So, let me get this straight.....
White Wabbit
accessible by others on any P2P networks, I'm OK as far as copyright laws
go here in Canada. Is that it??
Question number 2.....I keep hearing that Kazaa/KazaaLite is crap, and I
believe it. What P2P networks would you recommend I use in place of it?
Thanks to all who replied to my original post.
Smells Like Baba Ganoush
Kazaa is crap and full of spyware or whatever that crap is called.
--
"White Wabbit" <shinyhap...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:8WG%c.360236$gE.291575@pd7tw3no...
Smells Like Baba Ganoush
never ever do that (speaking into anyone of several listening devices
steathily placed in his room by the CRIA).
--
"Smells Like Baba Ganoush" <noem...@myplace.ok> wrote in message
news:SqH%c.344870$M95.27434@pd7tw1no...
General Protection Fault
> If I have music on my HD, but do not store said music in a file that is
> accessible by others on any P2P networks, I'm OK as far as copyright laws
> go here in Canada. Is that it??
Dunno, but the RIAA says you can't even make a backup copy of it.
> Question number 2.....I keep hearing that Kazaa/KazaaLite is crap, and I
> believe it. What P2P networks would you recommend I use in place of it?
eMule (emule.sourceforge.net). It's open-source and there's no crap in it.
--
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
12:40PM up 171 days, 4:43, 0 users, load averages: 0.03, 0.01, 0.00
Mbm56ca
for good software.
Manny
Mbm56ca
Manny
Mbm56ca
Manny
Mbm56ca
software.
Manny
>winMX = yes
>or Gnotella if you don't care how it looks
>IRC is the best for a safest source (you can still disguise files in WinMX,
>but it's has the best connectivity)
>
>
>Smells Like Baba Ganoush wrote:
>
>> Use WinMX.
>> Kazaa is crap and full of spyware or whatever that crap is called.
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>*****
>
>The internal section of THe-SPooKY-NeTWoRK is NOW back...
>If your BNC ain't working, yer under suspician :-)
>give us a shout if you just need a new one...
>
>*****
>
>'I can never think of a good quote for signatures.'
> Danny
Mbm56ca
Linux = dead
Manny
>For the moment. Particularly if you own it in another format.
>
> Another argument is you found it. It costs less than a dollar each and
>nobody is claiming to have lost the file. After all would anybody bother
>turning in a loonie they found. Would the cops say it's a waste of time...
>If it were $50.00 then maybe they would care.
>
>
>> Question number 2.....I keep hearing that Kazaa/KazaaLite is crap, and I
>> believe it. What P2P networks would you recommend I use in place of it?
>
> Personally I'd go further than that and scrap Windows. In fact I set up
>my machine so Windows doesn't see the net. I do almost everything except
>for a few games under Linux. Microsoft has been caught, by various people
>who bothered to look, sending disk dumps to their corporate computers.
>Before anybody asks, I don't have the references handy but could get them
>within a day or two of a request.
>
> I've observed when there is a Windows machine connected to my router
>(even a clean install with nothing running) there is constant traffic. I
>have some older Macs (the newest runs System 8.1) and, as I said, I run
>mostly in Linux. Even with my Linux box and the Macs connected at the same
>time there is almost no traffic until I request or send something. When I
>see a Windows box connected anywhere it's blathering away even when the
>user hasn't told it to do anything. This is easily verifiable by looking
>at how each machine deals with a high speed connection. If the Windows box
>is quiet, try connecting to the net.
>
> In terms of what I would recommend... Look for something which is open
>source. This way they are less likely to sneak something into the program.
>Of course some people refuse to touch any open source software. It's a
>personal choice.
>
>> Thanks to all who replied to my original post.
>
>
> Later
> Mike
>
matt
kazaalite k++, very good to use, also very hard to find the real version for
free. Unless you know someone who has it of course.
Isildur's Bane
So let me get this straight. You develop a product. You invest money
to build, test, market it, and sell it.
Joe Blow comes along and copies your idea and sells it for 50%
cheaper.
Better yet, China does it and does it for 90% cheaper.
Is that still ok?
-IB
Mbm56ca
both.
Manny
Isildur's Bane
The Wizard of Oz
> Linux = crap, moreover
>
> Linux = dead
>
> Manny
That's why Windows is losing ground in the server, business, and home
areas... To quote a line from a movie bearing the same title as my nym...
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". Or something you may be
more familiar with... Barbrady from South Park "Nothing to see here. Now
move along.".
Actually BSD is kicking butt in the server market compared to both.
The last time I used M$ for anything but games was a copy of Word. The
program crashed at least twice each session. it also randomly corrupted
files on the hard drive. The last time it crashed it took out the MBR,
various business programs (non-M$) as well as a months worth of work two
days before it was due (in a dozen files). I have never had a crash that
bad before or since. Since that time I've been using Linux for the
important stuff and Windows only for games. Windows has gone down more
than once but at least I've never lost any important files since. In the
last five years I can count the number of times Linux has gone down on one
hand. The only time I have to reinstall is when I buy a new hard drive. At
the same time I have friends telling me how stable XP is. The last time a
friend tried to demonstrate it he had to reboot his machine three times
(in one hour) then had the nerve to tell me it didn't happen. He is so
used to his machine going down he doesn't notice it any more.
When I was working for AT&T on their internet call centre (back when they
were downtown) I did both PC and Mac support. There were a few more call
centres around North America, but ours was the only one to do Mac support.
In the two and a half years I was there (it was a lifetime) I only had two
Linux calls. Both asked for the DNS settings. As someone told me you are
going to get two sets of questions with Linux machines. The real easy
questions (like the settings) and real tough questions. Since I never got
any tough questions (neither had anybody else I knew) I have to conclude
either Linux is easier to use or the average Linux user is a lot smarter
than the average Windows user. At that point I had to ask myself why would
anybody with half a brain (or more) be running Windows...
Just recently a friend (a Windows expert) bought a new hard drive.
Windows ME has troubles with anything greater than 137MB. He had to
reinstall Windows at least twice that I know about. This time I suggested
he throw Linux on at the end of the drive to make use of it. As expected
his ongoing problems with Windows happened again. He used Linux to recover
his files. Once I showed him some applications he was convinced. We now
have a convert away from Windows.
Given time, more people are going to check it out. If they put half the
effort toward learning Linux (or anything else) as they really did toward
fixing their Windows problems I don't think Windows would be around very
long. Windows is ONLY good for gaming (and that is changing).
Later
Mike
__SPooKY__
at core level, so less call tech support. Less exist as a rule too - ditto
with Macs.
Windows has many MANY problems and bugs, but so does linux in its own way. The
primary problem with windows is the politics of the company (small p). I have
my MS issues like anyone who knows more than how the on switch works, but i've
been a windows user since 2.0 (still got 2.0 if you want it, lol), right up to
XP SP2. I have more problems with my linux machines than my XP machine, and
the windows one does a lot more processing than the servers. I go for 4-6
weeks without even neededing a reboot, i usually do it just out of habit than
anything else once a month. I've never had a crash, i've never lost data.
I've had virii, been attacked, even spilt coke on it - works fine.
Everyone 'assumes' windows crashes every 8 seconds, because, frankly, ME does,
lol - but today, it has improved greatly and is much more stable than it was.
I will never use it as a server from a 100% cost point of view - i very much
prefer 'free' over a yearly license, especially when i get nothing back if it
fails even when i do pay for it. I'll admit linux is much easier to administer
remotely than windows is (and safer).
My local linux box is only really used for testing purposes before things go
live on the net, or for perm-storage cause the OS takes up less disc space.
The primary puter here is XP, and a few of the others are XP or 2000pro, i even
have a dual with longhorn (which in my opinion sucks balls, but only cause
nothing works on it yet). I'm more than happy with my MS product, it works
fine, it's perfectly stable, and it's not because all i do is play solitaire.
This machine is very often 'maxed out' processor-wise doing some serious number
crunching and taking up all the RAM. It's a 'shit' machine itself, but the OS
has nothing to do with that, it's good enough for what i use it for, so what's
the point of getting it 'upped'. It does it's job.
I think people are just 'used' to complaining about Microsoft products all the
time, it's habit more than anything. Specially those who either are in the
business, or like to pretend they are for whatever reason. I'm the first
person to sit there are give microsoft bullcrap for everything they do - as a
business, a 'monopoly', i hate them - actually hate - but for what they have
done to the computer world, i admire and respect them (well, Bill, i suppose) -
he had his goal, he set out to do it, he did it (their mission statement says
it all). They had many teething problems in the past, they've set standards
for propriety coding and who can take it and who can't - yes, 50% of the time,
that's just annoying and taken way too far, but for the genuine programmers out
there that work hard at what they do, it protects their work for them - it has
it's place when people don't take advantage of the situation. But they worked
through a lot of those teething problems and are very close to getting
something that's about as stable as it can be. Their business practices
(everyone complains that explorer.exe tries to connect to the net all the time,
(but did you actually read the ToS - it states it will happen) - and yes, other
things they do are very 'dodgy' in our eyes, but those 'in the business', 'in
the know' or know more than 'hey this button turns it on' know how to make a
firewall block that and protect themselves and their data.
People are just scared to accept that they are actually getting a little better
at what they do, if only from 'competition' (if you can call it that). It's
just so easy to blame them - yet, MOST computers have MS products on them,
including windows - does that not tell you 'somethiing'. If 'everyone' really
did hate them that much, they wouldn't have the market share that they do.
There are many free/cheap alternatives out there, but for the average joe,
windows is just easier, safer, and more comfortable.
There is no 'best OS' or 'best computer system' - it's all about your personal
preferences and what you are using it for in general. Those that just play
solitaire, and surf for porn don't need a 40GHz Machine with 90TB hard drives
and DVD-R/Ws in it running redhat 9 - just as those predicting weather cycles
don't want a 286 with 4mb of ram on a 66hz processor running windows 3.11 for
workgroups. I have more than one OS and the only, SINGLE compaint i have about
windows XP, is the high cost of the initial product. That's the only thing.
