Why should I keep advocating Linux?
spicerun
During the time I've tried to advocate Linux, I keep getting flamed
about how I'm not doing advocating Linux correctly. I'm afraid that the
right way to advocate Linux seems to be to just say nothing, run Linux
on my own systems, and say nothing hoping that the other people see what
I'm running and flock to my machine to find out more about Linux. I've
done this but I've never had this happen.
It seems I can't say Linux is ready for prime time, nor am I allowed to
say that it will ever be ready for prime time in order to properly
advocate Linux. I find this very hard to do since I've been running
Linux on my machines for the past 2 years, and have been able to get my
work done in prime time (including doing work for my employer on my
laptop running linux). So when am I going to be able to advocate that
it is ready for prime time? Apparently, even hinting that Linux is
ready for Prime Time is being a 'bad' Linvocate.
I seem to have to join a group philosophy that Linux has to be compared
to Windows. I really don't understand why. My research into the
history of Linux has pretty well convinced me that Windows was nowhere a
factor into the creation and development of Linux. Furthermore, a lot
of people keep popping off about how KDE and Gnome are both Windows
look-alike, but what I see is that KDE is more of enhanced CDE Desktop,
and Gnome seems to be a cross/enhancement of Motif Window Manager and
CDE (Common Desktop Environment). So, why in the process of advocating
must I keep measuring Linux progress against Windows?
I seem to have to join a group philosophy that Linux has to have a
single GUI standard just like Windows. I can't buy this and I just
won't.....I enjoy my freedom of choice, and really appreciate that I can
make my machine look like Motif or CDE or Windows or Amiga or Atari or
Macintosh or just a simple Unix only Desktop on an account by account
basis. However this seems to make me an improper Linux advocate.
And, finally, I've read the Linux Advocacy-HOWTO, and all I really get
out of it is to show Linux by example, but don't buck the Windows
hierarchy. I don't understand how we can promote Linux if we don't let
the world know that Linux is here, yet we can just take it when the
Wintrolls keep spreading their lies about Linux. I just don't think
this philosophy will ever get Linux in a position where people will even
look at it.
So I guess I have to conclude that I'm not a Linvocate that plays by the
Linux Advocacy rules (who made these rules anyhow?). Comments?
Bobby D. Bryant
> So I guess I have to conclude that I'm not a Linvocate that plays by the
> Linux Advocacy rules (who made these rules anyhow?). Comments?
Frankly, I was never the club-joining toe-the-line type, so I advocate
whatever I want however I want.
I do recognize that excesses in advocacy can have the opposite of the
intended effect, but that's true whatever you are advocating.
So advocate however you please, staying aware that keeping one's head
screwed on is advantageous. Take the how-to as advice, but not as law.
And when people start pushing for too much conformity, break rhythm just to
show you still can.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Brandon Van Every
"spicerun" <spice...@soon.com> wrote in message
news:39FA3B5D...@soon.com...
> To the Wintrolls.....Go Away! This post has nothing to do with you.
>
> During the time I've tried to advocate Linux, I keep getting flamed
> about how I'm not doing advocating Linux correctly.
>
>
> So I guess I have to conclude that I'm not a Linvocate that plays by
the
> Linux Advocacy rules (who made these rules anyhow?). Comments?
Before vanishing into the ether from whence I came, I hope to give some
of you younger souls a vision of your future. You think this is about
Linux. It isn't. It's about newsgroups. You are almost completely
wasting your time and your life hanging out in *.advocacy newsgroups
discussing anything. It doesn't really matter if the subject is Linux
or game development or politics or religion or racism or whatever. The
only real value in advocacy discussion is as a training ground for
engineers. Competition in the arena of implementation ideas keeps the
brain sharp. But such conversation must be pursued by sharp brains, who
have an achievable objective. Arguing about religious issues is
dull-witted. And with time and industry experience, you'll realize that
the PC industry has some inherent limitations of efficiency and
engineering quality. Once you obtain this enlightenment you'll start
incorporating these constraints into your design decisions. You'll see
why Linux sucks. You'll see why Windows sucks. You'll see that they
suck differently.
Linux was "neat" for the first 3 years that I was learning everything
about it. Then it got old. After you've learned everything about its
basic capabilities it only continues to be "neat" if you DO something
with those capabilities. That's a much higher level of engineering
concern: what's the application? Are you trying to network virtual
worlds together, or are you easily amused by the fact that you can
manually compile some source code?
