How far is Linux behind Windows?
B Gruff
I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
What about Linux?
The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
Bill
ray
> Let me clarify that:-
>
> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
So what? The fact is that Linux is, basically, a Unix clone. Unix and
X-windows were functional and useable before MS Windows was. I was using
X-windows on DEC Ultrix in 1991.
billwg
available even yet. It is very much a specialty item and is available
only to those who seek it out. Linux on the desktop is not marketed to
anyone at this time.
> Bill
DFS
At least as early as 1997. RedHat 4.2 came with a window manager called
fvwm95, which mimiced Windows 95.
www.distrowatch.com is a handy site for reviewing historical Linux distros.
Though there were earlier distros, I believe Red Hat was the first to
release Linux in a retail box to computer stores (v 4.2 in 1997, at least
six years after Win3.0). Take a look and see how sparse it was back then.
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=redhat
> Bill
Peter Köhlmann
Well, tell this the stores in my hometown which sell it since years.
And no, you don't have to seek it out either. You pretty much stumble over
the boxes of different linux distros
Tim Smith
wrote:
> At least as early as 1997. RedHat 4.2 came with a window manager called
> fvwm95, which mimiced Windows 95.
>
> www.distrowatch.com is a handy site for reviewing historical Linux distros.
> Though there were earlier distros, I believe Red Hat was the first to
> release Linux in a retail box to computer stores (v 4.2 in 1997, at least
> six years after Win3.0). Take a look and see how sparse it was back then.
I bought Yggrasil in a store in the summer of 1994. I think they may
have been the first to sell a retail Linux in stores (and I don't think
the one I bought was their first release).
--
--Tim Smith
amosf
> B Gruff wrote:
>> Let me clarify that:-
>>
>> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>>
>> What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>>
>> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
>>
>> What about Linux?
>> The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
>> At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
>
> At least as early as 1997. RedHat 4.2 came with a window manager called
> fvwm95, which mimiced Windows 95.
RH 4.2 was the first distro I used heavily as I was using OS/2 at the time
which was superior to any of the MS offerings. I used slack and fvwm from
95 on, but by 97 I was using the KDE beta's (fvwm95 wasn't that great)
which ran quite well for beta software and showed linux as a point and
click style OS... By 1998 KDE was in a 1.0 release... I shifted to mandrake
in the first (5.2) version due to the kde interface.
The biggest hold up for early linux for my use was the lack of a good
browser.
--
-
I don't actually live here.
-
Liam Slider
> Let me clarify that:-
>
> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>
> What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>
> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
I wouldn't have called Windows 3.0 usable, isn't Windows 3.1 generally
considered the first time they came to a moderately usable GUI?
And I can assure you, that when 3.1 was around, so was Linux...and Linux
was in many ways superior. It had true multitasking, and working
networking. Hell, you could reasonably expect to connect to the internet
with it, and surf the early web. Windows was a complete joke in this
regard. And yes, it had X11. It was leaps and bounds ahead of Microsoft
even in 1992. It is *still* leaps and bounds ahead of Microsoft.
Peter Köhlmann
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:49:12 +0100, B Gruff wrote:
>
>> Let me clarify that:-
>>
>> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>>
>> What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>>
>> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
>
> I wouldn't have called Windows 3.0 usable, isn't Windows 3.1 generally
> considered the first time they came to a moderately usable GUI?
>
GUI wise, both were nearly identical
> And I can assure you, that when 3.1 was around, so was Linux...and Linux
> was in many ways superior.
Yes. But at that time, people had a lot of DOS-apps. Which still ran fine
(for small values of "fine") under Windows
> It had true multitasking, and working networking.
Well, windows had (sort of) "working" networking with Win95. Before that, it
was a crutch at best
< snip >
billwg
Marketed in the sense of a consumer market for a few hundred million
copies per year, Peter. Linux is for sale, in spots that change often,
but is not being promoted in any effective way. It is easy to promote
it in the server platform market because that is a small niche and
reachable via a limited number of trade publications. It is also a
"smart" market wherein the consumers see a requirement to keep
themselves informed on IT developments. Even then, it has mostly been a
story of cost reducing conventional Unix rather than replacing any
Windows systems in this market area.
billwg
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:49:12 +0100, B Gruff wrote:
>
>
>>Let me clarify that:-
>>
>>I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>>
>>What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>>
>>Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
>
>
> I wouldn't have called Windows 3.0 usable, isn't Windows 3.1 generally
> considered the first time they came to a moderately usable GUI?
>
that made people aware of GUI use in the first place. Apple was the GUI
standard then and not in use by many of the common folk. Win3.0 was the
first affordable color GUI and was a big hit. It was the trigger for
the breakup of the Microsoft/IBM love in because it threatened the OS/2
plans that IBM had for recapturing the PC market with PS/2, OS/2, and MCA.
It wasn't really that ready for prime time in terms of robustness, but
it was the start of it all.
> And I can assure you, that when 3.1 was around, so was Linux...and Linux
> was in many ways superior. It had true multitasking, and working
> networking. Hell, you could reasonably expect to connect to the internet
> with it, and surf the early web. Windows was a complete joke in this
> regard. And yes, it had X11. It was leaps and bounds ahead of Microsoft
> even in 1992. It is *still* leaps and bounds ahead of Microsoft.
>
You may be getting ahead of yourself, Liam! The histories seem to
differ, for example: http://www.tamos.net/ieee/history.html
Also, you need to view things in terms of their overall effect rather
than focusing on minutia that have so little effect on things.
Mark Kent
B Gruff <bbg...@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
> Let me clarify that:-
>
> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
What is Windows? There's nothing in the original Windows which
would function in the current versions, they're utterly different.
You even need to get DOS from something like DOSBOX now.
>
> What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>
> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
Only if you accept WinME as the last version of Windows to exist, which
hasn't been sold for ages. You might, instead, look at WinNT3.1 as the
first Windows, as its the first which is vaguely comparable to linux
in capabilities, and is still traceable from the present version, which
is WinNT5.1/XP.
The launch date for Windows NT3.1 was August 1993, which puts Windows
as we know it as 12 years old.
>
> What about Linux?
> The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
Debian 0.01 to 0.90 were released from August to December of 1993.
> At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
What's GUI got to do with anything?
So, if you are prepared to accept the first release of Debian and the
first release of WinNT3.1 as essentially the same, then they are more
or less the same age. Debian is by no means the sole indicator of Linux
distros, though, and Buzz wasn't released until 1995.
Naturally, Unix has a rich history extending back to 1969, whereas WinNT's
origin is less clear, but might include some of Microsoft and some of VMS.
--
end
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
If you have to ask how much it is, you can't afford it.
Ray Ingles
> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
was released in April, 1992.
> What about Linux? At what date was it generally available with a usable
> GUI?
X386 1.2E was initially released in May, 1992. So, by this measure,
Windows 'is' at most a month ahead of Linux. :->
Note that, as soon as X ran on Linux, Linux automatically got all kinds
of apps that had been developed for years. Frankly I'd say Linux leaped
*ahead* of Windows at that point.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
Microsoft Windows - It could be worse, but it'll take time.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> begin virus.scr billwg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>B Gruff wrote:
>>>
>>>>Let me clarify that:-
>>>>
>>>>I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>>>>
>>>>What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>>>>
>>>>Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
>>>>
>>>>What about Linux?
>>>>The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
>>>>At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
>>>>
>>>
>>> From a product marketing perspective, goat, it isn't generally
>>>available even yet. It is very much a specialty item and is available
>>>only to those who seek it out. Linux on the desktop is not marketed to
>>>anyone at this time.
>>
>>
>> Well, tell this the stores in my hometown which sell it since years.
>> And no, you don't have to seek it out either. You pretty much stumble
>> over the boxes of different linux distros
>
> Marketed in the sense of a consumer market for a few hundred million
> copies per year, Peter. Linux is for sale, in spots that change often,
One of the spots (and by far not the only one) is the largest bookstore in
town. They sell hundreds of SuSE boxes each time a new version appears
They have a whole shelf populated with linux books alone
And no, it hasn't changed that way in years, only change has been that they
now offer also RedHat, Mandrake and Debian boxes
They also sell Linux software (yes, there is linux software sold, if you
didn't know)
> but is not being promoted in any effective way.
No? You mean the big displays and posters they have in front of the shop
when a new version is available are completely, totally invisible?
> It is easy to promote
> it in the server platform market because that is a small niche and
> reachable via a limited number of trade publications.
They don't promote it for server. They promote it for desktop. And they sell
extremely well
> It is also a
> "smart" market wherein the consumers see a requirement to keep
> themselves informed on IT developments. Even then, it has mostly been a
> story of cost reducing conventional Unix rather than replacing any
> Windows systems in this market area.
How would you stupid twit know?
You simply claim your bullshit, without any circumstantial knowledge
ray
wrote:
> And the fonts were just as bloody shit them.
>
It worked. That is more than can be said of any version of MS Windows
prior to 3.1.
BTW, I never had any problems with the fonts.
TCS
What about windows using a file system lacking even 70's technology up to
4 years ago? Now that windows got late 70's technology, what progress has
been made since?
What about windows lacking evey 60's technology when it comes to protecting
the system from the users? The entire worm/virus/spyware scourge is a direct
result of this. Fuck, this is 60's technology? Why the hell are windows still
running as root?