Everything else i can either live with, or actually need because many things
ONLY work on windows (despite what people think/say). I also disagree with
'licesing' issues, but that's a cost thing too - it bothers me that i have to
pay for 4 windows on 4 machines, instead of only wanting to pay once because
i'm the only user blah blah blah.
It's a world of 'hate this' 'hate that' 'hate bush' 'hate gates' 'hate my
mommy' bleh.... 'my way is better than your way because i'm god' 'my penis is
this big because i use linux and refuse to touch windows'. I'm happy for you
if in your industry linux (or the other free options) is what makes it run the
best. I've already stated i use redhat on my servers, because it's better for
that. But on a home computer, windows is the better choice, as long as you get
the more recent products, and not those released in 1993....
quit complaining in the manner that i just complained about the complainers !!
The Wizard of Oz
> more luck than judgement i'm sure. Most 'linux' users know what they are doing
> at core level, so less call tech support. Less exist as a rule too - ditto
> with Macs.
Got to agree about the Linux users. Quite a few Mac users as well. I got
to say I did have a small number of... well... goofballs... when I did Mac
support. FAR LESS than I got on Windows. I'm not meaning to be rude, but
I'd rather deal with Mac people than PC people (even *NIX people) any day.
> Windows has many MANY problems and bugs, but so does linux in its own way. The
> primary problem with windows is the politics of the company (small p). I have
> my MS issues like anyone who knows more than how the on switch works, but i've
> been a windows user since 2.0 (still got 2.0 if you want it, lol), right up to
> XP SP2. I have more problems with my linux machines than my XP machine, and
> the windows one does a lot more processing than the servers. I go for 4-6
> weeks without even neededing a reboot, i usually do it just out of habit than
> anything else once a month. I've never had a crash, i've never lost data.
> I've had virii, been attacked, even spilt coke on it - works fine.
True, but both are getting better. IMHO, Linux is getting better
faster, I recall reading Windows will start meeting MINIMUM security
requirements (as defined by themselves) by 2008.
My Windows experience only goes as far back as 3.0. I was using Macs,
Apples, and DOS up to that point. I've used up to ME regularly (work and
games). Based on what some network admins told me I borrowed a copy of XP
and set it up under BMWare. Let's just say I got rid of it in about a
month. I'll admit it is more stable than ME and things improve if you
install NTFS. However NTFS turns your hard drive into a piece of scrap
metal if you want to put anything other than NTFS on it. Many applications
were still unstable. There were only one quarter of the crashes I had with
ME. No doubt it is an improvement but I don't think it was improved enough
for my needs.
Still, for sheer uptime you can't beat BSD. Windows = days/months (max).
Linux = years. BSD = decades.
> Everyone 'assumes' windows crashes every 8 seconds, because, frankly, ME does,
> lol - but today, it has improved greatly and is much more stable than it was.
> I will never use it as a server from a 100% cost point of view - i very much
> prefer 'free' over a yearly license, especially when i get nothing back if it
> fails even when i do pay for it. I'll admit linux is much easier to administer
> remotely than windows is (and safer).
It all depends on what you are doing. In my previous post I made it clear
I tried to give Windows a chance as a production machine. Frankly, the
only things I was doing with it at the time was using Word and playing Civ
II. I was on dial-up at the time so I did some surfing and e-mail. Man, I
can tell you I was ANGRY when it wiped out all that work. It still gets my
dander up even today.
At the moment I can't say I've administered a Windows or Linux network. I
did administer a Novell network for a couple of weeks. I tried to set up
one so I could share some files between my Linux machine and Mac. I was
only able to set it up to get one way traffic. I think it was 30 seconds
away from working the way it should. This was when I had both machines
connected to Shaw with a hub. Now I have a router I should be able to do
more without complaints.
> My local linux box is only really used for testing purposes before things go
> live on the net, or for perm-storage cause the OS takes up less disc space.
> The primary puter here is XP, and a few of the others are XP or 2000pro, i even
> have a dual with longhorn (which in my opinion sucks balls, but only cause
> nothing works on it yet). I'm more than happy with my MS product, it works
> fine, it's perfectly stable, and it's not because all i do is play solitaire.
> This machine is very often 'maxed out' processor-wise doing some serious number
> crunching and taking up all the RAM. It's a 'shit' machine itself, but the OS
> has nothing to do with that, it's good enough for what i use it for, so what's
> the point of getting it 'upped'. It does it's job.
I hear better things about 2000Pro (without active directory) than I do
about XP. If you have your M$ systems working to your satisfaction then
more power to you. My personal experience has been very different than
yours.
Everybody has different experiences. I use Linux for EVERYTHING except
games. Just about every single problem I experienced under Windows is
gone. I run a magazine business (feel free to subscribe). This means I do
a bit of everything. Editing, composition, web page creation, accounting,
e-mail, news (obviously), video, audio, graphics, production, CD/DVD
burning. All without a problem. Sure I've had to restart programs.
Restarting the machine... Frankly the last time I've had to reboot my
machine because Linux froze was... Years ago. Windows... Earlier this
week, and all I was doing was playing the Sims.
> I think people are just 'used' to complaining about Microsoft products all the
> time, it's habit more than anything.
In my case it was justified. It's actually more of a habit to bend over
and take it.
> Specially those who either are in the
> business, or like to pretend they are for whatever reason. I'm the first
> person to sit there are give microsoft bullcrap for everything they do - as a
> business, a 'monopoly', i hate them - actually hate - but for what they have
> done to the computer world, i admire and respect them (well, Bill, i suppose) -
> he had his goal, he set out to do it, he did it (their mission statement says
> it all).
You and I know there is more to this story than the general public is
aware of...
> They had many teething problems in the past, they've set standards
> for propriety coding and who can take it and who can't - yes, 50% of the time,
> that's just annoying and taken way too far, but for the genuine programmers out
> there that work hard at what they do, it protects their work for them - it has
> it's place when people don't take advantage of the situation.
The Simpsons had what I consider an accurate quote. "I didn't get to be
rich by writing a lot of cheques". Microsoft has hurt more than half the
businesses they've dealt with. They sign exclusivity deals with certain
companies so they can access proprietary code to make their programs
operate "better". This means they are prevented from releasing a Linux or
Mac equivalent product. Those companies which refuse such an agreement
(eg. Kodak) are discriminated against. Some had their applications
replaced with M$ versions without permission of the user (this has been
fixed in later versions).
> But they worked
> through a lot of those teething problems and are very close to getting
> something that's about as stable as it can be.
After 25+ years in the industry and 15+ years with a GUI they are only
NOW becoming stable? I'd say it's an awful long time to have teething
problems.
> Their business practices
> (everyone complains that explorer.exe tries to connect to the net all the time,
> (but did you actually read the ToS - it states it will happen) - and yes, other
> things they do are very 'dodgy' in our eyes, but those 'in the business', 'in
> the know' or know more than 'hey this button turns it on' know how to make a
> firewall block that and protect themselves and their data.
True. Most people don't bother to read the ToS or the EULA. Clicking the
"I accept" button gives them the right to what's on the machine. I've seen
three different versions. The first went as far as to claim ownership of
the hardware. The second said the same thing except with more legalese.
The third was less restrictive. When it comes pre-installed from the
computer store there is no choice involved.
> People are just scared to accept that they are actually getting a little better
> at what they do, if only from 'competition' (if you can call it that). It's
> just so easy to blame them - yet, MOST computers have MS products on them,
> including windows - does that not tell you 'somethiing'. If 'everyone' really
> did hate them that much, they wouldn't have the market share that they do.
> There are many free/cheap alternatives out there, but for the average joe,
> windows is just easier, safer, and more comfortable.
True most computers have M$ products on them. No argument there. Look at
what the average Joe wants to do on their machines... All the internet
stuff can be done as easily (if not easier and better) on a *NIX machine.
Office applications are just as easy on a *NIX machine (OO.O has made
amazing progress in the last couple of versions). POS and business
applications are there. Multimedia programs are there and solid (I have
friends in the movie industry who say the only reason they use M$ is
because it's DEMANDED by Hollywood - all their software is duplicated
under *NIX). Games are developed under Linux and BSD (at least the stable
ones) and then ported to Windows. If the developers were thinking they
could also sell Linux versions of the games since they are already in that
format. The P2P stuff is there as well but a couple of months behind. It's
not that equivalent (or better) software isn't available. The best
description of your average Joe computer is a (mangled) quote taken out of
context from Blazing Saddles. "They're salt of the earth. You know...
Morons." ;-)
In my experience, most Windows users are very frustrated with their
computers but don't know what to do. I've only had one Linux person go
back to Windows. That was because his dog club wanted something written in
a proprietary database.
Besides, If you own a computer store and get a 20% kickback every time
you install Windows on a machine, are you going to tell a customer they
can get something else where you don't get any money?
If the American Department of Homeland Security said tomorrow
"We are going to expand our recommendation against using Internet
Explorer/Outlook/Outlook Express to include all Microsoft products", how
many people would be aware of any alternatives. If they were, how many
people could make the transition? Would the transition be painful or
painless? Since the both of us know more about the machines than just how
to use the on button would it be a major problem to find/use Linux
equivalent programs?
How difficult is it to use a file manager or click on a desktop icon...
> There is no 'best OS' or 'best computer system'
I agree. Something may work better in one situation than another. I know
people on both sides of the issue. Most who use *NIX have more than one
machine or use a dual-boot system. Most who use Windows can barely find
the on button. Those who use *NIX exclusively (I know about a dozen) are
very smart and very scary.
> - it's all about your personal
> preferences and what you are using it for in general.
No argument. I tell people, "It's YOUR money. Spend it as you see fit.".
I just relate my experiences and make a suggestion. If there is another
person suggesting one thing then I suggest the other to balance it out. In
the past (before this latest batch of improvements to the packages under
Linux) I even made the case for Windows a couple of times. In a
group/conversation such as this one there is no need to present the M$
side. There are plenty of M$ shills here. You sound more moderate than
some of the others I've seen lately.