--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA
Charlie Ebert
They will never sway enough public opinion to change
anything and this is NOT what newsgroups are for.
What they are for is to CONFIRM in your own mind
your core philosophy's against those of others.
To find the error in your own ways.
And to weed out those philosophy's which are based
in misconception.
This is why time and time again, Chad Meyers keeps coming
here. He keeps supporting Microsoft performance, features,
security, price when they have lost on all the grounds listed.
They can't even keep some hackers out of their corporate
server site containing W2K code, yet he will argue with
you about Microsoft security until his penis falls off.
The reason he argues is he KNOWS HE'S WRONG!
Your going down the WRONG ROAD CHAD and that's
disturbing to him.
It goes against his EGO and right now his EGO is
the only power left in the Microsoft arena.
Microsoft is not just an operating system for people
like Chad. It's the ONLY thing they've ever known!
Microsoft is the China man's Opium!
And he will LASH OUT like a wild man in defiance
to anybody who wants to stop him from taking
his DRUGS despite the FACT that the drug
is KILLING HIM.
He is a classic example of a person who has
NO PRIVATE CONVICTION but rather
has sold his SOLE and in it's place has
inserted MICROSOFT.
And much of America is that way.
Anytime anything Microsoft has which gets
stolen, defaced or broken into, they BLAME
the PERSON WHO DID IT!
Think about that! My car was stolen but
YOU REFUSE TO PUT IN A CAR ALARM!
My HOUSE was broken into yet I refuse
to install an alarm and replace the screen door
with a real door!
Only in the COMPUTER world do we seem
to have this CONFLICT of INTEREST in people
like CHAD! They are SICK and they will NEVER
HEAL until we have RID them of this evil and
forced them to come to their senses!
Clearly it IS a sickness this Microsoft thing and
Clearly CHAD is very ill! Remember PETE GOODWIN.
PETE was once a dribbling WIN TROLL but he started
developing his common sense and now he's 50/50.
Pete was one of the worst forms of verbal diarrhea I've
seen in 5 years on COLA and now he says he's waiting
for Kylix so he can start developing his software on
Linux.
Pete was SAVED but CHAD is still ILL!
CHAD has been doing this for quite a long time now
and it may be we have to wait for Microsoft to BANKRUPT
their OS division before we can save his SICK MIND.
This is what the good of Advocacy IS!
It helps people get their heads bolted back on again
after having them locked in the MYTH of MICROSOFT VAULT!
Charlie
Brandon Van Every wrote:
--
Charlie
By 2005 Microsoft will be displaced by
LINUX - THE POWER OF A GNU GENERATION!
threska
<kd...@mmcable.com> wrote:
> I'll tell you what advocacy groups are good for Brandon.
>
> They will never sway enough public opinion to change anything and this
> is NOT what newsgroups are for.
>
> What they are for is to CONFIRM in your own mind your core philosophy's
> against those of others.
>
> To find the error in your own ways.
>
> And to weed out those philosophy's which are based in misconception.
Amen, brother.
[Laying of hands story snipped]
>
> This is what the good of Advocacy IS! It helps people get their heads
> bolted back on again after having them locked in the MYTH of MICROSOFT
> VAULT!
>
Wonderful therapy that Linux.
[snip]
2:1
You keep spouting on bollocks about engineering, like you know what
you're talking about. Are you one?
I can proove I am one (or at least a student one at any rate)
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
ReeferFor...@usa.com
"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:39FB1267...@mmcable.com...
>
> He is a classic example of a person who has
> NO PRIVATE CONVICTION but rather
> has sold his SOLE and in it's place has
> inserted MICROSOFT.
Windows is used by 92% on the desktop, and about 40 % on the server
market...Windows wins...*nix loose...
Bob Lyday
Bob
"Is our children learning?" George Bush, genius and Presidential
candidate, 2000.
Remove "diespammersdie" to reply.
Eddie Dubourg
"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote in message
news:39FB1267...@mmcable.com...
: I'll tell you what advocacy groups are good for Brandon.
:
: They will never sway enough public opinion to change
: anything and this is NOT what newsgroups are for.
:
: What they are for is to CONFIRM in your own mind
: your core philosophy's against those of others.