Joe Flannigan
1.2 miles.
chrisv
>"How far is Linux behind Windows?"
>
>1.2 miles.
*plonk*
Peter Köhlmann
> "How far is Linux behind Windows?"
>
> 1.2 miles.
Do you try to have a point?
Joe Flannigan
It was a joke. Sheesh. Lighten up a bit.
For the record, I use 3 platforms. OS X at home, Linux (in the form of
Redhat Enterprise Workstation 3) at work and w2k at work. I tend to
spend the majority of my time in linux at work as my java development
tools seem to run faster, plus I can run netbeans 3.6 and 4.0 at the
same time without the paging windows makes me sit through.
The machine came with XP installed, but I removed it after 6 months and
installed w2k as java under XP was... unpleasant. Plus, XP just
annoyed the hell out of me.
I think KDE is pretty nice, and it screams along on my 2.8Ghz PIV at
work which is always nice.
Somebody
Come on stupid. That's a childish remark.
>
>
> --
> DrSquare: Linux Advocate (In Retirement)
> You may email me if you want, but don't expect a nice
> reply, especially the Bailo. drsq...@NOSPAM.hotmail.co.uk
> Remove NOSPAM, obviously. Reg. Linux User 387713, http://counter.li.org/
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Kier
wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 07:11:12 +0200, Peter Köhlmann
> <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
>
> yes, over the hundreds that cannot be sold, because no one wants it.
>
So why are you hanging around here, pretending to be a Linux user?
--
Kier
Devil's Advocate
> > "smart" market wherein the consumers see a requirement to keep
> > themselves informed on IT developments. Even then, it has mostly been a
> > story of cost reducing conventional Unix rather than replacing any
> > Windows systems in this market area.
>
> How would you stupid twit know?
>
> You simply claim your bullshit, without any circumstantial knowledge
Sorry mate, this is accepted by Red Hat and Novell openly. Also,
pretty much every piece of credible independent research that has been
published verifies it. On what basis do you think otherwise? I think
it's you that has to justify the gounds upon which you dispute the
objective evidence available.
Peter Köhlmann
Good thing that you snipped everything else. Otherwise you might have looked
as stupid as you are
DrSquare (New and Improved) Ver. 1.1
<Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote:
yes, over the hundreds that cannot be sold, because no one wants it.
DrSquare (New and Improved) Ver. 1.1
fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
commited.
DrSquare (New and Improved) Ver. 1.1
>On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 00:49:12 +0100, B Gruff wrote:
>
>> Let me clarify that:-
>>
>> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>
>So what? The fact is that Linux is, basically, a Unix clone. Unix and
>X-windows were functional and useable before MS Windows was. I was using
>X-windows on DEC Ultrix in 1991.
>
>>
>> What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>>
>> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
>>
>> What about Linux?
>> The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
>> At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
>>
>> Bill
And the fonts were just as bloody shit them.
--
DFS
>
>> B Gruff wrote:
>>> Let me clarify that:-
>>>
>>> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>>>
>>> What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>>>
>>> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start
>>> point?
>>>
>>> What about Linux?
>>> The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
>>> At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
>>
>> At least as early as 1997. RedHat 4.2 came with a window manager
>> called fvwm95, which mimiced Windows 95.
>>
>> www.distrowatch.com is a handy site for reviewing historical Linux
>> distros. Though there were earlier distros, I believe Red Hat was
>> the first to release Linux in a retail box to computer stores (v 4.2
>> in 1997, at least six years after Win3.0). Take a look and see how
>> sparse it was back then.
>> http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=redhat
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bill
>>
>
> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
> commited.
Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP look-alike
window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT binary compatible
(ReactOS).
Does not compute.
Devil's Advocate
Why stupid? Please explain.
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:<d4jr51$tr9$00$1...@news.t-online.com>...
>> begin virus.scr Devil's Advocate wrote:
>>
>> >> > It is also a
>> >> > "smart" market wherein the consumers see a requirement to keep
>> >> > themselves informed on IT developments. Even then, it has mostly
>> >> > been a story of cost reducing conventional Unix rather than
>> >> > replacing any Windows systems in this market area.
>> >>
>> >> How would you stupid twit know?
>> >>
>> >> You simply claim your bullshit, without any circumstantial knowledge
>> >
>> > Sorry mate, this is accepted by Red Hat and Novell openly. Also,
>> > pretty much every piece of credible independent research that has been
>> > published verifies it. On what basis do you think otherwise? I think
>> > it's you that has to justify the gounds upon which you dispute the
>> > objective evidence available.
>>
>> Good thing that you snipped everything else. Otherwise you might have
>> looked as stupid as you are
>
> Why stupid? Please explain.
No. Reread what you snipped
Linønut
>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>> commited.
>
> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP look-alike
> window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT binary compatible
> (ReactOS).
Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
> Does not compute.
Your post doesn't, that is true.
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
DFS
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>>> commited.
>>
>> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP
>> look-alike window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT
>> binary compatible (ReactOS).
>
> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
Exactly my point.
But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the target
should be Windows NT ..." http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
>> Does not compute.
>
> Your post doesn't, that is true.
How dare I post examples of Linux/OSS weirdness and hypocrisy!
amosf
> Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>>>> commited.
>>>
>>> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP
>>> look-alike window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT
>>> binary compatible (ReactOS).
>>
>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the target
> should be Windows NT ..." http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
I don't get the point. Reactos is not linux. It's reactos. I just want to
run linux and perhaps some win apps in a wine api on top of linux. The
reactos guys want a complete OSS version of NT and so are building reactos
from the ground up. I have doubts that it will ever amount to much, but you
never know...
>>> Does not compute.
>>
>> Your post doesn't, that is true.
>
> How dare I post examples of Linux/OSS weirdness and hypocrisy!
>
>
> FVWM95 http://fvwm95.sourceforge.net/
>
> xpde http://www.xpde.com/shots/clean.png
Considering that many windows users convert to linux it not a silly idea to
provide a familiar interface. I personally use a look that is not very
windows-like at all.
--
-
I don't actually live here.
-
chrisv
*unplonk* sorry.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>
>>>>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>>>>> commited.
>>>>
>>>> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP
>>>> look-alike window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT
>>>> binary compatible (ReactOS).
>>>
>>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>>
>> Exactly my point.
>>
>> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the
>> target should be Windows NT ..."
>> http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
>
> I don't get the point.
The point is Linux/OSS nuts are hypocrites who slam Windows all the time,
but turn around and pay homage to it by building clones and interfaces that
resemble it.
> Reactos is not linux. It's reactos. I just
> want to run linux and perhaps some win apps in a wine api on top of
> linux. The reactos guys want a complete OSS version of NT and so are
> building reactos from the ground up. I have doubts that it will ever
> amount to much, but you never know...
But hey, it'll save 3 of them $200 each. Never mind that they'll spend
years working on it.
>>>> Does not compute.
>>>
>>> Your post doesn't, that is true.
>>
>> How dare I post examples of Linux/OSS weirdness and hypocrisy!
>>
>>
>> FVWM95 http://fvwm95.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> xpde http://www.xpde.com/shots/clean.png
>
> Considering that many windows users convert to linux it not a silly
> idea to provide a familiar interface. I personally use a look that is
> not very windows-like at all.
It can't be much worse than this
http://home.comcast.net/~linonut/linoscreen.jpg, can it? (if you're
reading - sorry Linonut, but we don't share a visual aesthetic)
For a while I used this theme:
http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/DFS_Server2003_skinned.PNG
William Poaster
was seen to write:
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> Linønut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>
>>>>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>>>>> commited.
>>>>
>>>> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP
>>>> look-alike window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT
>>>> binary compatible (ReactOS).
>>>
>>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>>
>> Exactly my point.
>>
>> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the target
>> should be Windows NT ..."
>> http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
>
> I don't get the point. Reactos is not linux. It's reactos. I just want to
> run linux and perhaps some win apps in a wine api on top of linux. The
> reactos guys want a complete OSS version of NT and so are building reactos
> from the ground up. I have doubts that it will ever amount to much, but
> you never know...
The only things it has in common with linux (as far as I can see) is that
it's Open Source & is licenced under the GNU GPL.
It says on the Home page :-
"ReactOS is an Open Source effort to develop a quality operating system
that is compatible with Microsoft Windows(R) applications and drivers."
[==]
"Supporting other System Applications The Microsoft Windows(R)
architecture allows for subsystems, as does the ReactOS architecture. A
subsystem is an implementation of the APIs of another operating system,
allowing ReactOS to run applications from other systems. We are already
looking at subsystems for: Java, OS/2 and DOS and possibly others in the
future."
And, if you look here, it has a Windows Registry, (which linux hasn't):-
http://reactos.com/reactos_user_site/screens/reactos_window_system
So, IMHO, you're right. It's *not* linux, but as usual DooFu$ is too
stupid to do any research. He sees "Open Source", "GNU GPL" & *assumes*
it's linux.
>>>> Does not compute.
>>>
>>> Your post doesn't, that is true.
>>
>> How dare I post examples of Linux/OSS weirdness and hypocrisy!
>>
>>
>> FVWM95 http://fvwm95.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> xpde http://www.xpde.com/shots/clean.png
>
> Considering that many windows users convert to linux it not a silly idea
> to provide a familiar interface. I personally use a look that is not very
> windows-like at all.
This had been pointed out to DooFu$ quite a while ago, but every so often
he keeps trying to make the same silly point. He must be running out of
material.
