networking. Specifically, someone here said that much of the IP stack
> > > in NT and Windows 2000 is really "borrowed" BSD code. There is a
writer
> > > who is interested but is asking me for some concrete evidence of BSD
> > > code specifically in Microsoft networking code, particularly in their
> > > implementation of TCP/IP.
> > >
> > > Can anyone point me to an authoritative reference?
> >
> > /* WINSOCK.H--definitions to be used with the WINSOCK.DLL
> > * Copyright 1993 - 1998 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.
> > *
> > * This header file corresponds to version 1.1 of the Windows Sockets
> > specification.
> > *
> > * This file includes parts which are Copyright (c) 1982-1986 Regents
> > * of the University of California. All rights reserved. The
> > * Berkeley Software License Agreement specifies the terms and
> > * conditions for redistribution.
> > */
> >
> > Of course, this doesn't prove the point you're trying to prove, but this
is
> > Usenet, where facts are few and fast and loose. You may as well play
along.
> >
> > > Bombeck's Rule of Medicine:
> > > Never go to a doctor whose office plants have died.
> >
> > Mike's Query: Should you go to the doctor whose Bombeck died?
> >
> > -- Mike --
>
> Thanks. There is an article in this, and it won't be very kind to M$.
> The more references, the better.
Actually, this isn't what it seems. Winsock is not the same thing as the
TCP/IP stack. Sockets make use of TCP/IP, they are not TCP/IP themselves.
Winsock is based on the Berkeley socket concept, thus in order to provides
sockets, you have to at least use the Berkeley interfaces, which would be
based on the Berkeley code.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: A question for a user who wants to jump the M$ ship
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:48:32 +0000
Flacco wrote:
>
> > I have a list of my most dear apps and I humbly beseech anyone to
> > comment on best-match equivalents, if any, on Linux:
>
> I have to agree with you at this point that the GUI desktop apps are not
> there yet. They're getting closer as time goes on - I'm surprised by the
> progress they've made just over the last few months that I've been tracking
> Linux - but that said, here are my picks / observations:
>
> >
> > * MS Outlook
>
> Ximian's Evolution is getting there. Interface is pretty good; still buggy,
> but it's not finished yet.
>
> > * Internet Explorer (i sooo hate Netscape these days.. it just sucks,
> > compared to IE!!!!! <not trying to troll!!! please don't hit me!!>
>
> Try the latest build of Mozilla, or Opera. I'be been using Mozilla, but
> recently DL'd Opera and find it's fast and works well so far.
>
> > * Dreamweaver Ultradev
>
> Good luck. I brought this up recently and was basically told I was a pussy
> and/or moron for not writing out my web pages long-hand. Die-hard Linux
> users seem unwilling to admit that casual users may want a graphical design
> tool to build web pages, integrated with site management tools.
>
> The responses I got (beyond "HTML is not a graphical medium") were:
>
> - use a word processor like the one in StarOffice / OpenOffice and save as
> HTML. This doesn't give you the site management features, of course, and a
> word processor is not focused on site creation.
>
> - use Amaya. This is the w3c's graphical web page editing tool, but the
> interface is ABYSMAL, and it doesn't really do all that much. It's primary
> selling point is that, since it's from the w3c, it is standards-compliant.
>
> This is a huge hole in Linux applications availability, and I think that
> once Linux becomes a more viable and popular desktop OS, vendors will rush
> in to fill this ridiculous gap.
>
It isn't a gap per se: the problem lies in the lack of *integrated*
solutions for web design. You can use GIIMP and a text editor to get
some great pages, but it is harder than it needs to be.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Hijacking the IP stack
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:56:43 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > Umm.. Berkeley's TCP/IP stack is free software. You can't "hijack" it.
> > It's free for whatever use you want, including use in closed source
> > applications. You don't even need to give them credit anymore as of a
few
> > years ago.
> >
> > In any event, MS does include Berkeley copyright notices in several of
it's
> > TCP/IP apps, such as ftp and finger, etc.. The fact that they include
those
> > in those programs, but not in the stack makes one think that perhaps
they
> > may have used the berkeley stack as a guide, but not the actual code.
> >
> I thought the BSD licence allowed any use, but insisted that you don't
> claim you write the code if you nicked it. M$ seem to claim they wrote
> it (which is wrong, if indeed they did not)
The BSD licenses was changed a few years ago to remove the advertising
clause. You no longer have to give them credit if you use their code.
------------------------------
From: CyberCFO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:47:52 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
> In article <Gngn6.660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the Explorer
>> killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to complicated to
>> configure (have you actually tried looking through the configuration
>> settings?)
>
> Have you? Have you even tried KDE 2.1? Not KDE 1.1.2 or KDE 2.0, but
> KDE 2.1. I just installed KDE 2.1 last night and I can't see anything
> complicated about configuration. What confuses you?
>
> Gary
>
The confusion is generated by people like my mother who represents 50% of
the Windows user base, and who will never switch to something that doesn't
do it for them and that an aol client is not available for.
--
/g
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:48:15 +0000
In article <Gngn6.660$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Frnk N. Puppenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Which will beat down M$ the most ? KDE-2.1 looks pretty damn good.