:
: To find the error in your own ways.
:
: And to weed out those philosophy's which are based
: in misconception.
I think everyone has their own reasons for being here.
Me, I administer NT boxes, Linux Boxes, Mac Boxes, a Netware Server, and a
W2K server. I'm here because sometimes the arguments are hilarious, but
mainly because in their determination to prove one system is better than
another system, people give incredibly brilliant tips which I can then use
on the various systems I use.
E
William Olsen
> So I guess I have to conclude that I'm not a Linvocate that plays by the
> Linux Advocacy rules (who made these rules anyhow?). Comments?
Hehe -
I came to this newsgroup looking for a Fontographer-like font editor for
linux - what I found is some refreshingly coherent discourse on this
industry - thank you people.
I agree with you spicerun - advocacy of anything can be an exasperating
use of one's time. I go through this with Mac people - god what a bunch
of fanatics they are. A rumor of anything new at a Macworld show is like
smuggled nachos at a Pritikin conference. But at least these people have
something solid to support. And increasingly, though I am quite new to
Linux, I am finding that it's advocacy is definitely worthwhile.
We have to look, however, at what it is that we are advocating is really
revolutionizing. I of course am impressed to hell by Linux's stability
and power. But it's real contribution to the computer industry lies in
the way it offers a viable alternative to the way software is written
and distributed. Taking the real creativity in this business out of the
hands of huge companies is extremely compelling. Not to mention it's
value to education. In addition to learning programming in a classroom,
students can participate in a real live development process, along with
just about anyone else in the world who has something to contribute.
Just my 2 cents. Thanks again people
Bill Olsen
Pete Goodwin
> Clearly CHAD is very ill! Remember PETE GOODWIN.
8)
> PETE was once a dribbling WIN TROLL but he started
> developing his common sense and now he's 50/50.
> Pete was one of the worst forms of verbal diarrhea I've
> seen in 5 years on COLA and now he says he's waiting
> for Kylix so he can start developing his software on
> Linux.
Snigger...
I think the only person I can see here on the group with verbal
diarrhoea is you Charlie. Your rants and raves are really quite amusing
to read.
As long as everyone remember they're not based on any kind of factual
evidence, of course!
> Pete was SAVED but CHAD is still ILL!
> CHAD has been doing this for quite a long time now
> and it may be we have to wait for Microsoft to BANKRUPT
> their OS division before we can save his SICK MIND.
Chuckle. Oh please save me from the evil Shaitan!
> This is what the good of Advocacy IS!
> It helps people get their heads bolted back on again
> after having them locked in the MYTH of MICROSOFT VAULT!
Roll-on-the-floor-laughing-until-my-head-explodes!
Oh boy Charlie, you do take the biscuit sometimes!
--
---
Pete
Why don't I use Linux? I'm waiting for Delphi to appear on Linux...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jake Taense
>They can't even keep some hackers out of their corporate
>server site containing W2K code, yet he will argue with
>you about Microsoft security until his penis falls off.
One piece of advice - when advocating, avoid making stupid, incorrect claims
like the above, because when you obviously don't know what you are talking
about, the rest of your post is snipped as useless.
Everything I've read indicates the hackers/crackers/whatever were NOT able to
access any OS or Office code. Show me a single, reputable source that claims
the individuals managed to get to the operating system source servers, and
I'll retract my post.
>The reason he argues is he KNOWS HE'S WRONG!
What do you know? The rest of the post was:
<snipped as useless>
Terry Porter
>In article <39FB1267...@mmcable.com>, Charlie Ebert <kd...@mmcable.com> wrote:
>
><snipped as useless>
<plonk another Wintroll>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours 22 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Weevil
Eddie Dubourg <ed...@ling.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8tk3aq$au7$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
I started reading this group (COLA) a couple of weeks ago in hopes of making
a decision on what distribution to upgrade to. I'm using RedHat 6.1 right
now, and I thought I'd give one of the others a try. I thought this would
be a good place to look.
Ha.
I was shocked to find that this group is utterly infested with Windows fans
whose only purpose seems to be to bash Linux, no matter what. They also
spend a lot of time insulting Linux advocates.