--
As an Outlook Express user, your opinion
on other newsreaders means about as much
as Carrot Top's advice on fashion.
- Tukla Ratte's reply to DFS -
Boycott OE - http://www.ichimusai.org/oe/
amosf
> amosf wrote:
>> DFS wrote something like:
>>
>>> Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>>
>>>>>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>>>>>> commited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP
>>>>> look-alike window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT
>>>>> binary compatible (ReactOS).
>>>>
>>>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>>>
>>> Exactly my point.
>>>
>>> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the
>>> target should be Windows NT ..."
>>> http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
>>
>> I don't get the point.
>
> The point is Linux/OSS nuts are hypocrites who slam Windows all the time,
> but turn around and pay homage to it by building clones and interfaces
> that resemble it.
The thumping sound is just me banging my head against the wall... The linux
nuts are out using and writing linux (kernel, apps, whatever). ReactOS may
be OSS and using the gpl, but its's another group of nuts. Linux nuts want
a real OS like linux at the core, not just an OSS copy of NT.
>> Reactos is not linux. It's reactos. I just
>> want to run linux and perhaps some win apps in a wine api on top of
>> linux. The reactos guys want a complete OSS version of NT and so are
>> building reactos from the ground up. I have doubts that it will ever
>> amount to much, but you never know...
>
> But hey, it'll save 3 of them $200 each. Never mind that they'll spend
> years working on it.
Yes and only three people use linux, etc... 7 of them live in this house.
I don't have any interest in the ReactOS project, but it may help wine down
the road so I have no complaints. Anything has to be better than MS
stuff...
Owning your own PC is so much nicer than renting it...
Ray Ingles
>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the target
> should be Windows NT ..." http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
Pretty much by definition, if they are writing a different OS than
Linux, they can't be "Linux nuts". But you knew that.
> How dare I post examples of Linux/OSS weirdness and hypocrisy!
> FVWM95 http://fvwm95.sourceforge.net/
> xpde http://www.xpde.com/shots/clean.png
You can call those "Linux/OSS hypocrisy" if I can call these
"Windows/Microsoft hypocrisy":
http://www.litestep.net/
http://www.hoverdesk.net/
http://www.desktopx.net/
http://www.lighttek.com/talisman.htm
http://www.astonshell.com/aston/
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"The penalty for 'hacking' this system is $500,000 and 5 years in prison.
That's right. If you figure out a clever way to play an MP3 file on your
TCPA machine, you're eligible for more time than a drunk driver that
killed someone is." - Craig Kelley, on the Trusted Computing initiative
DFS
My apologies for lumping Linux/OSS nuts in with ReactOS nuts.
>>> Reactos is not linux. It's reactos. I just
>>> want to run linux and perhaps some win apps in a wine api on top of
>>> linux. The reactos guys want a complete OSS version of NT and so are
>>> building reactos from the ground up. I have doubts that it will ever
>>> amount to much, but you never know...
>>
>> But hey, it'll save 3 of them $200 each. Never mind that they'll
>> spend years working on it.
>
> Yes and only three people use linux, etc... 7 of them live in this
> house.
7? What are you, immigrants?
> I don't have any interest in the ReactOS project, but it may help
> wine down the road so I have no complaints. Anything has to be better
> than MS stuff...
>
> Owning your own PC is so much nicer than renting it...
You're not a [software] owner or renter; you're a squatter, using other
people's property without remuneration.
Linønut
>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>
> Exactly my point.
>
> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the target
> should be Windows NT ..." http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
Uh, Beavis, where does it say these guys are Linuxers?
>> Your post doesn't, that is true.
>
> How dare I post examples of Linux/OSS weirdness and hypocrisy!
We'd welcome that, if you did that. And only where it was true.
I'd hardly call that hypocrisy, especially since the similarity is
mostly in looks.
Check out XFce's RedmondXP theme.
If you really want to show a shining example of hypocrisy, DFS, you need to
look at Windows 3 and Windows 95.
And that turned out to be more than hypocrisy... it brought a lawsuit by
Apple. (Glad Apple lost, though).
Linønut
But also with their express written permission.
Linønut
> The point is Linux/OSS nuts are hypocrites who slam Windows all the time,
> but turn around and pay homage to it by building clones and interfaces that
> resemble it.
Actually, my dear fellow, what we slam about Windows is not the
look-and-feel (a phrase you may remember from Apple's lawsuit against
Microsoft a decade or so ago), but it's unreliability, slowness, and
bugginess. And the fact that it is crammed down the throats of users.
>> Reactos is not linux. It's reactos. I just
>> want to run linux and perhaps some win apps in a wine api on top of
>> linux. The reactos guys want a complete OSS version of NT and so are
>> building reactos from the ground up. I have doubts that it will ever
>> amount to much, but you never know...
>
> But hey, it'll save 3 of them $200 each. Never mind that they'll spend
> years working on it.
Imagine that. Someone wants to see if they can do it.
I guess Sir Edmund Hillary should have stayed home on his rocker instead of
climbing Mt. Everest.
>> Considering that many windows users convert to linux it not a silly
>> idea to provide a familiar interface. I personally use a look that is
>> not very windows-like at all.
>
> It can't be much worse than this
> http://home.comcast.net/~linonut/linoscreen.jpg, can it? (if you're
> reading - sorry Linonut, but we don't share a visual aesthetic)
Yet you try to stamp your preferences on others. Thanks for the reminder of
my desktop, by the way. It looks even a little bit better, now.
> For a while I used this theme:
> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/DFS_Server2003_skinned.PNG
Ho hum.
JEDIDIAH
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 18:24:49 -0600, ray <r...@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Let me clarify that:-
>>>
>>> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>>
>>X-windows were functional and useable before MS Windows was. I was using
>>X-windows on DEC Ultrix in 1991.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
>>>
>>> What about Linux?
>>> The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
>>> At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
>>>
>
> And the fonts were just as bloody shit them.
He probably wouldn't have noticed since he likely would have been
using a real display and not something sh*tty like 640x480 that needs to use
font anti-aliasing as a crutch.
[deletia]
Why bother with "sub-pixel rendering" when you have ample pixels?
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> B Gruff wrote:
>> Let me clarify that:-
>>
>> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>>
>>
>> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
>>
>> What about Linux?
>> The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
>> At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
>
> fvwm95, which mimiced Windows 95.
>
> www.distrowatch.com is a handy site for reviewing historical Linux distros.
> Though there were earlier distros, I believe Red Hat was the first to
> release Linux in a retail box to computer stores (v 4.2 in 1997, at least
> six years after Win3.0). Take a look and see how sparse it was back then.
Win3.0 was nothing to write home about.
Also, Redhat was being sold by national computer retailers in retail
box form at least as early as '95 if not '94. Go much earlier than that and
you quickly get past the point where few if any distros existed at all.
> http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=redhat
I bought Redhat 3.0.3 at MicroCenter.
JEDIDIAH
>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:31:16 -0400, "DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>
>>> B Gruff wrote:
>>>> Let me clarify that:-
>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>> commited.
>
> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP look-alike
> window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT binary compatible
> (ReactOS).
...and NeXT workalikes, and WPS workalikes, and Finder workalikes,
and RiscOS workalikes, and Amiga workalikes...
>
> Does not compute.
...no worse than Microsoft being an Apple wannabe all it's life.
JEDIDIAH
> amosf wrote:
>> DFS wrote something like:
>>
>>> Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>>>
>>>>>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>>>>>> commited.
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP
>>>>> look-alike window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT
>>>>> binary compatible (ReactOS).
>>>>
>>>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>>>
>>> Exactly my point.
>>>
>>> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the
>>> target should be Windows NT ..."
>>> http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
>>
>> I don't get the point.
>
> The point is Linux/OSS nuts are hypocrites who slam Windows all the time,
> but turn around and pay homage to it by building clones and interfaces that
> resemble it.
Application versus operating system.
[deletia]
Although, Fvwm95 is little more than a fvwm configuration. It is
nothing more than a demonstration of the inherent flexibility of Unix GUI
technology.
DFS
> In article <d_qbe.19183$Gq6....@fe02.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>>
>> Exactly my point.
>>
>> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the
>> target should be Windows NT ..."
>> http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
>
> Pretty much by definition, if they are writing a different OS than
> Linux, they can't be "Linux nuts". But you knew that.
I don't always have to write Linux/OSS nuts, do I?
>> How dare I post examples of Linux/OSS weirdness and hypocrisy!
>> FVWM95 http://fvwm95.sourceforge.net/
>> xpde http://www.xpde.com/shots/clean.png
>
> You can call those "Linux/OSS hypocrisy" if I can call these
> "Windows/Microsoft hypocrisy":
Not unless those are OSS products developed by Windows advocates who claim
to detest OSS. Are they?
DFS
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> The point is Linux/OSS nuts are hypocrites who slam Windows all the
>> time, but turn around and pay homage to it by building clones and
>> interfaces that resemble it.
>
> Actually, my dear fellow, what we slam about Windows is not the
> look-and-feel (a phrase you may remember from Apple's lawsuit against
> Microsoft a decade or so ago), but it's unreliability, slowness, and
> bugginess. And the fact that it is crammed down the throats of users.
But Win 2000 and XP and Server 2003 are none of those. They're all stable,
quick to run, fairly bug free, and are only used by those who want to use
them.