> Those that just play
> solitaire, and surf for porn don't need a 40GHz Machine with 90TB hard drives
> and DVD-R/Ws in it running redhat 9
I doubt they'd even know what RedHat was... As far as they'd be
concerned they wouldn't know what an operating system is and wouldn't care
(unless they got caught doing something they shouldn't). For those
requirements a 16MB stick of RAM, running on a 486/66, and 3GB hard drive
(storage for EVERYTHING and then some) with RedHat 7.3 or Mandrake 9.1 (on
a Pentium/75) should be far more than adequate. I have an equivalent Mac
with System 7.5.5 and it worked fine before the power supply went.
A decent off the shelf system could be purchased anywhere. Take the
requirements for Windows and divide in half. Fedora 2 is OK if you install
the updates. Install MPlayer and a couple of other programs to complete
what was taken out from RedHat 9 then you have a great home system.
> - just as those predicting weather cycles
> don't want a 286 with 4mb of ram on a 66hz processor running windows 3.11 for
> workgroups.
Oddly enough I found 3.11 to be more stable than 95. Still I agree with
your assessment. That setup with that application would be just plain
silly. I'd actually suggest a Beowolf cluster for that application.
> I have more than one OS and the only, SINGLE compaint i have about
> windows XP, is the high cost of the initial product.
Just don't connect it without a good firewall/router.
> That's the only thing.
> Everything else i can either live with, or actually need because many things
> ONLY work on windows (despite what people think/say).
My experience there is the only reason the software needs Windows is
because the publishers usually refuse to release the original *NIX
development version or a *NIX port (as simple as recompiling it on a *NIX
machine).
> I also disagree with
> 'licesing' issues, but that's a cost thing too - it bothers me that i have to
> pay for 4 windows on 4 machines, instead of only wanting to pay once because
> i'm the only user blah blah blah.
Got to agree there. A friend was sold a multi-processor version of XP
because he told the sales person he wanted to use XP on a second machine.
> It's a world of 'hate this' 'hate that' 'hate bush' 'hate gates' 'hate my
> mommy' bleh.... 'my way is better than your way because i'm god' 'my penis is
> this big because i use linux and refuse to touch windows'.
As I said in other threads, I try not to be anti-anything, but sometimes
it's difficult. Everybody forms their own opinions based on their
experiences. My experiences with Windows have been nothing short of awful.
My experiences with the Mac, Apple, OS/2, Linux, and BSD have been so much
better by comparison. Not perfect though. If you didn't have a firewall,
which of the above machines would you rather have connected to the net?
This is part of the reason I suggested the original poster take a serious
look at Linux. There is a good reason I made the recommendation.
> I'm happy for you
> if in your industry linux (or the other free options) is what makes it run the
> best.
What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. It still shouldn't
prevent me from making a recommendation contradicting the popular view.
Just because Manny likes putting his head in the sand and talking like an
M$ shill doesn't mean he (or anybody else including me) should be believed
without checking things out. For me and an increasing number of people the
*NIX solution is the way to go.
> I've already stated i use redhat on my servers, because it's better for
> that. But on a home computer, windows is the better choice, as long as
> you get the more recent products, and not those released in 1993....
We'll have to agree to disagree about the home uses for Linux. If all
someone cares about is the apps then unless the app is written only for
one operating system, the operating system shouldn't matter beyond speed
and stability. My choice was to go with something which would let me
complete my work. I started seriously with Linux at RedHat 6.1 and found
it was always faster and more stable than the concurrent version of
Windows.
> quit complaining in the manner that i just complained about the
> complainers !!
I did go a little over the top didn't I... Blame it on a few consecutive
late nights followed by early mornings. Three hours per night is not good. ;-)
Anyhow. I've been pulled away half a dozen times. I'd better get through
with my other stuff before I get another call.
Later
Mike
__SPooKY__
> Got to agree about the Linux users. Quite a few Mac users as well. I got
> to say I did have a small number of... well... goofballs... when I did Mac
> support. FAR LESS than I got on Windows. I'm not meaning to be rude, but
> I'd rather deal with Mac people than PC people (even *NIX people) any day.
>
they do tend to be happier, lol - as i said before, people expect windows to
fail, so they already assumed it was an OS problem, not a setup problem. I
always preferred to talk to support if it was mac or nix related, because they
tend to be nicer and more thorough anyway, lol
>
> True, but both are getting better. IMHO, Linux is getting better
> faster, I recall reading Windows will start meeting MINIMUM security
> requirements (as defined by themselves) by 2008.
>
> My Windows experience only goes as far back as 3.0. I was using Macs,
> Apples, and DOS up to that point. I've used up to ME regularly (work and
> games). Based on what some network admins told me I borrowed a copy of XP
> and set it up under BMWare. Let's just say I got rid of it in about a
> month. I'll admit it is more stable than ME and things improve if you
> install NTFS. However NTFS turns your hard drive into a piece of scrap
> metal if you want to put anything other than NTFS on it. Many applications
> were still unstable. There were only one quarter of the crashes I had with
> ME. No doubt it is an improvement but I don't think it was improved enough
> for my needs.
>
>
> Still, for sheer uptime you can't beat BSD. Windows = days/months (max).
> Linux = years. BSD = decades.
>
I used macs (well, mac) for a while, pretty blue i-mac if memory serves, it was
purchased for the express purpose of testing websites in netscape, because it
rendered so differently to anything else (somethinig i found out completely by
accident) - i have also always known they are the best number crunchers, so i
used to use it for high-end calculations and movie/music encoding - much
faster, and the least number of errors on anything else, and like *nix
'virtually' virus/hack safe.
but yeah, uptime is way better on nix, which is the secondary (after cost)
reason for them being reliable webservers - those are things you hope you never
have to reboot unless you are replacing hardware.
>
> It all depends on what you are doing. In my previous post I made it clear
> I tried to give Windows a chance as a production machine. Frankly, the
> only things I was doing with it at the time was using Word and playing Civ
> II. I was on dial-up at the time so I did some surfing and e-mail. Man, I
> can tell you I was ANGRY when it wiped out all that work. It still gets my
> dander up even today.
you did, yes, i think i was ranting, lol. The only time i ever lost data was
when it was stolen (hack), or i was infected (image eater thingy a few years
ago), or i accidentally erased the wrong directory and took out my entire 'my
documents' folder (3 weeks ago *laugh*) - yay for backups, a lesson i learned
many years ago...
>
> I hear better things about 2000Pro (without active directory) than I do
> about XP. If you have your M$ systems working to your satisfaction then
> more power to you. My personal experience has been very different than
> yours.
>
> Everybody has different experiences. I use Linux for EVERYTHING except
> games. Just about every single problem I experienced under Windows is
> gone. I run a magazine business (feel free to subscribe). This means I do
> a bit of everything. Editing, composition, web page creation, accounting,
> e-mail, news (obviously), video, audio, graphics, production, CD/DVD
> burning. All without a problem. Sure I've had to restart programs.
> Restarting the machine... Frankly the last time I've had to reboot my
> machine because Linux froze was... Years ago. Windows... Earlier this
> week, and all I was doing was playing the Sims.
>
i think 2000, (or at least, the '2000 generation' as i call them) are better
for most things than XP - XP webservers being non-existant (unless you count
2003), and 200pro advanced server being the primary choice for such a product -
also a good choice for a primary server on a corporate high-traffic network,
but still less stable than nix machines, which are the only things that should
be used in corporate settings IMO.
Yes, it's about your personal experiences - i don't like macs for example. Not
because i think they are inferior (far from it), but because i'm "old school"
and at the time i had one, i wasn't prepared to learn things all over again
just for one machine - the only apps i liked on it where the 'clones' of
popular M$ crap (office, for example). I remember struggling with RedHat 5,
trying Mandrake, then still failing and giving in, but i persisted. I knew my
servers were RedHat, so i had to learn it so i didn't have to keep paying
someone else to administer them - but that's just how i operate (i learn what i
need to learn when i need to learn it, lol). People DO have bad experiences
with doze, 95% of the time (made up stat, lol - based on my experience and
knowledge - including people i know, worked for, or fixed puters for) it is the
user that causes the problem. The old problem with 98 that you 'should reboot
at least once every 8 hours of operation, and every 9 reboots should be a hard
re-boot' shit they kinda admitted to then retracted (fricken shit stack
problems if you don't close programs properly, lol)
>
> You and I know there is more to this story than the general public is
> aware of...
>
lol, yeah, but i can back up the mission statement if need be, i can't back
anything else up (unless nubmer of google results is acceptable proof ;-)
>
> The Simpsons had what I consider an accurate quote. "I didn't get to be
> rich by writing a lot of cheques". Microsoft has hurt more than half the
> businesses they've dealt with. They sign exclusivity deals with certain
> companies so they can access proprietary code to make their programs
> operate "better". This means they are prevented from releasing a Linux or
> Mac equivalent product. Those companies which refuse such an agreement
> (eg. Kodak) are discriminated against. Some had their applications
> replaced with M$ versions without permission of the user (this has been
> fixed in later versions).
>
albeit too late. i tend not to use the word 'fixed', it was more 'removed',
AFTER it had elimated the other versions of the software (Java being the prime
example - it removes sun.java, then uninstalls MS Java, leaving you java free...)
> After 25+ years in the industry and 15+ years with a GUI they are only
> NOW becoming stable? I'd say it's an awful long time to have teething
> problems.
>
yes, but no. Yes, after 25+ years. BUT, *nix (and apple for that matter)
really do have a lot to thank M$ for - the primary reason *nix kernals are so
stable is because of the mistakes M$ made in the early years. "we'll make sure
ours don't do that" - protection was different, coding very different, the mere
fact it was/is open source makes a huge difference. Windows would be out of
this world if programmers other than M$ ones had a hand in the coding - open
source was the best idea of all (cept for the few morons that tried to take
advantage of that situation way back when). I agree that "15 years with a GUI"
taking a long time, and yes, they were slow at first - but, what can we compare
it to? build an OS now, yes it may only take a year to be very stable - but
try it 25 years ago, in new territory, with the whole world giving you shit
about it all the time - only my personal thoughts and opinions, but M$ are the
only ones to do what they did, so we can't really compare. *nix/Mac/etc were
riding the slipstream for a while, so i don't think they can be the comparison...
