On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 01:27, jennifer wrote:
> I agree. The fact that micro$oft prevents its users from being able
> to understand the source code is disconcerning. Users can go to
> school and learn everything there is to know about operating the
> system, but they will never understand the intimate details of the
> source. You shouldn't trust what you can't understand. (before I'm
> flamed...yes, I know nothing about the linux source code, nor how to
> use my system.
That's okay, this is a newbie list after all :-)
> At least with linux, you have the opportunity to discover everything
> about the system. Although all the dual-booters can attest that
> windows is easier to operate, I'm sure that as they get more
> familiar with linux, they will understand how powerful they can be
> over the system, and not the other way around.
> (As soon as I learn how *not* to trash my system, I won't use
> windows at all, but as it stands, I'm very good at trashing and
> rebuilding my Linux box!! :)
Since I was a little kid, I've loved to take things apart and put them
back together again. I would learn things well that way. Of course,
that meant that I sometimes broke things. GNU/Linux is no exception :-)
I used MS-DOS and Windos as my primary OS from 1985 to early 2000,
with a brief stint using OS/2. Even after all these years, I *still*
can't understand how its system is meant to be logical. DOS wasn't
bad, but Windos makes no sense at all. The registry is the worst piece
of software ever created -- I doubt even "Chief Software Architect"
Bill Gates knows all of it. GNU/Linux (and other Unices), on the other
hand, seems so clean and simple. Administration is easy since I either
already know or can easily find out what everything does. Managing
multiple users is especially simple compared to Windos (all versions,
including Win2K).
> Where's the control panel?? I can't find my cdrom!!, lol)
Dell tech-support correspondence (actual, but paraphrased):
"HELP! The drink holder broke off my computer"
"We don't have drink holders on our computers, sir."
"Well how come mine broke off then?!"
"Lemme see... What does it look like?"
"It had a motorised tray and it said '4x' on it."
Hmmm... What could this be? :-)
> Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > That reminds me of a bug that was found in Win95 and 98.
> > Apparently after 50 days of continuous uptime your system will
> > crash -- no matter what. Your machine could be sitting there idle
> > and it would still crash. What puzzles me is how someone actually
> > managed to find this bug. How can anyone get a day, let alone 50
> > days, of uptime out of their Windows machine?
> >
> > On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:15, jennifer wrote:
> > > If you think thtaa micro$oft having your password is bad, think
> > > of this....
> > >
> > > One company, huge monopoly, solely responsible for the source
> > > code on the worlds business and home computers for the past 20
> > > years....
> > >
> > > What if they were secretly implanting code in all there Os's
> > > that could shut down all systems on a specified date, unless we,
> > > the people submitted to Mr. Gates demands.
> > >
> > > Far-fetched yes, but impossible? My worry is not about
> > > micro$ofts monopoly...It is with the stringent secrecy in which
> > > the develop their products.
> > >
> > > Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:32, Solver wrote:
> > > > > Just as a note - I wouldn't mind if MS had my password. I
> > > > > would only mind if they could erase hard drive.
> > > >
> > > > If they had your password they COULD erase your hard drive.
> > > > They could get your e-mail, your credit card deails (if you
> > > > ever typed them into your computer) -- in fact anything they
> > > > wanted, from you. And if you didn't use a variant of NT (Win
> > > > 95/98/ME) you wouldn't even have a password. You would be left
> > > > wide-open for any script-kiddie to exploit. And if you DID use
> > > > a variant of NT, you would still be vulnerable, since
> > > > everybody knows that MS has a bad track record with bugs,
> > > > security and virii.
> > > >
> > > > > I hate when I reboot it twice a day, too.
> > > >
> > > > I reboot my computer once a week on average (i.e. I get about
> > > > a week of uptime). This rebooting is not due to any problem,
> > > > it's just because I feel like it. In my two years of using
> > > > GNU/Linux I have only had a few system crashes. Sure,
> > > > individual applications crash, but this doesn't affect the
> > > > rest of the system, and I can just restart that programme and
> > > > work as before.
> > > >
> > > > > I have Office XP, and the voice recognition really helps.
> > > > > Can't wait for it in StarOffice.
> > > >
> > > > IBM ViaVoice, which is FAR better than the voice recognition
> > > > in XP (IBM and Dragon are the best in the field), is also
> > > > available for GNU/Linux. BTW, did you actually PAY that much
> > > > money for Office XP? I can't remember when I last paid for
> > > > software (I think it was 1998, when Windows came pre-installed
> > > > on my then-new machine).