Perhaps if Linux spent billions on ad campaigns it could generate more
consumer desire?
>>> Reactos is not linux. It's reactos. I just
>>> want to run linux and perhaps some win apps in a wine api on top of
>>> linux. The reactos guys want a complete OSS version of NT and so are
>>> building reactos from the ground up. I have doubts that it will ever
>>> amount to much, but you never know...
>>
>> But hey, it'll save 3 of them $200 each. Never mind that they'll
>> spend years working on it.
>
> Imagine that. Someone wants to see if they can do it.
Seems to me about as useful and rewarding as the science experiment Robin
Williams' character undertook in the movie Awakenings: try to extract one
decagram of miolyn from four tons of earthworms.
> I guess Sir Edmund Hillary should have stayed home on his rocker
> instead of climbing Mt. Everest.
Cloning an old PC operating system is no Everest.
>>> Considering that many windows users convert to linux it not a silly
>>> idea to provide a familiar interface. I personally use a look that
>>> is not very windows-like at all.
>>
>> It can't be much worse than this
>> http://home.comcast.net/~linonut/linoscreen.jpg, can it? (if you're
>> reading - sorry Linonut, but we don't share a visual aesthetic)
>
> Yet you try to stamp your preferences on others.
cola nuts are far, far more guilty of that offense than I.
> Thanks for the
> reminder of my desktop, by the way. It looks even a little bit
> better, now.
You quit using slrn and The GIMP and DDD and xmms?
>> For a while I used this theme:
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/DFS_Server2003_skinned.PNG
>
> Ho hum.
I agree. It's even more bland now. I dropped those themes for performance
reasons, and went back to classic Windows 2000 look on my Server 2003
desktop. It is ho-hum, and I like it that way.
DFS
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>> Owning your own PC is so much nicer than renting it...
>>
>> You're not a [software] owner or renter; you're a squatter, using
>> other people's property without remuneration.
>
> But also with their express written permission.
So you're documented squatters (also known as 'homeless' everywhere else).
DFS
> On 2005-04-25, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> DrSquare (New and Improved) Ver. 1.1 wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 23:31:16 -0400, "DFS" <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> B Gruff wrote:
>>>>> Let me clarify that:-
> [deletia]
>>> fvwm95 was an attrocious attrocity that should never have been
>>> commited.
>>
>> Linux nuts hate MS so much that they produce Win95 and WinXP
>> look-alike window managers, and are even trying to build a Win NT
>> binary compatible (ReactOS).
>
> ...and NeXT workalikes, and WPS workalikes, and Finder workalikes,
> and RiscOS workalikes, and Amiga workalikes...
But Linux/OSS nuts don't hate those OS's, and the users/proponents of those
OS's, and the company that produces those OS's, and the founder(s) of the
company that produces those OS's.
>> Does not compute.
>
> ...no worse than Microsoft being an Apple wannabe all it's life.
If there's one good example of 'wannabe-itis' in the computer world, it's
Linux wanting to be Unix.
DFS
> On 2005-04-25, DFS <nos...@dfs.com> wrote:
>> B Gruff wrote:
>>> Let me clarify that:-
>>>
>>> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>>>
>>> What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>>>
>>> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start
>>> point?
>>>
>>> What about Linux?
>>> The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
>>> At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
>>
>> At least as early as 1997. RedHat 4.2 came with a window manager
>> called fvwm95, which mimiced Windows 95.
>>
>> www.distrowatch.com is a handy site for reviewing historical Linux
>> distros. Though there were earlier distros, I believe Red Hat was
>> the first to release Linux in a retail box to computer stores (v 4.2
>> in 1997, at least six years after Win3.0). Take a look and see how
>> sparse it was back then.
>
> Win3.0 was nothing to write home about.
Tens of millions of users and vendors and OEMs totally disagree with you.
> Also, Redhat was being sold by national computer retailers in retail
> box form at least as early as '95 if not '94. Go much earlier than
> that and you quickly get past the point where few if any distros
> existed at all.
>
>> http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=redhat
>
> I bought Redhat 3.0.3 at MicroCenter.
Cool. RH 4.2 was the first retail box I remember, and the first one I
bought. (also at MicroCenter, $49.99 as I recall)
The Ghost In The Machine
<nos...@dfs.com>
wrote
on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 14:52:31 -0400
<L5wbe.21798$c42....@fe07.lga>:
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> In article <d_qbe.19183$Gq6....@fe02.lga>, DFS wrote:
>>>> Why would a Linux nut want to clone NT?
>>>
>>> Exactly my point.
>>>
>>> But there it is http://www.reactos.com/ "It was decided that the
>>> target should be Windows NT ..."
>>> http://www.reactos.com/en/content/view/full/180
>>
>> Pretty much by definition, if they are writing a different OS than
>> Linux, they can't be "Linux nuts". But you knew that.
>
> I don't always have to write Linux/OSS nuts, do I?
Just write "OSS Nuts". It's shorter. :-)
After all, Microsoft is reputedly [?] cheaper than any OSS solution
out there, be it:
Linux + X + KDE
Linux + X + Gnome
Linux + X + OpenGL
FreeBSD + X + Gnome
FreeBSD + X + KDE
FreeBSD + X + Motif
FreeBSD, period (for a server) + Apache
Linux + Apache
Linux + JBOSS
FreeBSD + Apache + JBOSS
HURD + Apache + Geronimo
ReactOS [*] + Apache + PHP
BeOS [+] + Python
FreeDOS + custom webserver [%]
etc.
all of these can be replaced by the Mighty Combination of
Win2003 Server Edition with IIS. How well, of course, is
an open question.
(And it turns out IIS supports dynamic DLL reloading; if a DLL
changes IIS detects the change and reloads it. This is vaguely
reminiscent of JBoss's "hot deployment".)
[rest snipped]
[?] FSVO.
[*] ReactOS is not a Unix-like OS, but I'd be surprised if it
didn't run Apache and PHP. :-)
[+] assuming it's been released under a GNU-like license by now.
[%] I have no idea what's out there!
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Linønut
> Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>
>>> The point is Linux/OSS nuts are hypocrites who slam Windows all the
>>> time, but turn around and pay homage to it by building clones and
>>> interfaces that resemble it.
>>
>> Actually, my dear fellow, what we slam about Windows is not the
>> look-and-feel (a phrase you may remember from Apple's lawsuit against
>> Microsoft a decade or so ago), but it's unreliability, slowness, and
>> bugginess. And the fact that it is crammed down the throats of users.
>
> But Win 2000 and XP and Server 2003 are none of those. They're all stable,
> quick to run, fairly bug free, and are only used by those who want to use
> them.
Win2k is pretty stable, not so quick to run, it may be fairly bug-free by
now after all the service packs.
WinXP is not so stable, can be very sluggish, and still pretty buggy. Even
worse with Microsoft applications.
Win2003 Server has been extremely problematic on our setup. At times, it
has behaved PATHETICALLY, and it has taken a lot of trouble-shooting and
research to get it to work properly for all the functions we use it for.
Win2003 and HP have been a marriage made in hell for us. And I'm leaving
SQL Server out of this statement for now.
You're last phrase above is tautological.
> Perhaps if Linux spent billions on ad campaigns it could generate more
> consumer desire?
Linux isn't one company.
>> I guess Sir Edmund Hillary should have stayed home on his rocker
>> instead of climbing Mt. Everest.
>
> Cloning an old PC operating system is no Everest.
So what?
>> Yet you try to stamp your preferences on others.
>
> cola nuts are far, far more guilty of that offense than I.
There's only a few nuts in COLA, and most of them are Windows drones.
>> Thanks for the
>> reminder of my desktop, by the way. It looks even a little bit
>> better, now.
>
> You quit using slrn and The GIMP and DDD and xmms?
Of course not. They are eminently useful.
> I agree. It's even more bland now. I dropped those themes for performance
> reasons, and went back to classic Windows 2000 look on my Server 2003
> desktop. It is ho-hum, and I like it that way.
Me too, at least on Win2000. On my XP box, I use the olive theme, but turn
off some of the other CPU stealers.
Linønut
> Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>>> Owning your own PC is so much nicer than renting it...
>>>
>>> You're not a [software] owner or renter; you're a squatter, using
>>> other people's property without remuneration.
>>
>> But also with their express written permission.
>
> So you're documented squatters (also known as 'homeless' everywhere else).
No, we're not. We signed no contracts or fill out any forms with ID
information.
We are legion. You cannot count us. We are the dark matter that Microsoft
fears to discover.
Linønut
>> ...and NeXT workalikes, and WPS workalikes, and Finder workalikes,
>> and RiscOS workalikes, and Amiga workalikes...
>
> But Linux/OSS nuts don't hate those OS's, and the users/proponents of those
> OS's, and the company that produces those OS's, and the founder(s) of the
> company that produces those OS's.
Microsoft, unfortunately, is crooked.
>> ...no worse than Microsoft being an Apple wannabe all it's life.
>
> If there's one good example of 'wannabe-itis' in the computer world, it's
> Linux wanting to be Unix.
Linux wants to support powerful features, but it doesn't want to be a UNIX.
In fact, many UNIX users still look down on Linux.
Even Stallman wavered on whether to support a UNIX-like interface. He (and
Linus) made the right choice, though, although they went beyond the existing
UNIX technology in some ways.