> If the American Department of Homeland Security said tomorrow
> "We are going to expand our recommendation against using Internet
> Explorer/Outlook/Outlook Express to include all Microsoft products", how
> many people would be aware of any alternatives. If they were, how many
> people could make the transition? Would the transition be painful or
> painless? Since the both of us know more about the machines than just how
> to use the on button would it be a major problem to find/use Linux
> equivalent programs?
i'm sure lots of important people would get a high salary (people with zero
computer knowledge) to produce numerous reports on which software to use
instead :-))
>
>>There is no 'best OS' or 'best computer system'
>
>
> I agree. Something may work better in one situation than another. I know
> people on both sides of the issue. Most who use *NIX have more than one
> machine or use a dual-boot system. Most who use Windows can barely find
> the on button. Those who use *NIX exclusively (I know about a dozen) are
> very smart and very scary.
>
lol - the 'dark side'. Most *nix users, those that have probably necer touched
M$ products except to strip and analyse them, are scary people - they know all
the problems and holes and crap in there, and from *nix, it is FAR easier to
port a doze machine undetected... (ahhh, my days as a teenager :-)) )
>
>>- it's all about your personal
>>preferences and what you are using it for in general.
>
>
> No argument. I tell people, "It's YOUR money. Spend it as you see fit.".
> I just relate my experiences and make a suggestion. If there is another
> person suggesting one thing then I suggest the other to balance it out. In
> the past (before this latest batch of improvements to the packages under
> Linux) I even made the case for Windows a couple of times. In a
> group/conversation such as this one there is no need to present the M$
> side. There are plenty of M$ shills here. You sound more moderate than
> some of the others I've seen lately.
>
the person involved plays a huge part. Do you want to start to teach an 80
year old woman who just wants to email her great grandson while he's abroad how
to use a *nix machine? when just giving her windows will give her everything
she needs with pretty buttons and pictures and extensive over-complicated help
files... It falls under 'what it's used for' i suppose, but a little picnh of
'who is using it' goes in there. If someone needs to do things that would work
fine on a doze machine in general, but maybe have many years of experience, and
are the type to learn quickly - and their usage requirements work fine in *nix,
one tends to try to 'convert' them (it's like religion :-)) )
>
> Oddly enough I found 3.11 to be more stable than 95. Still I agree with
> your assessment. That setup with that application would be just plain
> silly. I'd actually suggest a Beowolf cluster for that application.
>
indeedy - up until they released ME, i had 95.1 as the worst and least stable -
but again, it was the first of it's kind really, so what more can you expect.
I was more mystified at the step backwards from 98SE to ME (deliberately
released after 2000 which is more costly and of NT technology, lol)
>
>>I have more than one OS and the only, SINGLE compaint i have about
>>windows XP, is the high cost of the initial product.
>
>
> Just don't connect it without a good firewall/router.
>
good advice with any OS really - the difference being that i trust the built in
stuff with *nix far more than the built in windows one. The downside is
locally purchased firewalls are very expensive compared to those same ones
purchased online directly - good old catch-22 if you didn't download ahead of
time, lol
> My experience there is the only reason the software needs Windows is
> because the publishers usually refuse to release the original *NIX
> development version or a *NIX port (as simple as recompiling it on a *NIX
> machine).
>
i have nothing to back this up, but i do remember once reading a paper (well,
e-document from a trusted .edu - well, .ac.uk, but you say tomato...) that
there are sometimes licensing issues. With this new 'microsoft' certificate
thingy that some hardware has for XP, and with the .msi installers that you are
'supposed' to use when installing software, you have to license it through M$,
and part of the agreement is you don't produce for other platforms. It was/is
very believable because of the stereotype of M$ and their practices, but these
days, who really knows (cept people in the know of course, lol)
>
> As I said in other threads, I try not to be anti-anything, but sometimes
> it's difficult. Everybody forms their own opinions based on their
> experiences. My experiences with Windows have been nothing short of awful.
> My experiences with the Mac, Apple, OS/2, Linux, and BSD have been so much
> better by comparison. Not perfect though. If you didn't have a firewall,
> which of the above machines would you rather have connected to the net?
> This is part of the reason I suggested the original poster take a serious
> look at Linux. There is a good reason I made the recommendation.
>
>
i think i was just ranting - i ain't sleeping well lately because i have way
too much work to get done in the day - my ADD is flaring up and i just can't
relax my brain enough to sleep because i'm thinking about what needs to be done
next, lol - i would say that particular statement was more to continue my rant,
rather than aimed at you specifically - in fact, i think most of this post was
- it probably started because of something you said (and i have no idea what
that was anymore :-)) ) - but it was more general crap - you ARE knowledgable
(or very good at researching for this response :-)) ) in the different OS
worlds - but the majority of people aren't - they use Macs, so macs are the
best, or they use 98SE, so 98SE is the best - they use XPProSP2, so that is the
best - rarer with *nix, but still holds true. Most *nix users are old school,
and probably haven't really explored XP all that well - i was wary when it
first came out, but the mere fact everyone was telling me it was shit and
unstable and this and that made me WANT to see for myself. Most of those
people hadn't even touched it, but it was/is 'cool' to say the MS OS is crap.
People make out they hate them because they want people to think they are 1337,
when they are running win ME cause it came free wif their puter :-))
>
> What works for me may not work for you and vice versa. It still shouldn't
> prevent me from making a recommendation contradicting the popular view.
> Just because Manny likes putting his head in the sand and talking like an
> M$ shill doesn't mean he (or anybody else including me) should be believed
> without checking things out. For me and an increasing number of people the
> *NIX solution is the way to go.
>
educating is the key - if people KNOW the alternatives, and where they are more
suitable, or where something like doze is more suitable, is a good thing. Just
always assuming doze is crap, get nix, is wrong (IMO). The comparative i use
for KaZaA and WinMX when i'm talking them out of KaZaA, pretty much fits for
*nix and Doze. Windows was designed to look pretty first, then made to work
around that (or at least, tried to made to work, lol) - *nix was designed to
WORK first, then pretty stuff was added later. KaZaA looks pretty, WinMX
doesn't - KaZaA is buggy and very poor coding (it does it's job - most of the
time - but look at the source and you'll see what i mean) - WinMX was clearly
created by a long time pro who went for the fuctions more than the looks.
If you need somethinig pretty, very easy to follow, to use, 'idiot proof' some
would say, doze is yer only choice - if you wanna be 'fasionably different'
(you know, like those 'different' people that ALL dress the same and have the
same number of piercings...) get a mac - if you want something that is very
practical, has endless support from users, rather than salesmen, and updates
pretty much daily, rather than gets patched because another security risk was
found, get a *nix machine.
i will ALWAYS use redhat on the servers, even in M$ suddenly drop their prices
and get very good at server software - but i will probably always use windows
on primary machine at home - something more homely about it, lol - it's like a
handicapped brother - you love him even though he has 3 legs and 8 toes on each
foot. (what the hell am i drinking?)
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree about the home uses for Linux. If all
> someone cares about is the apps then unless the app is written only for
> one operating system, the operating system shouldn't matter beyond speed
> and stability. My choice was to go with something which would let me
> complete my work. I started seriously with Linux at RedHat 6.1 and found
> it was always faster and more stable than the concurrent version of
> Windows.
>
tried 'lindows' ? i love how it isn't free - totally defeating the point - i
also found it was quite shit and fucked up the HDD on a dual boot/dual
partition - also slow - it's like, *nix was infected with doze, lol.
I will admit i had some issues when RH9.0 came out - with installation mainly -
it was more trouble than it was worth, so i stuck with 8.0 for a while - i may
change soon i spose - but i think with *nix - you can use 1.0 and still get
excellent results and support, unlike doze (did you know doze 1.0 was 8
floppies, but 3.11 was only 6 - it was pre-compression times yay) i think my
webservers have been attacked once in all the years i've had them (sucessfully
attacked i mean) and the way they went in and what they did, i don't think
anything short of unplugging them would have prevented it - they were true
pros. I know for a fact doze servers are targeted all the time, if only cause
they are so easy - it's also much easier to fuck around with the logs so they
don't know where you came from, or leave time bombs -even just 'on reboot'
stuff so they don't start a format till the next reboot, which can be days (i'd
say weeks, but we're talking M$ here :-p )after the attack - lots of logs to go
through.
>
> I did go a little over the top didn't I... Blame it on a few consecutive
> late nights followed by early mornings. Three hours per night is not good. ;-)
>
'compainers' weren't really aimed at you - you can't deny local usenet is full
of em - i'm one sometimes - depends on my mood - some people (naming noone) do
nothing BUT complain, or harrass, or just nit-pick at other peoples posts,
without every offering anything insightful themselves - too many haters in the
world - life is too short...
Peter D
news:bb94k0t74oievm4u3...@4ax.com...
Joe Blow can copy all the ideas he wants, but it's the finished product that
the consumer will buy -- "Hey, buddy. Pssst. Wanna buy a concept?" :-)
Look, your analogy blows chunks. Come back with a reasonable and somewhat
realistic example, and you'll probalby get a better answer.
Peter D
news:pan.2004.09.11....@emeraldcity.gov...
<big snippola>
> In my experience, most Windows users are very frustrated with their
> computers but don't know what to do.
IME, most Windows users are happy. Those who take the time to use the
product and learn the features enjoy it more. The GUI is an excellent and
intuitive interface. Linux users are usually much more skilled, but that's
to be expected. Linux isn't for everyone. Linux requires more skill, more
knowledge, and more learning time.
> Besides, If you own a computer store and get a 20% kickback every time
> you install Windows on a machine, are you going to tell a customer they
> can get something else where you don't get any money?