It turns out that this is a one-way street. I checked out
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and the only windows bashing I saw there was
from cross-posted articles. No articles that were confined to COM-WA
contained any Windows bashing. There *are*, however, quite a number of
COLA-only threads, started by Windows fans, that do nothing but bash Linux.
In other words, some Windows users, for whatever reason, camp out in COLA
and spend hours and hours bashing Linux and insulting its users. Maybe they
do it in macintosh and os2 groups, too. Haven't looked in there.
What this says about hard-core Windows fanatics, I will leave to the reader
to determine.
jwb
PS: I finally decided on my own to get the first distribution I saw with
the 2.4 kernel. That turned out to be Caldera's "Technology Preview"
release. 2.4 kernel, KDE 2.0, XFree86 4.0.1. I'll install it some time
this week, but I'll probably keep reading COLA. Some of it is entertaining,
some informative. Most of it is bullshit, of course, but most of everything
is bullshit.
pac...@my-deja.com
"Weevil" <craft...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[snip]
Pretty much the same here. I lurked this NG for quite awhile and was
absolutely aghast at the venom and vitriol that the Winvocates had for
their Linonut cousins. I was at the time an NT admin, and some of the
absolutely incredible statements about NT's capabilities versus Linux
convinced me to give Linux a try. I've had a lot of fun with Linux since
then, and can only say "thanks" to the MSFT crowd who pointed me in this
direction.
Chad Myers
"Jake Taense" <jak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:39fdd...@eccles.iplenergy.com...
> In article <39FB1267...@mmcable.com>, Charlie Ebert <kd...@mmcable.com>
wrote:
>
> >They can't even keep some hackers out of their corporate
> >server site containing W2K code, yet he will argue with
> >you about Microsoft security until his penis falls off.
>
> One piece of advice - when advocating, avoid making stupid, incorrect claims
> like the above, because when you obviously don't know what you are talking
> about, the rest of your post is snipped as useless.
>
> Everything I've read indicates the hackers/crackers/whatever were NOT able to
> access any OS or Office code. Show me a single, reputable source that claims
> the individuals managed to get to the operating system source servers, and
> I'll retract my post.
>
Facts? Ha! Charlie has no concept of facts, proof, logic, etc.
Whatever sounds good to him and fits the cause it the post d'jour.
He's the Poster boy for Linux Advocacy.
-Chad
Chad Myers
"Terry Porter" <tjpo...@gronk.apana.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn8vs3rq....@gronk.apana.org.au...
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 20:43:16 GMT, Jake Taense <jak...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >In article <39FB1267...@mmcable.com>, Charlie Ebert <kd...@mmcable.com>
wrote:
> >
>
> ><snipped as useless>
>
> <plonk another Wintroll>
*PL0NK* Another stupid Linvocate unwilling to accept facts.
Please, show us where there is an article stating that, in fact,
Windows source code was stolen.
-Chad
R.E.Ballard
spicerun <spice...@soon.com> wrote:
> To the Wintrolls.....Go Away! This post has nothing to do with you.
>
> During the time I've tried to advocate Linux,
> I keep getting flamed about how I'm not doing
> advocating Linux correctly.
Any advocacy is better than nothing. Ideally we want to be as honest
and realistic as possible. We want to set realistic expectations,
and we don't want to make rediculous claims (like "using Linux will
get you laid":-).
You have had positive experiences with Linux, and you want to tell
others about your positive experiences.
This might not be the best time to discuss the features that will be
offered in 2.4, but it's still good to discuss the features that are
supported officially.
> I'm afraid that the right way to advocate
> Linux seems to be to just say nothing,
> run Linux on my own systems, and say
> nothing hoping that the other people see what
> I'm running and flock to my machine to
> find out more about Linux. I've
> done this but I've never had this happen.
I've been pretty successful at creating Linux "showcases", putting
a Linux powered system in a location that makes it easy to see that
Linux is more than just "a text only system based on UNIX".
> It seems I can't say Linux is ready for prime time,
Sure you can. Bless any of the formally released versions. I
personally like Mandrake and SuSE for desktop use, and Red Hat
for servers.
> nor am I allowed to say that it will ever be ready
> for prime time in order to properly advocate Linux.
Actually, several versions of Linux have been released that have
produced extraordinary results. There are more goodies coming up,
but you need to focus on "What Is" rather than beta releases that
may be months away.