Kier
> It can't be much worse than this
> http://home.comcast.net/~linonut/linoscreen.jpg, can it? (if you're
> reading - sorry Linonut, but we don't share a visual aesthetic)
So what's wrong with it? I've seen far worse desktops.
>
>
> For a while I used this theme:
> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/DFS_Server2003_skinned.PNG
Nice enough, but I've seen better.
--
Kier
William Poaster
was seen to write:
> I dropped those themes for
> performance reasons, and went back to classic Windows 2000 look on my
> Server 2003 desktop. It is ho-hum, and I like it that way.
A server with a GUI used as a desktop, what a joke.
amosf
> amosf wrote:
>> The thumping sound is just me banging my head against the wall... The
>> linux nuts are out using and writing linux (kernel, apps, whatever).
>> ReactOS may be OSS and using the gpl, but its's another group of
>> nuts. Linux nuts want a real OS like linux at the core, not just an
>> OSS copy of NT.
>
> My apologies for lumping Linux/OSS nuts in with ReactOS nuts.
Why thankyou. Mind you I don't have a problem being assotiated with any OSS
project, but like to clear up that it is a totally different type of
project.
>> Yes and only three people use linux, etc... 7 of them live in this
>> house.
>
> 7? What are you, immigrants?
What, you don't have a wife and kids (or sister)? Actually my sister lives
next door but has her PC here so she gets the net for free. And my parents
live here due to the fact they are in their 80's and one is blind and the
other has Alzheimer's... Family is still important to some...
>> Owning your own PC is so much nicer than renting it...
>
> You're not a [software] owner or renter; you're a squatter, using other
> people's property without remuneration.
That's okay, I also share my work with others, so it's a good deal for those
interested in freedom. I'm surprised so many in the US, who are usually
very concerned about freedom, are so willing to be under the thumb of MS...
The awe of the dollar comes first it seems... Making lots and lots of money
is the most important thing...
William Poaster
was seen to write:
<snip>
> If there's one good example of 'wannabe-itis' in the computer world, it's
> Linux wanting to be Unix.
Eh?
DFS
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:35:13 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>
>> It can't be much worse than this
>> http://home.comcast.net/~linonut/linoscreen.jpg, can it? (if you're
>> reading - sorry Linonut, but we don't share a visual aesthetic)
>
> So what's wrong with it?
It's a hideous witches brew of fonts and strange interfaces. It hurts bad.
> I've seen far worse desktops.
Got any links?
>> For a while I used this theme:
>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/DFS_Server2003_skinned.PNG
>
> Nice enough, but I've seen better.
Me too.
DFS
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> amosf wrote:
>
>>> The thumping sound is just me banging my head against the wall...
>>> The linux nuts are out using and writing linux (kernel, apps,
>>> whatever). ReactOS may be OSS and using the gpl, but its's another
>>> group of nuts. Linux nuts want a real OS like linux at the core,
>>> not just an OSS copy of NT.
>>
>> My apologies for lumping Linux/OSS nuts in with ReactOS nuts.
>
> Why thankyou. Mind you I don't have a problem being assotiated with
> any OSS project, but like to clear up that it is a totally different
> type of project.
I doubt there's much difference between the two classes of OSS nuts. You
both detest MS, though the ReactOS guys seem to want to use Windows - in a
free version? Why? I don't get it. It can't be the cost - you can get NT
cheaply or free. They will have labored for a long while to implement a
lame version of an outdated OS.
I guess it's one of those "do it because it can be done" projects.
>>> Yes and only three people use linux, etc... 7 of them live in this
>>> house.
>>
>> 7? What are you, immigrants?
>
> What, you don't have a wife and kids (or sister)?
Wife. No kids. Brother who lives elsewhere. Parents not old enough to
need help - yet.
> Actually my sister
> lives next door but has her PC here so she gets the net for free. And
> my parents live here due to the fact they are in their 80's and one
> is blind and the other has Alzheimer's... Family is still important
> to some...
Kind of important to me. Not overly. Nor to the other people in my family.
My wife moved away from her hometown to get away from her family - not in
desperation or dislike, but for a sense of personal privacy.
I live in my hometown (Atlanta GA), and probably always will
>>> Owning your own PC is so much nicer than renting it...
>>
>> You're not a [software] owner or renter; you're a squatter, using
>> other people's property without remuneration.
>
> That's okay, I also share my work with others, so it's a good deal
> for those interested in freedom. I'm surprised so many in the US, who
> are usually very concerned about freedom, are so willing to be under
> the thumb of MS... The awe of the dollar comes first it seems...
> Making lots and lots of money is the most important thing...
Yes, but mostly as a means to an end: peace of mind and comfortable
retirement and old age.
My greatest fear is having to drive one of those little security trucks
around a mall parking lot at 74 years of age to make enough money to eat.
Second greatest fear is having to use Linux.
amosf
Look and feel is skin deep and like fashion it changes with the wind... Big
deal. Simplicity is back at the moment, or is it chunky window frames... I
can't keep up...
amosf
> amosf wrote:
>> Why thankyou. Mind you I don't have a problem being assotiated with
>> any OSS project, but like to clear up that it is a totally different
>> type of project.
>
> I doubt there's much difference between the two classes of OSS nuts. You
> both detest MS, though the ReactOS guys seem to want to use Windows - in a
> free version? Why? I don't get it. It can't be the cost - you can get
> NT
> cheaply or free. They will have labored for a long while to implement a
> lame version of an outdated OS.
>
> I guess it's one of those "do it because it can be done" projects.
I'm guessing you must be very young. Some of us were around before MS. We've
been through DOS and win3.1 and 95 and ME... At the time there were ALWAYS
better alternatives that didn't screw you - like DR-DOS and OS/2 and linux.
It's not a matter of hating MS, rather it just didn't do the job. DOS was
weak. DR-DOS was more featured. win3.1 looked bad even next to GEM. 95 and
3.1 were killed by the stability of OS/2 and the warp interface left them
dead. Linux again was far more stable and full featured in a default
install. By the time XP came along I was long avoiding MS, especially after
the fiasco of buying the $400 ME for a games box... Xp was better, but
still not totally stable and it was too little too late.
So correct. It's not the cost. I can get windows for free and I STILL don't
use it as it just doesn't do the job. My wife and kids also prefer linux as
it allows then to get work done without worrying about data loss from a
crash. They don't have to worry about the ease that malware gets to windows
either...
>> What, you don't have a wife and kids (or sister)?
>
> Wife. No kids. Brother who lives elsewhere. Parents not old enough to
> need help - yet.
When you have some kids, sit them in front of a linux box. You'll then see
how easy it is for those not spoiled with the windows brain drain...
>> Actually my sister
>> lives next door but has her PC here so she gets the net for free. And
>> my parents live here due to the fact they are in their 80's and one
>> is blind and the other has Alzheimer's... Family is still important
>> to some...
>
> Kind of important to me. Not overly. Nor to the other people in my
> family. My wife moved away from her hometown to get away from her family -
> not in desperation or dislike, but for a sense of personal privacy.
>
> I live in my hometown (Atlanta GA), and probably always will
Havn't been there. My family is from Louisianna - but I live near Kuttabul,
Queensland Australia, Population - about 20...
>> That's okay, I also share my work with others, so it's a good deal
>> for those interested in freedom. I'm surprised so many in the US, who
>> are usually very concerned about freedom, are so willing to be under
>> the thumb of MS... The awe of the dollar comes first it seems...
>> Making lots and lots of money is the most important thing...
>
> Yes, but mostly as a means to an end: peace of mind and comfortable
> retirement and old age.
>
> My greatest fear is having to drive one of those little security trucks
> around a mall parking lot at 74 years of age to make enough money to eat.
There's making a living and saving for the future, and then there's getting
ridiculously rich at all costs even if you have to screw everybody to get
there...
> Second greatest fear is having to use Linux.
Better get used to it, tho by that time everyone will have a fredux module
implanted in their brain and MS will be a historic curiousity...
Tim Smith
chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> chrisv wrote:
>
> >Joe Flannigan wrote:
> >
> >>"How far is Linux behind Windows?"
> >>
> >>1.2 miles.
> >
> >*plonk*
>
> *unplonk* sorry.
For some reason, I feel like reading some "Groo" comics.
--
--Tim Smith
DFS
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>>>
>>>> The point is Linux/OSS nuts are hypocrites who slam Windows all the
>>>> time, but turn around and pay homage to it by building clones and
>>>> interfaces that resemble it.
>>>
>>> Actually, my dear fellow, what we slam about Windows is not the
>>> look-and-feel (a phrase you may remember from Apple's lawsuit
>>> against Microsoft a decade or so ago), but it's unreliability,
>>> slowness, and bugginess. And the fact that it is crammed down the
>>> throats of users.
>>
>> But Win 2000 and XP and Server 2003 are none of those. They're all
>> stable, quick to run, fairly bug free, and are only used by those
>> who want to use them.
>
> Win2k is pretty stable, not so quick to run, it may be fairly
> bug-free by now after all the service packs.
I ran 2000 for about 4 years, and had maybe 3 hard boots in all that time.
> WinXP is not so stable, can be very sluggish, and still pretty buggy.
> Even worse with Microsoft applications.
WinXP is their most stable consumer OS. Or so I've read.
> Win2003 Server has been extremely problematic on our setup. At
> times, it has behaved PATHETICALLY, and it has taken a lot of
> trouble-shooting and research to get it to work properly for all the
> functions we use it for. Win2003 and HP have been a marriage made in
> hell for us. And I'm leaving SQL Server out of this statement for
> now.