That's a serious accusation aimed at a group of mostly decent people. Do you
have any proof that store owners receives a "20% kickback"? And if they do
get 20% markup, do you have any proof that this is why they suggest Windows?
> If the American Department of Homeland Security said tomorrow
> "We are going to expand our recommendation against using Internet
> Explorer/Outlook/Outlook Express to include all Microsoft products", how
> many people would be aware of any alternatives.
Well, this person would say, "WTF are they to tell me what to use anyway?"
and carry on making my own decisions. And I usually won't based those
decisions on anti-Microsoft rants, conspiracy theories, and people who are
still angry about a program or system malfunctioning. Think, "It wasn't
personal" It might help. :-)
Mbm56ca
Manny
mm...@shaw.ca
<wiz...@emeraldcity.gov> wrote:
>Still, for sheer uptime you can't beat BSD. Windows = days/months (max).
>Linux = years. BSD = decades.
Solaris = Centuries ;-)
Personally I have yet to enter a client workplace where mission
critical apps aren't run on some proprietary Unix system.
I mean both OS and hardware. Sun sparc solaris is what I see the most
of, with IBM AIX and HPUX filling out the rest. Conversly, I've only
ran into 2 shops that didn't have windows on the desktop and they
where companies involved in developing technology, so you had to be
kinda geeky to begin with. And of course there's always a few macs
around for the marketing weenies. LOL!
There is no doubt that each have their place and their purposes.
--
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I. Dunno
The Wizard of Oz
> The Wizard of Oz wrote:
<snip>
>> Still, for sheer uptime you can't beat BSD. Windows = days/months (max).
>> Linux = years. BSD = decades.
>>
>
> I used macs (well, mac) for a while, pretty blue i-mac if memory serves, it was
> purchased for the express purpose of testing websites in netscape, because it
> rendered so differently to anything else (somethinig i found out completely by
> accident) - i have also always known they are the best number crunchers, so i
> used to use it for high-end calculations and movie/music encoding - much
> faster, and the least number of errors on anything else, and like *nix
> 'virtually' virus/hack safe.
The only serious issue I have with the Mac (there are a few minor ones)
is Apple controls virtually everything. In that aspect they act as M$
wannabes. I've seen demonstrations of their new software and some of their
new hardware. I'm not impressed easily. This stuff impressed me.
> but yeah, uptime is way better on nix, which is the secondary (after cost)
> reason for them being reliable webservers - those are things you hope you never
> have to reboot unless you are replacing hardware.
For me it is very important. I forget to save regularly. With a good
uptime there is less need for an autosave which takes up processing power.
I've done 18 consecutive hours of work on my machine. Reboots are not
acceptable.
>>
>> It all depends on what you are doing. In my previous post I made it clear
>> I tried to give Windows a chance as a production machine. Frankly, the
>> only things I was doing with it at the time was using Word and playing Civ
>> II. I was on dial-up at the time so I did some surfing and e-mail. Man, I
>> can tell you I was ANGRY when it wiped out all that work. It still gets my
>> dander up even today.
>
> you did, yes, i think i was ranting, lol. The only time i ever lost data was
> when it was stolen (hack), or i was infected (image eater thingy a few years
> ago), or i accidentally erased the wrong directory and took out my entire 'my
> documents' folder (3 weeks ago *laugh*) - yay for backups, a lesson i learned
> many years ago...
You're going to like this. A friend with both a Mac and XP box does
nothing but e-mail and small time video stuff on both machines. Yesterday
his XP box stopped connecting to Shaw. The Mac worked fine. It turns out
two pieces of commercial spyware mangled his settings. One tried to use an
internal modem (disconnected) to dial their server and the other saw this
and did something to the networking software. I didn't get the whole story
but apparently the connection problem was fixed and Ad-Aware removed the
problem software. He only had 40 items. I've had to fix systems like that
of the original poster (people who download MP3s, porn, warez, etc.) which
had almost 100 times that amount. Another advantage to *NIX and the Mac is
we don't have to worry if there is spyware or not. If the software was
written for M$ it doesn't affect us.
>>
>> I hear better things about 2000Pro (without active directory) than I do
>> about XP. If you have your M$ systems working to your satisfaction then
>> more power to you. My personal experience has been very different than
>> yours.
>>
>> Everybody has different experiences. I use Linux for EVERYTHING except
>> games. Just about every single problem I experienced under Windows is
>> gone. I run a magazine business (feel free to subscribe). This means I do
>> a bit of everything. Editing, composition, web page creation, accounting,
>> e-mail, news (obviously), video, audio, graphics, production, CD/DVD
>> burning. All without a problem. Sure I've had to restart programs.
>> Restarting the machine... Frankly the last time I've had to reboot my
>> machine because Linux froze was... Years ago. Windows... Earlier this
>> week, and all I was doing was playing the Sims.
>>
>
> i think 2000, (or at least, the '2000 generation' as i call them) are better
> for most things than XP - XP webservers being non-existant (unless you count
> 2003), and 200pro advanced server being the primary choice for such a product -
> also a good choice for a primary server on a corporate high-traffic network,
> but still less stable than nix machines, which are the only things that should
> be used in corporate settings IMO.
The MUUG and PLUG had presentations on high availability servers. A
couple people (I forget which group it was in) mentioned they were hired
to work in a Windows shop. One day they asked their bosses if they could
use a machine as an experimental server in the corporate setting. The
bosses were reluctant at first but agreed when it was shown how easy it
was to remove the experimental server from the system. Windows servers
being the way they are eventually failed and were put at the back of the
queue. For the non-techies reading this the user can usually tell when a
Windows server fails. Finally the *NIX server (they were different
operating systems in both cases) took over. All the complaints to the
bosses and tech departments about down servers stopped. Six weeks later
(according to one guy) the boss came down to have a look. He asked the guy
why things were behaving so well. Then he was informed it was the
experimental server. In both cases the companies converted their other
servers to the same operating system as the experimental one. Of course
there are stories like this all over the net. Sometimes they turn out
differently because of corporate policy or people going on vacation.
<snip>
>> If the American Department of Homeland Security said tomorrow
>> "We are going to expand our recommendation against using Internet
>> Explorer/Outlook/Outlook Express to include all Microsoft products", how
>> many people would be aware of any alternatives. If they were, how many
>> people could make the transition? Would the transition be painful or
>> painless? Since the both of us know more about the machines than just how
>> to use the on button would it be a major problem to find/use Linux
>> equivalent programs?
>
> i'm sure lots of important people would get a high salary (people with zero
> computer knowledge) to produce numerous reports on which software to use
> instead :-))
Gee... You mean they don't already do that? ;-)
>>
>>>There is no 'best OS' or 'best computer system'
>>
>>
>> I agree. Something may work better in one situation than another. I know
>> people on both sides of the issue. Most who use *NIX have more than one
>> machine or use a dual-boot system. Most who use Windows can barely find
>> the on button. Those who use *NIX exclusively (I know about a dozen) are
>> very smart and very scary.
>>
>
> lol - the 'dark side'. Most *nix users, those that have probably necer touched
> M$ products except to strip and analyse them, are scary people - they know all
> the problems and holes and crap in there, and from *nix, it is FAR easier to
> port a doze machine undetected... (ahhh, my days as a teenager :-)) )
I don't think I met any *NIX people who have never used Windows. Most of
the *NIX only people I know have tried Windows and rejected it as being
inadequate. I can't say I know many of the "hacker" types. I'm told I have
contact with a few (and apparently some feel they owe me a favour or two
- why? I don't know...). Most of the people like this I'm aware of are
corporate and government types. Like I said... Scary.
>>>- it's all about your personal
>>>preferences and what you are using it for in general.
>>
>>
>> No argument. I tell people, "It's YOUR money. Spend it as you see fit.".
>> I just relate my experiences and make a suggestion. If there is another
>> person suggesting one thing then I suggest the other to balance it out. In
>> the past (before this latest batch of improvements to the packages under
>> Linux) I even made the case for Windows a couple of times. In a
>> group/conversation such as this one there is no need to present the M$
>> side. There are plenty of M$ shills here. You sound more moderate than
>> some of the others I've seen lately.
>>
>
> the person involved plays a huge part. Do you want to start to teach an 80
> year old woman who just wants to email her great grandson while he's abroad how
> to use a *nix machine?
Funny you should mention that. She was 63 and a friend set her up. GUI
login screen. Put your name here and your secret word there. Click the
"Login" button. See this button on the screen that says "e-mail"... Click
that and when it comes up click on the "to:" box and tell the computer who
you want to send it out to. Type your message in the big box and click on
the button that looks like an envelope to send it. When you're done click
the big "X" in the corner. Click this button then click the "logout"
button. Just remember how to turn everything off after that. If you want
to know how to do a little more give me a call.
> when just giving her windows will give her everything
> she needs with pretty buttons and pictures and extensive over-complicated help
> files...
Same as a properly set up Linux or any new operating system.
> It falls under 'what it's used for' i suppose, but a little picnh of
> 'who is using it' goes in there. If someone needs to do things that would work
> fine on a doze machine in general, but maybe have many years of experience, and
> are the type to learn quickly - and their usage requirements work fine in *nix,
> one tends to try to 'convert' them (it's like religion :-)) )
If you are dealing with people who don't need to know the inner workings
of the machine, doesn't it make more sense to set them up with something
which would cause them less problems? People who use only one or two
common applications wouldn't get involved in this debate. As one of my
fathers friends said "I don't care what you have to do. Just get it to do
what I want it to do.". Netscape is Netscape if it's on the Mac, Windows
or *NIX.
<snip>
>>>I have more than one OS and the only, SINGLE compaint i have about
>>>windows XP, is the high cost of the initial product.
>>
>>
>> Just don't connect it without a good firewall/router.
>>
>
> good advice with any OS really - the difference being that i trust the built in
> stuff with *nix far more than the built in windows one. The downside is
> locally purchased firewalls are very expensive compared to those same ones
> purchased online directly - good old catch-22 if you didn't download ahead of
> time, lol
True. However most of the home units are running some form of *NIX.