> I find this very hard to do since I've been running
> Linux on my machines for the past 2 years, and have
> been able to get my work done in prime time
> (including doing work for my employer on my
> laptop running linux).
Very good. You might want to put some of this information on
web pages and get it documented.
There are WinTrolls who will disguise themselves as Linvocates
saying that you shouldn't say that.
> So when am I going to be able to advocate that
> it is ready for prime time? Apparently, even hinting that Linux is
> ready for Prime Time is being a 'bad' Linvocate.
Actually, we know that Linux IS ready for Prime Time. The currently
available official releases are remarkable. They still provide
massive "bang for the buck".
No, there is no officially released kernel that supports USB scanners,
fire-wires hard-drives, and very large files. These will have to come
later. They aren't supported in any current official release.
So don't focus what isn't available. Focus on what is available.
You still have support for USB mice and Keyboards, parallel port
EPP drives such as Zip and Jazz, and CD-Burners. You can focus
on what Linux does do well today.
> I seem to have to join a group philosophy
> that Linux has to be compared to Windows.
> I really don't understand why.
Quite simply, there are about 500 million Windows users. They
have known and played with Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, and 98. A much
smaller group has played with NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and Windows 2000.
> My research into the
> history of Linux has pretty well convinced
> me that Windows was nowhere a
> factor into the creation and development of Linux.
The main significance was that Microsoft had successfully blocked
Linux' entry into the marketplace from about 1994 (Yddragasil,
Slackware, Red Hat) to 2000. The OEMs did plan a series of linux
releases, but delays in the 2.4 kernel and planned implementation
using USB, FireWire, and streaming video (large files) has put
the entire product line on hold.
> Furthermore, a lot
> of people keep popping off about how KDE
> and Gnome are both Windows
> look-alike, but what I see is that
> KDE is more of enhanced CDE Desktop,
You are correct. KDE is loosely based on CDE look-and-feel.
Given that CDE is normally only available on $10,000-$80,000 UNIX
workstations, it's not exactly a well-known desktop. Only about
10 million people, mostly very technical, have ever seen CDE close-up.
Of course, few people have driven a Porsche or Corvette either, but
at least millions have SEEN Corvettes and Porsches. The few UNIX
displays seen in the media have been things like La Femme Nikita,
the Norad display on War Games, and some science fiction shows.
And even then, the use of time-lapse photography to make displays
go about 10 times faster than the real thing just completely blow
credibility.
> and Gnome seems to be a cross/enhancement
> of Motif Window Manager and
> CDE (Common Desktop Environment).
Correct again. GNOME uses Athena 3-D which was the enhanced
open source version of the original Athena extended to provide
the look and feel of Motif. Lestif was an attempt to bring
most of the Motif API to Athena. And GNOME much better toolkit,
including CORBA (distributed) support.
> So, why in the process of advocating
> must I keep measuring Linux progress against Windows?
Nothing wrong with comparing it to other things. You could compare
it to an I-Mac, or to an Ultra, or an HP/9000 workstation, or an
RS/6000 workstation. But you would have to have some way to show
people what the original looked like.
The paradox is that NTSC video can't display UNIX displays with
2048x1536 resolution. Perhaps the most dramatic Linux exposure
was the use of Linux on "Titanic", but even then the actual graphics
display consoles were SGI Indy's.
> I seem to have to join a group philosophy
> that Linux has to have a
> single GUI standard just like Windows.
Sounds like you've been hammered by some WinTrolls.
As Bob Young says, the primary selling point of Linux is
that the user get control. They can choose which window
manager, desktop, toolkits, office suites, and groupware
products they want. Since there are standards which are
common between the choices, the user has the freedom to
choose.
> I can't buy this and I just
> won't.....I enjoy my freedom of choice,
Precisely. If you didn't want choice, you'd go back to
Microsoft.
> and really appreciate that I can
> make my machine look like Motif or CDE or
> Windows or Amiga or Atari or
> Macintosh or just a simple Unix only
> Desktop on an account by account
> basis.
More important, you can set your configurations based on your
performance and capability needs.
> However this seems to make me an improper Linux advocate.
Actually, this makes you a very good Linux Advocate. It might
not qualify you as a KDE advocate, but that's fine. So long as
KDE continues to support ICCCM, you can mix and match GNOME, KDE,
FVWM2, or any other tool-kit/desktop combination.