That's YOUR setup. You can't generalize that to the universe of Win2003
systems.
Though I will admit to seeing some general unpleasantness on my WinServer
2003 system here, after installing SP1 last week. I'm getting occasional
short-term system freezes with FireFox and Outlook Express that I never had
before.
> You're last phrase above is tautological.
cola is just a daily exercise in tautology.
>> Perhaps if Linux spent billions on ad campaigns it could generate
>> more consumer desire?
>
> Linux isn't one company.
I didn't want to spell out "the Linux/OSS vendors and community".
But that mishmash should partner up and do some promotion. I think a few
good TV ads would do wonders.
>>> I guess Sir Edmund Hillary should have stayed home on his rocker
>>> instead of climbing Mt. Everest.
>>
>> Cloning an old PC operating system is no Everest.
>
> So what?
So you chose an extreme example. You're a zealot.
>>> Yet you try to stamp your preferences on others.
>>
>> cola nuts are far, far more guilty of that offense than I.
>
> There's only a few nuts in COLA, and most of them are Windows drones.
I disagree. With guys like 7 and Rex Ballard around, and the shrieking
about MS "criminality", Windows "crapware", Bill Gates "evil", etc. cola is
a wack job of a newsgroup.
>>> Thanks for the
>>> reminder of my desktop, by the way. It looks even a little bit
>>> better, now.
>>
>> You quit using slrn and The GIMP and DDD and xmms?
>
> Of course not. They are eminently useful.
useless
r.e.b...@usa.net
billwg wrote:
> B Gruff wrote:
> > Let me clarify that:-
> >
> > I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
> >
> > What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
Soft Landing Systems Linux came out in late 1992 - about November.
Slackware came out in early 1993 - about February.
Red Hat came out in October 1993.
> > Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start
point?
Windows 3.0 came out in 1990, but Windows 3.1 was the more widely
deployed and accepted version.
> > What about Linux?
> > The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
> > At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
The SLS version had all of the same features of SunOS. It had nearly
all of the same features as Windows 2000 which came out roughly 8 years
later.
> From a product marketing perspective, goat, it isn't generally
> available even yet.
Thank you for sharing Mr Gates.
However, this is a relatively accurate statement. Even today, nearly
13 years after the first releases of GUI based Linux distributions, it
is still not possible to walk into any national franchise retailer and
have a "hands on" experience with Linux.
This isn't due to lack of marketing effort however. Red Hat offered to
let the OEMS install their Linux for $2/copy in dual-boot
configurations back in 1995. Corel sold licenses to motherboard
manufacturers and nearly every OEM had the license and permission to
install Corel Linux in dual-boot.
Microsoft took countermeasures. They revised the OEM license
agreement, requiring that all machines be shipped with one single
partition. Windows 95 clobbered the boot sector and partitioning
during installation, wiping out BOTH the Windows and Linux or OS/2
partition. This was done without warning the user installing the
system.
Subsequent license agreements and releases have included similar
restrictions, and Microsoft has also now defined the "standard
hardware" to include hardware which has been developed exclusively for
Windows. In fact, the OEMs are required by contract to aggressively
prevent the development and distribution of Linux drivers.
The OEMs are not required to adopt the new technologies. If they don't
however, they will not be eligible for "research funds" which were
stipulated as part of the DOJ settlement.
For obvious reasons, Microsoft is terrified at the prospect of having
Linux enabled systems displayed right next to Windows systems. In
fact, Microsoft isn't real keen on having Windows enabled PCs displayed
next to Macs. At minimum,companies like CompUSA keep them in separate
isles.
> It is very much a specialty item and is available
> only to those who seek it out.
This is also very true, especially in the United States and North
America. In Asia, India, and South America, there are many smaller
vendors who sell machines preconfigured with Linux. In some of these
contries, Linux has captured as much as 30% of the user base.
Globally, Linux has established more new users in the last 2 years than
Microsoft sells in a single year.
Hard to imagine what Linux might do if it were on display at WalMart,
Staples, or any of the other vendors who currently offer Linux systems
via the Web.
> Linux on the desktop is not marketed to
> anyone at this time.
Minor correction there. Linux is not marketed at retailers.
This will be a stale lead soon, but WalMart offers Linux PCs.
http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product_listing.gsp?cat=231793&path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A41937%3A231785%3A231793
> > Bill
Kier
> Kier wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:35:13 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It can't be much worse than this
>>> http://home.comcast.net/~linonut/linoscreen.jpg, can it? (if you're
>>> reading - sorry Linonut, but we don't share a visual aesthetic)
>>
>> So what's wrong with it?
>
> It's a hideous witches brew of fonts and strange interfaces. It hurts bad.
No, it doesn't. i particularly like the dark colour scheme.
>
>
>> I've seen far worse desktops.
>
> Got any links?
Not at the moment. Maybe I'll keep an eye out.
>
>
>
>>> For a while I used this theme:
>>> http://www.angelfire.com/linux/dfs0/DFS_Server2003_skinned.PNG
>>
>> Nice enough, but I've seen better.
>
> Me too.
It's bland enough not to be distracting, I suppose, but the whole idea of
skinning is to liven up a dull desktop, IMO.
--
Kier
William Poaster
was seen to write:
<snip>
> I live in my hometown (Atlanta GA), and probably always will
Not been out in the big wide world, eh? It figures.
>>>> Owning your own PC is so much nicer than renting it...
>>>
>>> You're not a [software] owner or renter; you're a squatter, using other
>>> people's property without remuneration.
Bullshit, but what else would you expect from DooFu$.
<snip>
> My greatest fear is having to drive one of those little security trucks
> around a mall parking lot at 74 years of age to make enough money to eat.
Better get practising then.
> Second greatest fear is having to use Linux.
Ah, so you admit you *can't* use it. Thought so.
Kier
And you screaming 'slopware' are every turn, and flatfish nymshifting so
fast he must have trouble remembering who he is from one minute to the
next, and billwg lying... Pot, kettle, black.
>
>
>
>>>> Thanks for the
>>>> reminder of my desktop, by the way. It looks even a little bit
>>>> better, now.
>>>
>>> You quit using slrn and The GIMP and DDD and xmms?
>>
>> Of course not. They are eminently useful.
>
> useless
You really are very stupid. The GIMP is useless, is it? Funny how so many
of the great images used for desktop backgrounds I've seen (and saw
long before I had Linux) are created by the GIMP. And XMMS plays mp3s,
oggs, and streaming radio, with nice visualisations, and isn't half as
blated as WMP. And slrn is a very powerful, flexible newsreader. And all
these apps are useless, are they? Millions disagree with you.
You thickheaded imbecile.
--
KIer
Linønut
> My greatest fear is having to drive one of those little security trucks
> around a mall parking lot at 74 years of age to make enough money to eat.
> Second greatest fear is having to use Linux.
Then hanging around here listening to Linux users is irrational, isn't it?
Linønut
DFS defines the world in his/her own terms.
> You thickheaded imbecile.
To some extent, that thick head may represent prison walls.
Linønut
>> WinXP is not so stable, can be very sluggish, and still pretty buggy.
>> Even worse with Microsoft applications.
>
> WinXP is their most stable consumer OS. Or so I've read.
It (NT 5.1) is better than NT 4, but worse than NT 5.
>> Win2003 Server has been extremely problematic on our setup. At
>> times, it has behaved PATHETICALLY, and it has taken a lot of
>> trouble-shooting and research to get it to work properly for all the
>> functions we use it for. Win2003 and HP have been a marriage made in
>> hell for us. And I'm leaving SQL Server out of this statement for
>> now.
>
> That's YOUR setup. You can't generalize that to the universe of Win2003
> systems.
Why not? That setup lead us to a wonderful world of KnowledgeBase articles
on various bugs and workarounds.
> Though I will admit to seeing some general unpleasantness on my WinServer
> 2003 system here, after installing SP1 last week. I'm getting occasional
> short-term system freezes with FireFox and Outlook Express that I never had
> before.
We'll be waiting on SP1 for awhile. Our customer always gets trembly at the
thought of having to spend more money. (Not on SP1, but on the testing.)
Luckily, our system is currently air-gap.
>> You're last phrase above is tautological.
>
> cola is just a daily exercise in tautology.
Not just.
> But that mishmash should partner up and do some promotion. I think a few
> good TV ads would do wonders.
IBM was doing that for awhile. But, to some extent, it is a waste of money.
The quality of GNU/Linux spreads by word-of-mouth (or samizdat, as one jerk
journalist wrote) or by live CDs.
>> There's only a few nuts in COLA, and most of them are Windows drones.
>
> I disagree. With guys like 7 and Rex Ballard around, and the shrieking
> about MS "criminality", Windows "crapware", Bill Gates "evil", etc. cola is
> a wack job of a newsgroup.
Sigh. Unfortunately for your thesis, there are great elements of truth in
all of those claims. It ain't paranoia if they're out to get you.
>>> You quit using slrn and The GIMP and DDD and xmms?
>>
>> Of course not. They are eminently useful.
>
> useless
What a stupid thing to say to someone who gets a lot of use out of those
applications.
billwg
> begin oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:09:03 -0400, that DFS
> was seen to write:
>
>
>>I dropped those themes for
>>performance reasons, and went back to classic Windows 2000 look on my
>>Server 2003 desktop. It is ho-hum, and I like it that way.