>> My experience there is the only reason the software needs Windows is
>> because the publishers usually refuse to release the original *NIX
>> development version or a *NIX port (as simple as recompiling it on a *NIX
>> machine).
>>
>
> i have nothing to back this up, but i do remember once reading a paper (well,
> e-document from a trusted .edu - well, .ac.uk, but you say tomato...) that
> there are sometimes licensing issues. With this new 'microsoft' certificate
> thingy that some hardware has for XP, and with the .msi installers that you are
> 'supposed' to use when installing software, you have to license it through M$,
> and part of the agreement is you don't produce for other platforms. It was/is
> very believable because of the stereotype of M$ and their practices, but these
> days, who really knows (cept people in the know of course, lol)
I read an interview with a couple of game developers. They said they used
FreeBSD to develop the game then port it to Windows. Their contract with
someone down the line prevented them from releasing a *NIX version of the
game.
<snip>
> tried 'lindows' ? i love how it isn't free - totally defeating the
> point - i also found it was quite shit and fucked up the HDD on a dual
> boot/dual partition - also slow - it's like, *nix was infected with
> doze, lol.
Most *NIX people would agree Lindows is terrible.
Just got another "emergency call" I have to meet someone across town. 10
minutes until the bus. Talk with you later...
Later
Mike
__SPooKY__
Dave Rhodes wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:36:16 -0500, __SPooKY__
> <spamandr00t...@seraphicator.com> wrote:
>
> [snip previous _opinions_]
>
>
>>yes, but no. Yes, after 25+ years. BUT, *nix (and apple for that matter)
>>really do have a lot to thank M$ for - the primary reason *nix kernals are so
>>stable is because of the mistakes M$ made in the early years. "we'll make sure
>>ours don't do that"
>
>
> This is patently ridiculous and historically inaccurate.
> Development of the Unix system started in 1969 it was released 1975.
> Apple released DOS 3.2 in 1979. Microsoft wasn't even formed until
> '75 and Gates and Allen were working on BASIC (barf) for the Altair.
> They didn't even BUY DOS until 1980, Windows was released in 1982. For
> the developers of UNIX, Windows wasn't even on the map.
> UNIX file systems were one of the first (if not the first) to use the
> hierarchical directory structure, with a root directory and nested
> subdirectories. Sound familiar? How about "fork" use THAT on a
> windows machine? What you've written above is downright scary coming
> from a "programmer".
>
they weren't 'mainstream' until after the days of M$ though - my point was that
*nix & apple LEARN from M$'s mistakes - M$ just had good marketing skills in
their early days...
i still miss my ZX-81 :-(
>
>>only my personal thoughts and opinions,
>
>
> It might be well to base your thoughts and opinions on history and
> facts. I applaud you however for stating them as opinions, regardless
> of their inaccuracy.
>
> One more thing: Don't bother writing another 7 thousand line whining
> tantrum because I've disputed your "opinion". If you don't want your
> opinions read, evaluated and commented on, don't post to Usenet.
>
> BTW: What version of Fortran were you using on your I-Mac?
>
> (Feel free to jump in Prof. Gall)
>
>
> --
> No good deed will go unpunished.
Walter Roberson
Dave Rhodes <cap...@teamnasty.net> wrote:
:UNIX file systems were one of the first (if not the first) to use the
:hierarchical directory structure, with a root directory and nested
:subdirectories.
You haven't read your Unix history papers :-). Unix got that from
Multics.
I've seen the occasional hint that Multics wasn't the first
to have it, but I haven't have seen any specific earlier OS
nominated as having originated it.
__SPooKY__
Dave Rhodes wrote:
>
> One more thing: Don't bother writing another 7 thousand line whining
> tantrum because I've disputed your "opinion". If you don't want your
> opinions read, evaluated and commented on, don't post to Usenet.
>
> BTW: What version of Fortran were you using on your I-Mac?
a) learn to count
b) what tantrum - if you observe the comments to and fro from the two main
posters of this thread - they actually get on, unlike you, who, it would seem,
can only ever say negative things about anyones post, no matter who it is
c) try going for an entire day without saying one negative thing to anyone
about their post. YOU are not the moderator of this newsgroup, nor are you the
almighty god who we all have to go through in order to post their views,
beliefs, knowledge and whatever else you think you do.
you do NOTHING but whine, complain, be a tosser and many other things in all
the groups - if you have nothing good to say, just don't say it.
I've said it a thousand times - if what i have to say bothers you, DON'T READ
IT - it's easy - you CHOOSE to read it, so you can blame noone but yourself. I
am actually holding an almost conversation with the Wizard, and we are not
arguing or fighting, we are sharing - try it
go masturbate or something if your proddy won't take your business anymore.
d) learn to read - i said i had an i-mac for a single purpose - to view
webpages in netscape - i had it for a whole 2 months. it could have had the
secret to life stored on it for all i know, i never used it for anything other
than a specific job i was working on
No Spam
news:4cn6k0t0mba7prhjr...@4ax.com...
<snipage>
> ........................................... Microsoft wasn't even formed
> until
> '75 and Gates and Allen were working on BASIC (barf) for the Altair.
Aside from MS Visual Basic that will compile directly into machine
code (with some language specific overhead), there's a number of
different versions of basic still around although usually as some form
of variant such as a text or script language usually with a specialized
optimizer/P-code/compiler/engine.
It has it's purpose for writing quickie routines or down and dirty's
tasks that aren't timing critical and is a hell of a lot easier to follow
than pages of C++ code.
Piss poor programing can be accomplished in any language be
it C++, Fortran, or BASIC.
__SPooKY__
No Spam wrote:
i miss BBC Basic :-D
__SPooKY__
Dave Rhodes wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 18:07:23 -0500, __SPooKY__
> <spamandr00t...@seraphicator.com> wrote:
>
>
>>they weren't 'mainstream' until after the days of M$ though -
>
>
> Define what you mean by 'mainstream'.
>
"a computer in every home..." (as opposed to only those in the industry, or the
school nerd knows about - how many people know Microsoft? (computer owner or
not) - how many MORE people are now knowledgeable that alternatives exist, who
did not know prior to DOS 5? (rhetorical questions)
>
>>my point was that *nix & apple LEARN from M$'s mistakes -
>
>
> Ok that may be so, but I'm not following.
> Give me an example.
>
open source is the primary example. Letting the USERS decide the best way to
enhance the OS or better protect it, rather than have those ideas dictated by
the software company (Microsoft rarely take feedback from joe-public - *nix
does - it relies on it in fact)
>
>>M$ just had good marketing skills in their early days...
>
>
> In that respect nothing has changed.
> It's always been their greatest strength.
>
>
and always will be.
some say it's a good thing, others disagree - personally, a little of both. I
believe we would not be where we are today without them - OTOH, could we have
gone much much further if it was done differently - unfortunately, that becomes
the 'what if?' game - which everyone always loses, lol. ("if only i'd kissed
that girl that time, maybe i wouldn't have these homosexual feelings" - for
example - or "if only i hadn't shot those 18 people with all those witnesses, i
wouldn't be getting this electric shock right now...") Personally - i rarely
play that game - we are where we are in the world technologically - it's
pointless thinking how different things would be if Apple had led the market
all the way, or if *nix was the primary OS - M$ is, we have to live with it,
and hope future generations benefit from it.
i'm preaching now aren't i :-|
sorry
as usual, i had another point, buti lost it - but i think i answered you....
'think'
> --
> "The problems that exist in the world today cannot
> be solved by the level of thinking that created them."
> -Albert Einstein
No Spam
news:mJN0d.355$Uo1....@news1.mts.net...
> i miss BBC Basic :-D
Knock yourself out...
No Spam
> I didn't know VB compiled to machine code. I thought it abstracted
> stuff like pointers, memory addresses and memory management.
Okay, okay...my bad - creating NATIVE code as opposed to the
other option of interpreted psuedo-code that requires the run-time
dll, however both allow integration of asm routines if you want to
beat your head against the wall bit and register flipping if you really
want to do true machine code to shave 50 nanoseconds off a
thread handler.
> Mmmmmm.....shell scripts.
Don't much matter if it's MS Scripting Host, Perl, AWK, or even
C for that matter, you won't go blind or bald reworking code in
readable text as opposed to working with symbolics, such as
that weird APL.
> No doubt, but Fortran and C++ can still get you a job!
> LOL!
So can a pipe cutter and propane torch, not to mention plumbers
with trade papers make a shitload more than a geek with a pocket
protector and a keyboard!
;->
No Spam
> I'm sure you're right Walter.
> My ignorance comes from lack of experience, not stupidity.
> LOL!
What a left handed way of saying Walter is such an old fart
the first of the Univac 1100 series came out after he was a
teenager, and he still has his punchcard collection...
;->
__SPooKY__
i also miss being a carefree 12 year old, doens't mean i actually want to be
that again though :-p
__SPooKY__
Dave Rhodes wrote:
>>b) what tantrum -
>
>
> Like the one you're throwing now. I think you'd suggested you were a
> "super-intelligent monkey". I have my doubts.
>
self defense ain't a tantrum
>
>>if you observe the comments to and fro from the two main
>>posters of this thread - they actually get on, unlike you,
>
>
> Well so what? If you can't take criticism you're in the wrong place.
>
criticism is fine... that's not always what it is though (and yes, i'll admit
i'm the same sometimes - as are others - some even all the time)
>
>>who, it would seem, can only ever say negative things about anyones post,
>>no matter who it is
>
>
> That's untrue and demonstrably so. I said NOTHING negative about your
> post, I actually commended you. I took issue with your points.
>
'never' was wrong, i'll admit - i had just read a (relatively) large number in
succession... appologies
>
>>c) try going for an entire day without saying one negative thing to anyone
>>about their post.
>
...quote from my mother, lol
>
> Now who's the moderator?