This is hard for people to grasp. Many people don't realize that
TCP/IP makes it possible for hundreds of different types of computers,
including several different operating systems, manufacturers, and
performance levels, to interoperate seemlessly.
> And, finally, I've read the Linux Advocacy-HOWTO,
> and all I really get out of it is to show Linux by example,
> but don't buck the Windows hierarchy.
Unfortunately, Windows bashing is often threatening to those who
have never used anything but Windows. By making comparisons between
the best of Windows and showing how Linux goes a step beyond, you
tend to make more friends and fewer enemies among the Linux community.
> I don't understand how we can promote Linux if we don't let
> the world know that Linux is here, yet we can just take it when the
> Wintrolls keep spreading their lies about Linux.
Lately I've noticed that there seem to be a bunch of WinTrolls
posing as Linux Advocates. They attempt to argue that Linux
developers DONT CARE about making money, or even gaining commercial
acceptance.
It's a pretty good strategy. I've even been suckered by it.
If they can get the Linux advocates attacking each other, they
can undermine the credibility of Linux as a business, desktop,
and consumer platform.
The old arguments that Linux was too hard to install disappear with
products like TiVo and NetPliance machines that let even the most
computerphobic users have fun with Linux "Appliances".
The possibility of seeing fully installed, fully functional Linux
systems on Workstations and laptops in the $1000-$2000 range
creates the possibility of something really exciting. It could
easily blow the Windows market wide-open.
> I just don't think this philosophy will ever
> get Linux in a position where people will
> even look at it.
Precisely the point. WinTrolls are using deception, posing as
"politically correct" advocates.
> So I guess I have to conclude that
> I'm not a Linvocate that plays by the
> Linux Advocacy rules (who made these rules anyhow?).
There are some people who are legitimately upset with Linus for
the delays to 2.4 (including myself), but if you look at press
releases from Bob Young, Ransom Love, and the other hundreds
of corporate leaders who put their butt on the line for Linux
every day, you can see that you aren't so far off.
> Comments?
Just keep doing what you're doing. Let people know what you love
about Linux TODAY.
>
--
Rex Ballard - VP I/T Architecture
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 10/23/00)
R.E.Ballard
>
> During the time I've tried to advocate Linux,
> I keep getting flamed about how I'm not doing
> advocating Linux correctly.
Any advocacy is better than nothing. Ideally we want to be as honest
and realistic as possible. We want to set realistic expectations,
and we don't want to make rediculous claims (like "using Linux will
get you laid":-).
You have had positive experiences with Linux, and you want to tell
others about your positive experiences.
This might not be the best time to discuss the features that will be
offered in 2.4, but it's still good to discuss the features that are
supported officially.
> I'm afraid that the right way to advocate
> Linux seems to be to just say nothing,
> run Linux on my own systems, and say
> nothing hoping that the other people see what
> I'm running and flock to my machine to
> find out more about Linux. I've
> done this but I've never had this happen.
I've been pretty successful at creating Linux "showcases", putting
a Linux powered system in a location that makes it easy to see that
Linux is more than just "a text only system based on UNIX".
> It seems I can't say Linux is ready for prime time,
Sure you can. Bless any of the formally released versions. I
personally like Mandrake and SuSE for desktop use, and Red Hat
for servers.
> nor am I allowed to say that it will ever be ready
> for prime time in order to properly advocate Linux.
Actually, several versions of Linux have been released that have
produced extraordinary results. There are more goodies coming up,
but you need to focus on "What Is" rather than beta releases that
may be months away.
> I find this very hard to do since I've been running
> Linux on my machines for the past 2 years, and have
> been able to get my work done in prime time
> (including doing work for my employer on my
> laptop running linux).
Very good. You might want to put some of this information on
web pages and get it documented.
There are WinTrolls who will disguise themselves as Linvocates
saying that you shouldn't say that.
> So when am I going to be able to advocate that
> it is ready for prime time? Apparently, even hinting that Linux is
> ready for Prime Time is being a 'bad' Linvocate.
Actually, we know that Linux IS ready for Prime Time. The currently
available official releases are remarkable. They still provide
massive "bang for the buck".
No, there is no officially released kernel that supports USB scanners,
fire-wires hard-drives, and very large files. These will have to come
later. They aren't supported in any current official release.