>> And the price is right.
>
> Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the Explorer
> killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to complicated to
> configure (have you actually tried looking through the configuration
> settings?)
At least you can configure it.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: John Travis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:34:09 GMT
On Wed, 28 Feb 2001 18:36:52 -0500, Clamchu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Christian Brandt wrote:
<snipped it all>
The irony of the headers here is great. The original mini-flame of BSD came
from FreeBSD 4.1-STABLE and the mini-flame reply against Linux came
from...you guessed it...some GNU/Linux distro with a 2.2.12 kernel. They're
both fun, who cares 8^).
jt
PS The part about kicking the guys ass and taking his money was pretty
amusing.
________________________________________
Alternative Computing Solutions...
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org
FreeBSD http://www.freebsd.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:52:22 +0000
"Bryant Charleston, MCSE" wrote:
>
> If you compose a text document in Star Office 5.2, will it be readable on a
> Windows platform (as a text or Word doc) ? I can't seem to find any FAQs
> that address this issue. Thanks for any help!
>
It appears to me that StarOffice can save in word format, so I can't see
a problem.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:00:40 -0600
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:97jp4h$ice$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> :> Bullshit. Where the fsck did you get that from? Do you actually
> :> know what program, thread, and process actually mean? I admitted
> :> that threads share some properties with processes. How you twisted
> :> that into "programs == processes" I have no freakin' clue.
>
> : An Amiga task is a program, much like running code in DOS is a program
> : (TSR's are seperate programs that run as well). Multiple threads are
> : multiple programs to the Amiga.
>
> NO. Running code is NOT a program. Running code is a process.
> The word "program" refers to the image in its static form, either
> as an executable file (and the associated execution library files),
> or as a loaded bunch of code in RAM. It doesn't become a "process"
> until it is running. Here's an analogy: Program is to screenplay
> as process is to movie.
Well then, I fail to understand your refusal to clasify running DOS code as
a process then.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I say we BAN "Innovation"
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:52:03 +0000
> Our powerful Plug-N-Play servers built with redundant power-supplies and
> processors featuring Intel "suckyourwalletdry" technology provides
> intelligent, high-availability multimedia solutions for your
> enterprise's secure e-Business needs.
AAArrrgh!
Oh. You forgot innovative.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 00:58:35 +0000
Christian Brandt wrote:
> =
> About my background:
> =
> In late 1993 I tried NetBSD0.9 and was disgusted :-)
> In early 1994 I tried Slackware and Suse-Linux (both were pretty much
> equal then) and since then I am a loyal chameleon ;-)
> Later I also worked with Solaris, FreeBSD, Debian, Slackware, AIX, some=
> oldish HPUX (eek, it even used ps -edaf in good, reallyreally old
> BSD-syntax :-)
> =
> And from what I have seen I realize: Even for the hardcore admin a
> gnuish world looks much brighter than a bsdish world. But don=B4t tell =
my
> coworkers, most have never used linux but installed BSD even way before=
> I did ;-)
> =
> Their arguments typically sound like this:
> =
> "myfavouriteBSD Version reallynew is better for servers than your
> Slackware 0.1"
> =
> or in other words:
> =
> "its faster" (hum... as soon as you switch on softupdates on ufs it is
> comparable to linux, but not faster, its memorymanagment seems to be a
> bit smarter, so some daemons perform 5-10% better as long as I do not
> handoptimize linux or use a small, modulized kernel - which seems to be=
> a sacrilege for BSD, most of our systems run with some >>4MB
> All-Inclusive-Kernel...
> =
> "its smarter" well, I never got a more detailed answer than "make
> world", so I guess apt-get or yast-updates or even a mere
> packaging-system without 100Megs of Sources and hours of compiling just=
> don=B4t count :-)
> =
> "its more directed at powerfull servermanagment" well, maybe its just
> me, but even cut seems to be mangled to uselessness in BSD, not to
> mention find and tar...
> I WANT HUNDREDS OF OPTIONS AS LONG AS I ACTUALLY NEED THEM.
> =
> "its more stable" uhm.. what can I say? I have seen all kinds of
> =
> "no exploits" Hahaha! Most exploits are targeted at applications and no=
t
> the kernel. Basetools are mostly not targets of exploits. A Apache or
> sendmail running at bsd is as vulnerable as under linux. Or to be more
> precise, you need to exploit a specific bug and thats mostly bound to
> the specific release of the OS, like Suse7.1, Slackware7.1, Debian2.2r2=
,
> FreeBSD4.2, AIX5 (well, would be fun ;-), Solaris7, NetBSD1.4, Suse4.4.=
1
> and so on...
> =
> "the kernel is more powerfull" actually BSD-folk stopped to use this
> argument one year ago. Seems like they finally realized that you can
> shit into any recent computer and expect linux to deliver a driver for
> it :-)
> =
> Based on the rather rude behaviour of most BSD-folks against Linux I ca=
n
> just say: Consider this post as a flame and realize you are walking on
> thin ice. Ignorance makes you comfortable, but not powerfull.
> =
> This is my personal opinion.