>
>
>>I've said it a thousand times - if what i have to say bothers you, DON'T READ
>>IT - it's easy - you CHOOSE to read it, so you can blame noone but yourself.
>
that one was more ironic bait - i had previously told you to learn to
count..... i think at this point i was just on a semi-roll and got off topic
(for the first time ever for me)
>
> I'm not bothered at all. This is Usenet.
> It's sounds to me like you're the one that needs a killfile.
>
i have one
>
>>I am actually holding an almost conversation with the Wizard,
>
>
> I'm sure Mike will be happy to hear he's almost having a conversation.
>
he'll never believe it
>
>>and we are not arguing or fighting, we are sharing - try it
>
>
> Mike is an intelligent fellow, and obviously more civil than I.
> However, if you honestly believe that (sic)"the primary reason *nix
> kernals are so stable is because of the mistakes M$ made in the early
> years.", is a true statement, then I ask you to provide some proof.
> Point me to some evidence that shows that ANY development of the Unix
> kernel was directed by avoiding the example of the "mistakes of M$"
> and I will humbly apologize and be enlightened in the bargain.
> Anyone?
> TIA
>
i shall rephrase to "one of the higher ranking reasons..." (i know, as do most,
the primary is just better quality programming and a stronger understanding of
the hardware is the primary reason - i'm trying desperately to remember my
original context intensions, but it's 3.40am and i'm struggling... it'll come
back though) And pretty much any security update addressed by Microsoft (and
indeed, those that are just semi-publicly known, by users, but not addressed by
ms) are addressed in the majority of the *nix distributions, some of which
would never have been discovered, were it not for the (many) security 'holes'
to be found in MS products. Some members of the *nix teams that oversea each
of their respective distributions, specifically target other OSs to search for
problems, that may not have been apparent in their own until searched for. by
'problems', i mean stability, security (same thing) and usability...
the GUI of 'most' distributions are based on the look and feel of Windows, even
if, that in itself was modelled on the apple one from way back when, which in
return wasn't exactly the first of it's kind... But the point is they are
modelled on the MS version of windows to make those than do 'convert' have a
slightly more familiar environment. It has other uses, some of them useful,
but was implimented for the familiarity factor (for the more popular of the
distributions at least)...
Regardless of the fact no 'evidence' as such was found, just more information,
i don't want appologies, nor should you offer them anyway - it's not what i'm
about (that was a compliment before it gets misread by others)
>
>>go masturbate or something if your proddy won't take your business anymore.
>
>
> Okay I'll play;
> You couldn't get laid in a whorehouse if you won the lottery.
>
*throws the ticket away*
> Then what does this mean?:
>
>
>>I used macs (well, mac) for a while, pretty blue i-mac if memory serves, it was
>>purchased for the express purpose of testing websites in netscape, because it
>>rendered so differently to anything else (somethinig i found out completely by
>>accident) - i have also always known they are the best number crunchers, so i
>>used to use it for high-end calculations and movie/music encoding - much
>>faster, and the least number of errors on anything else, and like *nix
>>'virtually' virus/hack safe.
>
>
> Does it mean you tell so many lies you can't keep track of them or you
> just forgot crunching those numbers and encoding all those tunes and
> movies? If you're gonna bullshit on Usenet at least archive your posts
> so you can keep you lies straight.
>
i do the same thing on my 'PC' - it's actually running tmpgenc as we speak...
I have no idea what language that program was coded in, nor do i really care,
it does the job for me - it's just a user interface that i can type an input
file and an output file, hit start, and come back in about 24 hours for a
finished project. There are many similar 'packaged' items for the mac, for the
nix and many more for doze - some good, some bad, some badder than bad, the
best costing more money than i think it should - but software nonetheless. I
never mentioned i did any 'programming' on the mac, i said i did number
crunching. "Moving Image" and "Audio" processing, to be at it's best quality,
takes some serious floating point number crunching - Macs are amongst the best
at doing that in their multi-tasking environment - if i do other things that
need that process on here, i can get glitches in the output file. I know my
limitations on here, so i still do it anyway - i said i had experimented with
using the process on the imac because of its reputation in this field. i
personally noticed little difference that made it worthwhile.
I have no need to 'code' a new program to do the job when there are so many out
there that already do a sufficient job for little or no cost, regardless of
platform. I also do lots of word processing on this computer, it doesn't mean
i used a specific version of VB to do that - i just used a word processor.
sufficient answer on the 'lies' issue?
> Last point: Grow the fuck up.
No Spam
> :-|
>
> i also miss being a carefree 12 year old, doens't mean i actually want to
> be that again though :-p
Hey there absolutely no reason why you should aspire to grow
older than you act now...
:-)
No Spam
> On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:20:08 GMT, "No Spam" <no....@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Dave Rhodes" <cap...@teamnasty.net> wrote in message
>>
>>> #!/usr/bin/perl
>>> "AAC\nGTT" =~ /^.*$/s;
>>> print $&, "\n";
>>
>>:-o
>>
>>Walllllllllllllllllllllllllllllter, give him a smack!
>
> What no output? ;-)
>
>
$output = >/dev/null;
print "$ Walllllllllllllllllllllllllllllter, give him a smack! $n\n";
Peter D
> You're going to like this. A friend with both a Mac and XP box does
> nothing but e-mail and small time video stuff on both machines. Yesterday
> his XP box stopped connecting to Shaw. The Mac worked fine. It turns out
> two pieces of commercial spyware mangled his settings. One tried to use an
> internal modem (disconnected) to dial their server and the other saw this
> and did something to the networking software. I didn't get the whole story
Nothing in this story demonstrates that Microsoft Windows is at fault. In
fact you indentify the culprits -- two pieces of spyware. Though how they
"mangled his settings" is left for us to imagine.
> but apparently the connection problem was fixed and Ad-Aware removed the
> problem software. He only had 40 items. I've had to fix systems like that
> of the original poster (people who download MP3s, porn, warez, etc.) which
> had almost 100 times that amount. Another advantage to *NIX and the Mac is
> we don't have to worry if there is spyware or not. If the software was
> written for M$ it doesn't affect us.
If the spyware was written for Mac, it doesn't affect Windows usres. If
written for Linux, it doesn't affect Windows users. What's your point?
> >>>There is no 'best OS' or 'best computer system'
Agreed. There is only best for this case, this person, this price, this set
of conditions.
> >> I agree. Something may work better in one situation than another. I
know
> >> people on both sides of the issue. Most who use *NIX have more than one
> >> machine or use a dual-boot system.
Probably true.Could also be true of Windows users.
> Most who use Windows can barely find the on button.
A mischaracterisation and untrue.
You know this whole "my OS is better than your OS" evengelisation reminds me
of the old Atari-Amiga wars. Or the Ti/994a-Apple wars. What is is with us
males and our toys? :-)
> > the person involved plays a huge part. Do you want to start to teach an
80
> > year old woman who just wants to email her great grandson while he's
abroad how
> > to use a *nix machine?
>
> Funny you should mention that. She was 63 and a friend set her up. GUI
> login screen. Put your name here and your secret word there. Click the
> "Login" button. See this button on the screen that says "e-mail"... Click
> that and when it comes up click on the "to:" box and tell the computer who
> you want to send it out to. Type your message in the big box and click on
> the button that looks like an envelope to send it. When you're done click
> the big "X" in the corner. Click this button then click the "logout"
> button. Just remember how to turn everything off after that. If you want
> to know how to do a little more give me a call.
She doesn't need *nix to do this. She needs a GUI. Any OS with a GUI does
this. You've made no case for "*nix is better than Windows" in this story.
You have made a case for "GUI is better than command line". Totally agree
for this case.
> Most *NIX people would agree Lindows is terrible.
I've heard the same. I'm going to start another thread re *nix and a GUI.
I'd appreciate any input.
Peter D
Where does CP/M fit into this timeline? :-)
"Dave Rhodes" <cap...@teamnasty.net> wrote in message
news:4cn6k0t0mba7prhjr...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:36:16 -0500, __SPooKY__
> <spamandr00t...@seraphicator.com> wrote:
>
> [snip previous _opinions_]
>
> >yes, but no. Yes, after 25+ years. BUT, *nix (and apple for that
matter)
> >really do have a lot to thank M$ for - the primary reason *nix kernals
are so
> >stable is because of the mistakes M$ made in the early years. "we'll
make sure
> >ours don't do that"
>
> This is patently ridiculous and historically inaccurate.
> Development of the Unix system started in 1969 it was released 1975.
> Apple released DOS 3.2 in 1979. Microsoft wasn't even formed until
> '75 and Gates and Allen were working on BASIC (barf) for the Altair.
> They didn't even BUY DOS until 1980, Windows was released in 1982. For
> the developers of UNIX, Windows wasn't even on the map.
> UNIX file systems were one of the first (if not the first) to use the
> hierarchical directory structure, with a root directory and nested
> subdirectories. Sound familiar? How about "fork" use THAT on a
> windows machine? What you've written above is downright scary coming
> from a "programmer".
>
> > only my personal thoughts and opinions,
>
> It might be well to base your thoughts and opinions on history and
> facts. I applaud you however for stating them as opinions, regardless
> of their inaccuracy.
>
> One more thing: Don't bother writing another 7 thousand line whining
> tantrum because I've disputed your "opinion". If you don't want your
> opinions read, evaluated and commented on, don't post to Usenet.
>
> BTW: What version of Fortran were you using on your I-Mac?
>
> (Feel free to jump in Prof. Gall)
>
>
Peter D
news:g_Q0d.397835$gE.106538@pd7tw3no...
Hey, do you guys remember using pc chaff for confetti and that magical day
when the floppy drive arrived with its immense storage capacity? :-)
Peter D
> Dave Rhodes wrote:
>
> >>b) what tantrum -
> >
> >
> > Like the one you're throwing now. I think you'd suggested you were a
> > "super-intelligent monkey". I have my doubts.
> >
>
> self defense ain't a tantrum
True. But you do tend to hissy-fit when others give you back what you're
handing out. Not all the time. But you do do it. In this thread, for
example. :-)
Walter Roberson
:What a left handed way of saying Walter is such an old fart
:the first of the Univac 1100 series came out after he was a
:teenager, and he still has his punchcard collection...