> > > >
> > > > > When I bought a PC, I was asked, do I want it's C: drive
> > > > > formatted, and said yes.
> > > > > Bill Gates said that the fact that everyone can recompile
> > > > > the source code is what he doesn't like about Linux. Perhaps
> > > > > he's right.
> > > >
> > > > Are you KIDDING?! What is wrong with being able to do that?
> > > > That has got to be Linux's greatest strength! You can compile
> > > > a kernel (or even a whole system) to suit YOUR own machine,
> > > > not some thing that MS wants you to buy to get "optimal
> > > > performance". I can customise my kernel to have what I want,
> > > > making it fully optimised for my particular combination of
> > > > hardware. For example, Mandrake's RPMs come pre-compiled for
> > > > an i586 (Pentium-class) procesors. I can squeeze a bit of
> > > > extra performance by recompiling the SRPM to an i686 binary,
> > > > since I have a Pentium II. If I have a multi-processor system,
> > > > I can compile for SMP, and take advantage of features like
> > > > multi-processor threading far better than a pre-compiled
> > > > Windows. Similarly, if I want to run GNU/Linux on a i386, I
> > > > can compile for that. What is WIndows XP optimised for? My
> > > > guess would be i686, i.e. a Pentium II or III. Try running it
> > > > on anything lower, and it will work painfully slow -- not just
> > > > because it is bloated and not designed for those processors,
> > > > but also because it is not and cannot be compiled for these
> > > > processors. Similarly, if I had an Athlon or a Pentium IV (or
> > > > an Alpha, a Power PC, a Sparc, an ARM, etc.), I could compile
> > > > my system for that processor especially, hence taking full
> > > > advantage of that particular processor. Windows, being
> > > > closed-source, cannot do this. GNU/Linux has the potential to
> > > > make use of new processor features like MMX, 3DNow! and
> > > > Streaming SIMD (AKA MMX2) far more efficiently and far better
> > > > than can Windows, or any Microsoft product for that matter.
> > > >
> > > > Did Uncle Bill actually give a reason for his concern, or do
> > > > you just believe him because he's rich?
> > > >
> > > > > Windows could be more customizable, though, even remaining
> > > > > closed-source.
> > > >
> > > > Windows can never be as configurable as GNU/Linux if it
> > > > remains closed soiurce. The best they can do is have options
> > > > (or even auto-detection) for features like MMX or multiple
> > > > processors. This doesn't mean they are (or can be) optimised
> > > > for them, though.
> > > >
> > > > > Solver
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Sridhar Dhanapalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: "Solver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Linux Newbie"
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 5:03 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [newbie] No-one uses Linux, says Microsoft
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:48, Solver wrote:
> > > > > > > I love Microsoft. I respect Bill Gates. Not only they
> > > > > > > ain't my enemies - they are my friends. Yes, I like
> > > > > > > Linux, it's enhanced functionality and especially
> > > > > > > stability, but Microsoft were the first to do it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since when was Windows stable? And even if it is, were
> > > > > > they really the "first to do it"? As a former Windows-user
> > > > > > (yes, I've even used Win2K), I can say that Windows is the
> > > > > > most crash-prone OS I've ever come across. If it wern't
> > > > > > for the lack of applications, I would've stayed with OS/2
> > > > > > and DOS instead of switching to WIndows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I believe that they're doing everything the right way.
> > > > > > > Also, the monopoly situation is very good for users. You
> > > > > > > can put your file on a disk, go to a friend being sure
> > > > > > > you'll find the same Windows and Word there. The worst I
> > > > > > > could imagine is this: Windows - 40%
> > > > > > > Linux - 30%
> > > > > > > MacOS - 10%
> > > > > > > BeOS - 5%
> > > > > > > Solaris - 5%
> > > > > > > Other - 5%
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This will never happen. Windows, GNU/Linux and MacOS will
> > > > > > dominate. BeOS and Solaris, while being excellent OSs,
> > > > > > will not survive on the desktop. Solaris still has a lot
> > > > > > of life on the server, though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then you would be usnure as to what will you find there.