So don't focus what isn't available. Focus on what is available.
You still have support for USB mice and Keyboards, parallel port
EPP drives such as Zip and Jazz, and CD-Burners. You can focus
on what Linux does do well today.
> I seem to have to join a group philosophy
> that Linux has to be compared to Windows.
> I really don't understand why.
Quite simply, there are about 500 million Windows users. They
have known and played with Windows 3.1, 3.11, 95, and 98. A much
smaller group has played with NT 3.51, NT 4.0, and Windows 2000.
> My research into the
> history of Linux has pretty well convinced
> me that Windows was nowhere a
> factor into the creation and development of Linux.
The main significance was that Microsoft had successfully blocked
Linux' entry into the marketplace from about 1994 (Yddragasil,
Slackware, Red Hat) to 2000. The OEMs did plan a series of linux
releases, but delays in the 2.4 kernel and planned implementation
using USB, FireWire, and streaming video (large files) has put
the entire product line on hold.
> Furthermore, a lot
> of people keep popping off about how KDE
> and Gnome are both Windows
> look-alike, but what I see is that
> KDE is more of enhanced CDE Desktop,
You are correct. KDE is loosely based on CDE look-and-feel.
Given that CDE is normally only available on $10,000-$80,000 UNIX
workstations, it's not exactly a well-known desktop. Only about
10 million people, mostly very technical, have ever seen CDE close-up.
Of course, few people have driven a Porsche or Corvette either, but
at least millions have SEEN Corvettes and Porsches. The few UNIX
displays seen in the media have been things like La Femme Nikita,
the Norad display on War Games, and some science fiction shows.
And even then, the use of time-lapse photography to make displays
go about 10 times faster than the real thing just completely blow
credibility.
> and Gnome seems to be a cross/enhancement
> of Motif Window Manager and
> CDE (Common Desktop Environment).
Correct again. GNOME uses Athena 3-D which was the enhanced
open source version of the original Athena extended to provide
the look and feel of Motif. Lestif was an attempt to bring
most of the Motif API to Athena. And GNOME much better toolkit,
including CORBA (distributed) support.
> So, why in the process of advocating
> must I keep measuring Linux progress against Windows?
Nothing wrong with comparing it to other things. You could compare
it to an I-Mac, or to an Ultra, or an HP/9000 workstation, or an
RS/6000 workstation. But you would have to have some way to show
people what the original looked like.
The paradox is that NTSC video can't display UNIX displays with
2048x1536 resolution. Perhaps the most dramatic Linux exposure
was the use of Linux on "Titanic", but even then the actual graphics
display consoles were SGI Indy's.
> I seem to have to join a group philosophy
> that Linux has to have a
> single GUI standard just like Windows.
Sounds like you've been hammered by some WinTrolls.
As Bob Young says, the primary selling point of Linux is
that the user get control. They can choose which window
manager, desktop, toolkits, office suites, and groupware
products they want. Since there are standards which are
common between the choices, the user has the freedom to
choose.
> I can't buy this and I just
> won't.....I enjoy my freedom of choice,
Precisely. If you didn't want choice, you'd go back to
Microsoft.
> and really appreciate that I can
> make my machine look like Motif or CDE or
> Windows or Amiga or Atari or
> Macintosh or just a simple Unix only
> Desktop on an account by account
> basis.
More important, you can set your configurations based on your
performance and capability needs.
> However this seems to make me an improper Linux advocate.
Actually, this makes you a very good Linux Advocate. It might
not qualify you as a KDE advocate, but that's fine. So long as
KDE continues to support ICCCM, you can mix and match GNOME, KDE,
FVWM2, or any other tool-kit/desktop combination.
This is hard for people to grasp. Many people don't realize that
TCP/IP makes it possible for hundreds of different types of computers,
including several different operating systems, manufacturers, and
performance levels, to interoperate seemlessly.
> And, finally, I've read the Linux Advocacy-HOWTO,
> and all I really get out of it is to show Linux by example,
> but don't buck the Windows hierarchy.
Unfortunately, Windows bashing is often threatening to those who
have never used anything but Windows. By making comparisons between
the best of Windows and showing how Linux goes a step beyond, you
tend to make more friends and fewer enemies among the Linux community.
> I don't understand how we can promote Linux if we don't let
> the world know that Linux is here, yet we can just take it when the
> Wintrolls keep spreading their lies about Linux.