>
>
> A server with a GUI used as a desktop, what a joke.
>
It would be better to use a focused workstation OS like linux for your
client needs!
amosf
> Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>> WinXP is not so stable, can be very sluggish, and still pretty buggy.
>> Even worse with Microsoft applications.
>
> WinXP is their most stable consumer OS. Or so I've read.
Well duh, the others include 95, 98 and ME...
SE was comparable for stability. I'd say about the same at this stage, but
no real number to go with that...
billwg
>
> I'm guessing you must be very young. Some of us were around before MS. We've
> been through DOS and win3.1 and 95 and ME... At the time there were ALWAYS
> better alternatives that didn't screw you - like DR-DOS and OS/2 and linux.
>
> It's not a matter of hating MS, rather it just didn't do the job. DOS was
> weak. DR-DOS was more featured. win3.1 looked bad even next to GEM. 95 and
> 3.1 were killed by the stability of OS/2 and the warp interface left them
> dead.
Ignoring linux as an alternative, given the obscurity of the product and
the consequent lack of any recognition in the market, what you describe
fairly shows the choices that consumers had in the early history of the
IBM PC world. You may say that DR-DOS was better than MS-DOS or that
OS/2 was superior to Windows 3.x and you may even be correct, but people
chose the MS products over their competitors and so the OEMs came to
offer the MS products as preloads which had the effect of
institutionalizing the user's original free choice and so defining the
products available today.
At every turn, the MS products were seen by the market consumers to be
good values and the best selection available. Perhaps MS simply was
more effective in advertising, but it was the consumer's choice at the
end of the day.
Devil's Advocate
> begin virus.scr Devil's Advocate wrote:
>
> > Peter Köhlmann <Peter.K...@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > news:<d4jr51$tr9$00$1...@news.t-online.com>...
> >> begin virus.scr Devil's Advocate wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > It is also a
> >> >> > "smart" market wherein the consumers see a requirement to keep
> >> >> > themselves informed on IT developments. Even then, it has mostly
> >> >> > been a story of cost reducing conventional Unix rather than
> >> >> > replacing any Windows systems in this market area.
> >> >>
> >> >> How would you stupid twit know?
> >> >>
> >> >> You simply claim your bullshit, without any circumstantial knowledge
> >> >
> >> > Sorry mate, this is accepted by Red Hat and Novell openly. Also,
> >> > pretty much every piece of credible independent research that has been
> >> > published verifies it. On what basis do you think otherwise? I think
> >> > it's you that has to justify the gounds upon which you dispute the
> >> > objective evidence available.
> >>
> >> Good thing that you snipped everything else. Otherwise you might have
> >> looked as stupid as you are
> >
> > Why stupid? Please explain.
>
> No. Reread what you snipped
The bit I snipped was all about desktop linux being promoted into the
consumer space. I can comment on this from a European perspective,
which is quite different to what you were describing for the US, i.e.
desktop linux is not being promoted here significantly (except perhaps
in Germany). I didn't feel I had the necessary knowledge to comment on
your US related experiences confidently enough, though, so just
snipped to the bit I do know about which is adoption patterns on the
server side. I have been involved in researching this first hand and
have a good feel for the area both on a global basis and locally
within the US, Europe and Asia.
What I picked up on was the fact that the previous poster had stated
what was going on in terms of adoption of linux on the server quite
accurately and made a pertinent point concerning the difference in
experience and mindset of a corporate IT buyer versus a consumer. You
then called him a "stupid twit" and refered to what he was saying
"bullshit". In doing this, you were abusively disputing statements
that that I know to be pretty accurate. You were therefore both wrong
and out of line which is why I called you on it.
So, having re-read the complete trail as you suggested, I repeat my
question:
Why did you call me stupid?
I am not offended, just curious about the grounds upon which you make
that claim.
billwg
>
> However, this is a relatively accurate statement. Even today, nearly
> 13 years after the first releases of GUI based Linux distributions, it
> is still not possible to walk into any national franchise retailer and
> have a "hands on" experience with Linux.
>
> This isn't due to lack of marketing effort however. Red Hat offered to
> let the OEMS install their Linux for $2/copy in dual-boot
> configurations back in 1995. Corel sold licenses to motherboard
> manufacturers and nearly every OEM had the license and permission to
> install Corel Linux in dual-boot.
>
You suffer from a stunted growth of your salesmanship, R.E.! "Offering
to let..." isn't a very effective promotion unless there is a demand for
the product being offered. That has to be created by the product
manufacturer and, so far, linux suppliers have done nothing that has
proven effective. Corel and Linspire/Lindows tried in the past and ran
up losses that greatly harmed their businesses. The OEMs were certainly
not impressed.
Dual booting represents a substantial cost to the OEM and is not going
to be included unless there is a perceived demand for it. It is a
mistake to attribute the OEM reluctance to waste money on some nefarious
Microsoft plot. Also comical to watch.
> Microsoft took countermeasures. They revised the OEM license
> agreement, requiring that all machines be shipped with one single
> partition. Windows 95 clobbered the boot sector and partitioning
> during installation, wiping out BOTH the Windows and Linux or OS/2
> partition. This was done without warning the user installing the
> system.
>
Nonsense.
> Subsequent license agreements and releases have included similar
> restrictions, and Microsoft has also now defined the "standard
> hardware" to include hardware which has been developed exclusively for
> Windows. In fact, the OEMs are required by contract to aggressively
> prevent the development and distribution of Linux drivers.
>
> The OEMs are not required to adopt the new technologies. If they don't
> however, they will not be eligible for "research funds" which were
> stipulated as part of the DOJ settlement.
>
> For obvious reasons, Microsoft is terrified at the prospect of having
> Linux enabled systems displayed right next to Windows systems. In
> fact, Microsoft isn't real keen on having Windows enabled PCs displayed
> next to Macs. At minimum,companies like CompUSA keep them in separate
> isles.
>
A garbled and somewhat paranoid view of reality, R.E.! Keep up the good
work.
Where Macintosh and Windows are both sold, CompUSA being perhaps the
only instance of that, the two are separated mostly to facilitate sales.
Customers looking for Mac supplies and equipment are assisted by Mac
aware clerks and the same is true for the Windows shoppers. Customers
who are in the wrong area for what they want are sent to the other more
easily and CompUSA clerks do not have to admit to any ignorance
regarding the other systems.
>
>> It is very much a specialty item and is available
>>only to those who seek it out.
>
>
> This is also very true, especially in the United States and North
> America. In Asia, India, and South America, there are many smaller
> vendors who sell machines preconfigured with Linux. In some of these
> contries, Linux has captured as much as 30% of the user base.
> Globally, Linux has established more new users in the last 2 years than
> Microsoft sells in a single year.
>
I don't actually believe that, but, even so, it is not such an important
thing. Impoverished countries are not a target for any product that
wants to produce a profit.
> Hard to imagine what Linux might do if it were on display at WalMart,
> Staples, or any of the other vendors who currently offer Linux systems
> via the Web.
>
Create a lot of confusion and swell the size of the returns desk area
most likely.
>
>> Linux on the desktop is not marketed to
>>anyone at this time.
>
>
> Minor correction there. Linux is not marketed at retailers.
> This will be a stale lead soon, but WalMart offers Linux PCs.
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product_listing.gsp?cat=231793&path=0%3A3944%3A3951%3A41937%3A231785%3A231793
>
>
Interesting scenario, too. WalMart originally offered the Microtel
machines with Lindows at a price below Windows. Now the Microtel and
Windows machines are the same price where they have identical hardware.
Microtel once supplied Mandrake and now seems to have switched to
Xandros. One wonders what has happened in this situation.
Another lesson to be learned here is the presentation of the linux
machines at the extreme low end of the line. All the upscale machines
are Windows based. This conveys a message that linux is a cheap
substitute for Windows and so is the OS for losers who cannot afford
better. This does little to "promote" linux and a very lot to cast it
in a negative light.
Being paranoid as you appear, you might consider that MS is paying
WalMart to do this on purpose.
Peter Köhlmann
From what perspective do you twit think I am looking?
> which is quite different to what you were describing for the US,
Except I am not from the US
> i.e.
> desktop linux is not being promoted here significantly (except perhaps
> in Germany).
Well, you dumb twit, I *am* talking about germany, obviously
> I didn't feel I had the necessary knowledge to comment on
> your US related experiences confidently enough, though, so just
> snipped to the bit I do know about which is adoption patterns on the
> server side. I have been involved in researching this first hand and
> have a good feel for the area both on a global basis and locally
> within the US, Europe and Asia.
>
Now crawl back under that stone you came from
< snip more stupid bullshit >
billwg
> begin oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:44:19 -0400, that DFS
> was seen to write:
>
> <snip>
>
>>I live in my hometown (Atlanta GA), and probably always will
>
>
> Not been out in the big wide world, eh? It figures.
>
the denizens of Hotlanta, eh? LOL!!!
Of course it's not Orlando...
DFS
<r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:1114590640.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>Even today, nearly
> 13 years after the first releases of GUI based Linux distributions, it
> is still not possible to walk into any national franchise retailer and
> have a "hands on" experience with Linux.
Don't know if MicroCenter is national, but they sell machines with Linspire
pre-installed. I played around with one last week.