> > > > > > > If Linux user, you had to save both for Linux and
> > > > > > > Windows formats, and Mac doesn't read these disks. So,
> > > > > > > you would need to know specifically where are you going,
> > > > > > > and what the PCs are there. Each time I go to repair a
> > > > > > > PC, I'm almost sure what I'll see there.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Microsoft love to create a "lock-in", or "venus flytrap"
> > > > > > situation. They entice you to use their products, and make
> > > > > > it very difficult for you to leave. MS Word's (before XP)
> > > > > > file format deliberately contains a lot of binary code,
> > > > > > making it difficult for a competitor to make an
> > > > > > import/export filter for it, and hence locking people into
> > > > > > MS Word. Internet Explorer accepts a twisted, proprietary
> > > > > > form of HTML, foring web designers to make pages that only
> > > > > > work best in IE (since it is the most widely used
> > > > > > browser). Since pages look best in IE, more people use it,
> > > > > > creating a viscous cycle.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Open standards and open file formats like W3C HTML and
> > > > > > other XML-based formats (e.g. the new OpenOffice and
> > > > > > Office XP formats) are what encourage innovation in the
> > > > > > industry, since they are fully open to everyone. The
> > > > > > StarOffice (now OpenOffice) people have done a wonderful
> > > > > > job at
> > > > > > reverse-engineering the binary MS Office formats. Parsing
> > > > > > the Office XP formats, being XML-based, has been much
> > > > > > easier for them, and has made them more competitive. With
> > > > > > open formats like this, it doesn't matter what programme
> > > > > > you use, or what platform you use. OpenOffice is shaping
> > > > > > up to be a real MS Office-killer, and it is available on a
> > > > > > multitude of platforms, including GNU/Linux and WIndows.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Microsoft are responsible for what they release. They
> > > > > > > provide the product to you, and given you buy it
> > > > > > > legally, they also provide you with support, updates,
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Like these?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092434,00.h
> > > > > >tml
> > > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2772328,00.h
> > > > > >tml
> > > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092585,00.h
> > > > > >tml
> > > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092661,00.h
> > > > > >tml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is a danger with closed-source software: you have no
> > > > > > idea what's inside. For all we know, everyone's passwords
> > > > > > are probably being forwarded to Microsoft.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can register at Linux Counter and
> > > > > > > others, but they won't give you that support, even
> > > > > > > though bug reporting is awesome.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can buy support from distro vendors (Mandrake, Red
> > > > > > Hat, etc.) This is just like any other software. You get
> > > > > > what you pay for. GNU/Linux is free, and you get free
> > > > > > support in the form of neewsgroups and mailing lists. If
> > > > > > you want official support, you have to pay. It still works
> > > > > > out cheaper than paying for propritary software, since
> > > > > > you're paying purely for support, not for the software.
> > > > > > You can't expect something for nothing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > And, another thing I love in Linux are the
> > > > > > > penguins. I love that they're everywhere, and one of my
> > > > > > > recompilation jobs will be to put even more penguins on
> > > > > > > their work at Linux desktop and applications. They just
> > > > > > > look cool - nice animals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tux rulez :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Also, I'd like to add that I hate to buy PC with
> > > > > > > preinstalled software. When I got one with preinstalled
> > > > > > > Windows (what I used then), the first thing I done was
> > > > > > > formatting C: and installing it myself. Now I use
> > > > > > > dual-boot W98, and Linux Mandrake. If I bought a PC with
> > > > > > > this dual boot, I'd still run Partition Magic and wipe
> > > > > > > it all, to install myself. I don't love when something
> > > > > > > is preinstalled. As a PC expert, I want to install
> > > > > > > everything myself - even if this is something I never
> > > > > > > installed. Yes, I did feel unsure installing Windows for
> > > > > > > the first time, as I also did installing Linux and BeOS
> > > > > > > for the first time. It all passes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you buy a new PC, chances are it'll have WIndows
> > > > > > pre-installed. Whether you actually use that or something
> > > > > > else doesn't matter, you are paying MS for it. Buying a
> > > > > > system without Windows can considerably lower the cost of
> > > > > > a PC (I think it is somewhere in the order of 10%).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It seems to me like you're simply believing all the FUD
> > > > > > vomited out by those at Microsoft and their allies (e.g.
> > >
> > > ZDNet). There is
> > >
> > > > > > more than one side to the coin.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Sridhar Dhanapalan.
> > > > > > "There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
> > > > > > LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
> > > > > > -- Jeremy S. Anderson
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Sridhar Dhanapalan.
> > > > "There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
> > > > LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a
> > > > coincidence." -- Jeremy S. Anderson
> >
> > --
> > Sridhar Dhanapalan.
> > "There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
> > LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
> > -- Jeremy S. Anderson
--
Sridhar Dhanapalan.
"There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