Lately I've noticed that there seem to be a bunch of WinTrolls
posing as Linux Advocates. They attempt to argue that Linux
developers DONT CARE about making money, or even gaining commercial
acceptance.
It's a pretty good strategy. I've even been suckered by it.
If they can get the Linux advocates attacking each other, they
can undermine the credibility of Linux as a business, desktop,
and consumer platform.
The old arguments that Linux was too hard to install disappear with
products like TiVo and NetPliance machines that let even the most
computerphobic users have fun with Linux "Appliances".
The possibility of seeing fully installed, fully functional Linux
systems on Workstations and laptops in the $1000-$2000 range
creates the possibility of something really exciting. It could
easily blow the Windows market wide-open.
> I just don't think this philosophy will ever
> get Linux in a position where people will
> even look at it.
Precisely the point. WinTrolls are using deception, posing as
"politically correct" advocates.
> So I guess I have to conclude that
> I'm not a Linvocate that plays by the
> Linux Advocacy rules (who made these rules anyhow?).
There are some people who are legitimately upset with Linus for
MH
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:8tltpq$5q4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <39FA3B5D...@soon.com>,
> spicerun <spice...@soon.com> wrote:
> > To the Wintrolls.....Go Away! This post has nothing to do with you.
> >
> > During the time I've tried to advocate Linux,
> > I keep getting flamed about how I'm not doing
> > advocating Linux correctly.
>
> Any advocacy is better than nothing. Ideally we want to be as honest
> and realistic as possible. We want to set realistic expectations,
> and we don't want to make rediculous claims (like "using Linux will
> get you laid":-).
Now if that isn't a completely flawed concept of advocacy.
Linux will get you laid is your example of <sic> rediculous<sic> claims?
I think it goes without saying that if Linux got anyone laid, said relaxed
anyone would not be in here babbling like a lunatic day in and day out.
I post here during my coffee break. Usually every morning.
Then I go about my business for the rest of the day & night.
Most of the regulars seem to post at all hours.
I guess it's not true that they only come out at night.
But, it makes perfect sense in explaining the why and what cola.
These are the facts as I see them:
The majority of regulars make absurd claims.
Don't back up these claims with facts.
When called on these 'facts', they make excuses.
Perhaps even threatening to "sue" you for libel.
Many lin_advocates can't spell.
Is it that you don't have a spell checker?
Don't know how to use it?
Or is the spell checker *that* lousy?
You want to see your words in lights, feed your ego,
run your virtual mouth, yet you won't take the time to see that your message
is coherent?
The *great* majority of posts concern Microsoft, not Linux.
Think about that for just a moment if you would.
What does that say about your group?
You lambaste 'win-trolls'. Truth be told without those very win-trolls you
would have absolutely nothing in here to cast bits about. Try it for one
week. Talk about nothing but what is good about Linux. Make suggestions to
better Linux. Talk nothing about MS. Nothing!
You'll die a tortuous and slow death. Because MS is all you really have to
talk about.
Sad, isn't it.
When called on this very issue one of your most staunch 'guru - status'
comrades, who once claimed to have been a proof writer, no less, threatens
to "sue" anyone who questions his hap-hazard use of the language during his
latest discourse of running MS and the people who write the code at MS down.
But, I see worse in here.
Misspellings, misuse of common contractions. General mangling of words.
Why would I take the word of someone who can't use his native tongue to
express his thoughts properly as technical gospel?
You make the argument about the quality of another persons work being
terrible to the point of embarrassment, then you either can't spell or argue
coherently, or don't take the time to do so. And that somehow gives YOU the
right to make fun of someone ELSE'S work?
Get a clue.
Same with this post.
You're going to give me a lesson on something in which the very lesson is
full of grammar and spelling mistakes? This is logic? A group that advocates
the use of a computer operating system, operated by people who can't
syntactically use their own spoken language, is to be taken as the *be all &
end all* source of computing expertise? My God people. Wake up.
You make the claim that "Any advocacy is better than nothing."
I think your sheep have indeed heeded your logic.
Read this group.
It does just as you advise.
It advocates nothing.
Cola is the true compliment to the universal set of conversational logic.
Colin R. Day
Sorry, but reality is not a product of voting.
Colin Day