> Subsequent license agreements and releases have included similar
> restrictions, and Microsoft has also now defined the "standard
> hardware" to include hardware which has been developed exclusively for
> Windows. In fact, the OEMs are required by contract to aggressively
> prevent the development and distribution of Linux drivers.
LOL! You never give up do you. Or is that Bizarro Rex talking?
> In some of these
> contries, Linux has captured as much as 30% of the user base.
> Globally, Linux has established more new users in the last 2 years than
> Microsoft sells in a single year.
Got any links to independent sources of these can-only-charitably-be-called
"estimates"?
> Hard to imagine what Linux might do if it were on display at WalMart,
> Staples, or any of the other vendors who currently offer Linux systems
> via the Web.
I imagine the result would be the same: low sales of Linux machines.
DFS
"Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.04.27....@tiscali.co.uk...
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:36:41 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Kier wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:35:13 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It can't be much worse than this
>>>> http://home.comcast.net/~linonut/linoscreen.jpg, can it? (if you're
>>>> reading - sorry Linonut, but we don't share a visual aesthetic)
>>>
>>> So what's wrong with it?
>>
>> It's a hideous witches brew of fonts and strange interfaces. It hurts
>> bad.
>
> No, it doesn't. i particularly like the dark colour scheme.
Yes it does. The dark colors would be fine if the desktop had a consistent
look. It doesn't.
DFS
"Linųnut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message
news:69udneK_CPt...@comcast.com...
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>> On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 10:35:13 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It can't be much worse than this
>>>> http://home.comcast.net/~linonut/linoscreen.jpg, can it? (if you're
>>>> reading - sorry Linonut, but we don't share a visual aesthetic)
>>>
>>> So what's wrong with it?
>>
>> It's a hideous witches brew of fonts and strange interfaces. It hurts
>> bad.
>
> can do that. For me, it's not worth the effort, plus I find that
> different
> fonts work better for different purposes.
>
> If you want all your apps to have the same keystrokes, well, you can
> achieve
> some of that, too. Again, though, it's not worth it. You get used to it
> in
> no time.
It looks like a regular desktop in front of a carnival mirror.
> I'm not going to let a desire for eye-candy or uniform fonts determine
> what
> apps I run. I use certain text-based apps (xterm, mutt, slrn) because
> they
> are fast and functional.
Honestly, how fast do you need a newsreader or email program to be?
> I'd still use vim and GIMP on it, though. Oh, and Cygwin/X11.
I may try Cygwin one of these days.
DFS
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> My greatest fear is having to drive one of those little security trucks
>> around a mall parking lot at 74 years of age to make enough money to eat.
>> Second greatest fear is having to use Linux.
>
> Then hanging around here listening to Linux users is irrational, isn't it?
Yes.
DFS
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>> Win2003 Server has been extremely problematic on our setup. At
>>> times, it has behaved PATHETICALLY, and it has taken a lot of
>>> trouble-shooting and research to get it to work properly for all the
>>> functions we use it for. Win2003 and HP have been a marriage made in
>>> hell for us. And I'm leaving SQL Server out of this statement for
>>> now.
>>
>> That's YOUR setup. You can't generalize that to the universe of Win2003
>> systems.
>
> Why not? That setup lead us to a wonderful world of KnowledgeBase
> articles
> on various bugs and workarounds.
Linux/OSS bugs and workarounds fill up knowledgebases as well.
>> But that mishmash should partner up and do some promotion. I think a few
>> good TV ads would do wonders.
>
> IBM was doing that for awhile. But, to some extent, it is a waste of
> money.
Maybe. That's the eternal question about advertising effectiveness.
> The quality of GNU/Linux spreads by word-of-mouth (or samizdat, as one
> jerk
> journalist wrote) or by live CDs.
I believe magazines with CDs or DVDs are good Linux marketing.
>>> There's only a few nuts in COLA, and most of them are Windows drones.
>>
>> I disagree. With guys like 7 and Rex Ballard around, and the shrieking
>> about MS "criminality", Windows "crapware", Bill Gates "evil", etc. cola
>> is
>> a wack job of a newsgroup.
>
> Sigh. Unfortunately for your thesis, there are great elements of truth in
> all of those claims. It ain't paranoia if they're out to get you.
But it's not just those two. It's literally every single cola reg,
including you, plus every single occasional contributor. If they're a
Linux afficionado, they're GUARANTEED to have something nasty to say about
MS/Windows/Bill Gates.
>>>> You quit using slrn and The GIMP and DDD and xmms?
>>>
>>> Of course not. They are eminently useful.
>>
>> useless
>
> What a stupid thing to say to someone who gets a lot of use out of those
> applications.
Maybe. But I had to say something smart-aleck.
DFS
"billwg" <bil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:zzLbe.26894$5f....@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
They make fun of "choice" only when a Windows user exercises it. They're
hypocrites.
DFS
"amosf" <linu...@bcs4me.com> wrote in message
news:426f...@news.comindico.com.au...
> DFS wrote something like:
>
>> Linønut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?= wrote:
>
>>> WinXP is not so stable, can be very sluggish, and still pretty buggy.
>>> Even worse with Microsoft applications.
>>
>> WinXP is their most stable consumer OS. Or so I've read.
>
> Well duh, the others include 95, 98 and ME...
And 2000, the previous most stable Windows.
William Poaster
was seen to write:
> "Linønut" <"=?iso-8859-1?Q?lin=F8nut?="@bone.com> wrote in message:
>> Then hanging around here listening to Linux users is irrational, isn't
>> it?
>
> Yes.
So you admit you're irrational, good.
William Poaster
was seen to write:
<snip>
YAAF.
William Poaster
was seen to write:
> Maybe. But I had to say something smart-aleck.
It was better you remained silent & be thought a fool, than open your
mouth & remove all doubt.
Linønut
>> No, it doesn't. i particularly like the dark colour scheme.
>
> Yes it does. The dark colors would be fine if the desktop had a consistent
> look. It doesn't.
And I like it that way.
Linønut
> Honestly, how fast do you need a newsreader or email program to be?
Faster than any GUI version.
--
When all you have is a GUI, everything looks like an icon.
Linønut
>> Sigh. Unfortunately for your thesis, there are great elements of truth in
>> all of those claims. It ain't paranoia if they're out to get you.
>
> But it's not just those two. It's literally every single cola reg,
> including you, plus every single occasional contributor. If they're a
> Linux afficionado, they're GUARANTEED to have something nasty to say about
> MS/Windows/Bill Gates.
Of course. I have to use their crapware all the time. Really gets me mad
sometimes. Costs me a lot of productivity sometimes.
I discovered Linux pretty late (Red Hat 6). It, and the whole open-source
software libre movement, was, and still is, a breath of fresh air for me. I
cannot believe just how much good, useful, software one can get through
broadband.
DFS
> William Poaster wrote:
>> begin oe_virus.scr It was on Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:44:19 -0400, that
>> DFS was seen to write:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> I live in my hometown (Atlanta GA), and probably always will
>>
>> Not been out in the big wide world, eh?
Oh, I've been around a little bit.
>> It figures.
...that a tiny-brained Linux moron like you would make an ignorant
assumption.
> The bill poster doesn't seem to "grok" the substantial civic pride of
> the denizens of Hotlanta, eh? LOL!!!
heh... I have to say the actual city of Atlanta is a basket case of idiots,
corruption and mismanagement, funded by the Windows users in north Fulton
County.
> Of course it's not Orlando...
It's not. We have no Shamu.
DFS
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> Honestly, how fast do you need a newsreader or email program to be?
>
> Faster than any GUI version.
The speed differential (measurable in milliseconds) is offset 100 times by
the effort and time spent learning all those keyboard "shortcuts."
And OE (Pan too probably) has keyboard shortcuts for everything.
I think you use slrn for one reason only: vanity.
DFS
> DFS poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>>> Sigh. Unfortunately for your thesis, there are great elements of
>>> truth in all of those claims. It ain't paranoia if they're out to
>>> get you.
>>
>> But it's not just those two. It's literally every single cola reg,
>> including you, plus every single occasional contributor. If
>> they're a Linux afficionado, they're GUARANTEED to have something
>> nasty to say about MS/Windows/Bill Gates.
>
> Of course. I have to use their crapware all the time.
So that's what bothers you. (Though I guess I'd be bitter if I was forced
to use Linux).
> Really gets me mad sometimes. Costs me a lot of productivity sometimes.
How do you think I feel when I click on a CD icon on my Fedora Core 2
desktop (with no disc in the drive) and I can't get control of the computer
back for 30 seconds? Or Konqueror regularly locking for 10 to 15 seconds
just trying to browse the filesystem?
And the cola reply? FC2 is "experimental" or "try another distro" or "you
did something wrong"
> I discovered Linux pretty late (Red Hat 6). It, and the whole
> open-source software libre movement, was, and still is, a breath of
> fresh air for me. I cannot believe just how much good, useful,
> software one can get through broadband.
I do like KDE, and a few other OSS apps.
ray
> Let me clarify that:-
>
> I'm under the impression that Windows was available before Linux.
>
> What are reasonable dates to put on the two?
>
> Would it be fair to Windows to take the sale of 3.0 as a start point?
>
> What about Linux?
> The announcement by Linus on the 'net is scarcely a start date.
> At what date was it generally available with a usable GUI?
>
> Bill
You might also be interested as to availability dates for: 32-bit versions
and 64-bit versions.