> =
> --
> Christian Brandt
Well , on a technical level, BSD is smarter, better etc. A linux box
woth enough RAM is as good as far as the average user is concerned
-- =
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What the hell is MS thinking?
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 19:07:06 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 23:05:54 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> > Why do you need plug-n-play? You don't put adapters in your servers?
> > No SCSI cards? No Tape Backups? No Modems or Network Cards?
>
> I don't put ISA SCSI or network cards in my servers (except the odd 486
> firewall box). Don't need no steenking plug-n-pray with PCI.
PnP was actually designed for PCI, and was later adapted to ISA, which is
why it's called ISA PnP to differentiate between them.
Hell, PnP includes external devices, such as external modems, USB, FireWire
devices, etc...
You might want to read:
http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Plug-and-Play-HOWTO-2.html#ss2.1
------------------------------
From: Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:00:15 GMT
Ian Davey wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >moooo wrote:
> >>
> ><large amount of steam engine stuff snipped>
> >> >
> >> > How did we get on this topic, anyway?
> >> > -- Marten Kemp
> >> >
> >> Why you in a sad 80s new romantic band by any chance Marten?
> >
> >Huh? If this was a question about me being in a band, no. Otherwise,
> >pleas rephrase the question a bit more coherently.
>
> He's referring to the fact you share a name with the singer of 80's
> band Spandau Ballet, who is currently a soap opera actor.
>
> ian.
>
> \ /
> (@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
> /(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
> | |
Ah. Nope. Never heard of the other one.
-- Marten Kemp
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KDE or DOJ ?
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:03:57 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Frnk N. Puppenstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Which will beat down M$ the most ? KDE-2.1 looks pretty damn good. And
> > the price is right.
>
> Have you used KDE extensively? It's not bad, but it's not the Explorer
> killer that you seem to think it is. It's still way to complicated to
> configure (have you actually tried looking through the configuration
> settings?)
you DON'T HAVE TO LOOK THROUGH THE SETTINGS. It works without that
effort, if you accept the default look. It (along with Gnome) *will*
kill winblows.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:03:29 +1300
> I'm not clear on why you think it is fair to compare the OEM price of
> Windows with the retail price of a game. They are different products
> that have different economics and are sold in different ways.
Are games really all that different to Windows?
Game programmers are rushing out shoddy barely working games in order to
make a profit. They rely on the net for their ability to distribute
patch after patch after patch because the original was rushed and poorly
conceived. Games can be frustrating, e.g in adventure games you can get
stuck in a situation in which you have no idea what to do next... you
start clicking on random things hoping and praying that you will
accidentally do the magic 'right thing' and get past the hurdle.
Game programmers often hype up their products before they're developed,
and users are left feeling less than satisfied. A few users who bought
into the hype for these games before they were released are unable to
admit to themselves that the game sucks, so they join some newsgroups and
flame and troll all the people who don't like the game.
Sounds extremely similar to a situation we have right now with operating
systems... if you add in the idea that most people's windows time is
spent playing solitaire....
------------------------------
From: Marten Kemp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:04:03 GMT
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> Marten Kemp wrote:
> >
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > On 27 Feb 2001 09:09:33 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
> > > >Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >But the argument I've just offered is pretty much the same as the one
> > > >you objected to. I'm officially confused now.
> > >
> > > No, it's completely different. Read the other argument. The other argument
> > > said (essentially) that "DOS pipes can't do everything that UNIX pipes
> > > can do, therefore they are not pipes". This argument is obviously
> > > inadequate (unless you use "UNIX pipe" as a definition of pipe, which
> > > sort of defines the argument into triviality)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
> > > elflord at panix dot com
> >
> > Actually, neither are *real* pipes. CMS PIPELINES is one of the three
> > most powerful environments in the known universe, along with REXX and
> > XEDIT. Oh, we're talking about PCs here? Then go on arguing.
> >
> > Sorry, couldn't help it. At least you'll have the opportunity to
> > disparage mainframes instead of each other.
> > [grins and dons Nomex underwear]
> > *Real* operating systems can run other operating systems, including
> > copies of themselves. *Real* machines can have a dozen processors, a
> > dozen or so gigs of memory and several terabytes of data on a single
> > box.
>
> Linux can do that.
>
> >
> > -- Marten Kemp
> > VM/ESA systems admin
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
How does run Linux as a guest of Linux?
-- Marten Kemp
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Windows guy.
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001 01:09:04 +0000
>>> A single-tasking OS is fundamentally incapable of fulfilling this
>>> definition properly.
>>
>>
>> A simpler definition is:
>>
>> a mechanism which allows the output of one process to be put in to the
>> input of another process in the order that it (the data) was outputted.
>>
>> DOS pipes still do not satisfy this definition.
>
> Pedant point: Yes, they do. While the data is long stale by the time
Not quite.
There are examples of programs I can run where the output of the first
program will never reach the input of the second under DOS pipes, but
will always work under a multitasking syetem (under my definition of
pipes). Since DOS pipes do not fit the definition, they are not pipes.
prog_that_will_never_finish | some_other_prog
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
Share, and enjoy. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