My punchcard collection got lost on one of my moves :(
But I'm not -that- old. Some of the other regulars here are older
than I. Gutz, Norm, Stew -- even you are, according to some of what
you have posted.
I do, though, know one fellow who claims to have been around long
enough to have had discussed Unix and C design decisions with K&R,
before either were publically released.
c_c...@hotmail.com
The 5 1/4 floppy, yup remember that.
But what really sticks in my mind is the day three of us stood from
6 AM until store opening to be the first in Winnipipeg to have the
new WD 540 Meg HD's, and we only spent $299. While we were there I
also picked up an extra 4 meg stick of ram for only $243 plus taxes
(it was a hell of a deal).
Mbm56ca
Manny
Mbm56ca
person around here. It just oozes...
Manny
>Like the one you're throwing now. I think you'd suggested you were a
>"super-intelligent monkey". I have my doubts.
>
>>if you observe the comments to and fro from the two main
>>posters of this thread - they actually get on, unlike you,
>
>Well so what? If you can't take criticism you're in the wrong place.
>
>>who, it would seem, can only ever say negative things about anyones post,
>>no matter who it is
>
>That's untrue and demonstrably so. I said NOTHING negative about your
>post, I actually commended you. I took issue with your points.
>
>>c) try going for an entire day without saying one negative thing to anyone
>>about their post.
>
>*sigh*
>
>>YOU are not the moderator of this newsgroup, nor are you the
>>almighty god who we all have to go through in order to post their views,
>>beliefs, knowledge and whatever else you think you do.
>
>I am not trying to moderate the group. I am simply taking YOU to task
>for the content in your posts. You have every right to post what you
>like, as does everyone else. And I have every right to dispute your or
>anyone else's views. As do you etc etc. This is Usenet.
>
>>you do NOTHING but whine, complain,
>
>What are you doing right now?
>Quote me ONE line where I sound like you.
>
>>be a tosser and many other things in all the groups -
>
>Name them. You can leave out alt. and those nasty foreign ones.
>
>>if you have nothing good to say, just don't say it.
>
>Now who's the moderator?
>
>>I've said it a thousand times - if what i have to say bothers you, DON'T
>READ
>>IT - it's easy - you CHOOSE to read it, so you can blame noone but yourself.
>
>I'm not bothered at all. This is Usenet.
>It's sounds to me like you're the one that needs a killfile.
>
>>I am actually holding an almost conversation with the Wizard,
>
>I'm sure Mike will be happy to hear he's almost having a conversation.
>
>>and we are not arguing or fighting, we are sharing - try it
>
>Mike is an intelligent fellow, and obviously more civil than I.
>However, if you honestly believe that (sic)"the primary reason *nix
>kernals are so stable is because of the mistakes M$ made in the early
>years.", is a true statement, then I ask you to provide some proof.
>Point me to some evidence that shows that ANY development of the Unix
>kernel was directed by avoiding the example of the "mistakes of M$"
>and I will humbly apologize and be enlightened in the bargain.
>Anyone?
>TIA
>
>>go masturbate or something if your proddy won't take your business anymore.
>
>Okay I'll play;
>You couldn't get laid in a whorehouse if you won the lottery.
>
>>d) learn to read - i said i had an i-mac for a single purpose - to view
>>webpages in netscape - i had it for a whole 2 months. it could have had the
>
>>secret to life stored on it for all i know, i never used it for anything
>other
>>than a specific job i was working on
>
>Then what does this mean?:
>
>>I used macs (well, mac) for a while, pretty blue i-mac if memory serves, it
>was
>>purchased for the express purpose of testing websites in netscape, because
>it
>>rendered so differently to anything else (somethinig i found out completely
>by
>>accident) - i have also always known they are the best number crunchers, so
>i
>>used to use it for high-end calculations and movie/music encoding - much
>>faster, and the least number of errors on anything else, and like *nix
>>'virtually' virus/hack safe.
>
>Does it mean you tell so many lies you can't keep track of them or you
>just forgot crunching those numbers and encoding all those tunes and
>movies? If you're gonna bullshit on Usenet at least archive your posts
>so you can keep you lies straight.
>
The Wizard of Oz
without being able to complete my daily routine...
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 14:01:18 +0000, Peter D wrote:
> "The Wizard of Oz" <wiz...@emeraldcity.gov> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.09.11....@emeraldcity.gov...
> <big snippola>
>> In my experience, most Windows users are very frustrated with their
>> computers but don't know what to do.
>
> IME, most Windows users are happy. Those who take the time to use the
> product and learn the features enjoy it more. The GUI is an excellent and
> intuitive interface. Linux users are usually much more skilled, but that's
> to be expected. Linux isn't for everyone. Linux requires more skill, more
> knowledge, and more learning time.
My experience with Windows users is a lot different than yours. Then
again I did do tech support for a while so I never heard the success
stories.
From what I've seen, your evaluation of Linux users is accurate. As a
"computer geek" you have to think to your self which group would you
rather be associated with. ;-)
In terms of the description of Linux as being hard... This is changing.
The GUI is at least as stable as Windows and the applications are just as
easy. The only tough part (after getting things installed) is to learn how
to single click on the applications instead of double clicking.
>> Besides, If you own a computer store and get a 20% kickback every time
>> you install Windows on a machine, are you going to tell a customer they
>> can get something else where you don't get any money?
>
> That's a serious accusation aimed at a group of mostly decent people. Do you
> have any proof that store owners receives a "20% kickback"? And if they do
> get 20% markup, do you have any proof that this is why they suggest Windows?
Yes it is. It's also very old. M$ was caught doing this (even in
Winnipeg). The last time I was aware of this practise was a little while
before the anti-trust case in the states. It made the papers a couple of
times (on the last page). I do not know if they've stopped this practise
or not. However you want more up to date information. I talked with
someone yesterday and they gave me some information I have not confirmed.
They suggested looking at the Microsoft Developers Network.
>> If the American Department of Homeland Security said tomorrow
>> "We are going to expand our recommendation against using Internet
>> Explorer/Outlook/Outlook Express to include all Microsoft products", how
>> many people would be aware of any alternatives.
>
> Well, this person would say, "WTF are they to tell me what to use anyway?"
> and carry on making my own decisions. And I usually won't based those
> decisions on anti-Microsoft rants, conspiracy theories, and people who are
> still angry about a program or system malfunctioning. Think, "It wasn't
> personal" It might help. :-)
Quite right it is an individual decision to make. Usage of Mozilla has
doubled since the DHS said IE, and the M$ e-mail programs are VERY
insecure. My decision to move away from Windows was made so I could do my
work without the problems I had with Windows.
In terms of being anti-Microsoft... What's wrong with saying I (and
others) had trouble with the product? I have not said anything I have not
heard directly from the mouths of Windows users. Can someone be
anti-Microsoft and still use Windows? ;-)
Of course your last point is technically accurate. It wasn't personal. It
still cost me *a lot* of money. Wouldn't you be angry too under those
circumstances?
Later
Mike
The Wizard of Oz
> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:10:21 GMT, The Wizard of Oz
> <wiz...@emeraldcity.gov> wrote:
>
>>Still, for sheer uptime you can't beat BSD. Windows = days/months (max).
>>Linux = years. BSD = decades.
>
> Solaris = Centuries ;-)
Technically inaccurate but from what I've heard it sounds like a
reasonable estimate.
> Personally I have yet to enter a client workplace where mission
> critical apps aren't run on some proprietary Unix system.
> I mean both OS and hardware. Sun sparc solaris is what I see the most
> of, with IBM AIX and HPUX filling out the rest. Conversly, I've only
> ran into 2 shops that didn't have windows on the desktop and they
> where companies involved in developing technology, so you had to be
> kinda geeky to begin with. And of course there's always a few macs
> around for the marketing weenies. LOL!
For the most part I have no argument with your observations. I see more
making the switch on the desktop all the time. Only one or two at a time
but the progress is steady. Given the fees and the technical capabilities
these shops look as though their bottom line improved shortly after the
switch.
> There is no doubt that each have their place and their purposes.
Games are a valid reason to keep M$ around.
Later
Mike
No Spam
> Here's some sed for ya:
> s/^xx*$/:n:3:2:1:&:/;tB
> d;:B
> /^:$/d;h;s/^:.:\(.\):.:\(.\):*:.*/\2 --> \1/;x;/^:y:.:.:.:*:.*/b0
> /^:n:.:.:.:x:.*/b1
> s/:n:\(.\):\(.\):\(.:x*\)x:\(.*\)/:n:\2:\1:\3:y:\1:\2:\3x:\4/;bB
> :1
> x;p;x;s/^:n:.:.:.:x:\(.*\)/:\1/;bB
> :0
> x;p;x;s/^:y:\(.\):\(.\):\(.\):x\(x*:*\)/:n:\1:\3:\2:\4/;bB
Dunno, it's all geek to me...
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
G! d- s+:+ a++ C+++ U--- P+ L+ E-- W-- N++
o-- K+++ w+++ O--- M-- V-- PE Y++ PGP t--
5++ X- R- tv b-- DI+++ D--- G- e* h r+++ z+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
The Wizard of Oz
> "The Wizard of Oz" <wiz...@emeraldcity.gov> wrote
>> On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 01:36:16 -0500, __SPooKY__ wrote:
>> You're going to like this. A friend with both a Mac and XP box does
>> nothing but e-mail and small time video stuff on both machines. Yesterday
>> his XP box stopped connecting to Shaw. The Mac worked fine. It turns out
>> two pieces of commercial spyware mangled his settings. One tried to use an
>> internal modem (disconnected) to dial their server and the other saw this
>> and did something to the networking software. I didn't get the whole story
>
> Nothing in this story demonstrates that Microsoft Windows is at fault. In
> fact you indentify the culprits -- two pieces of spyware. Though how they
> "mangled his settings" is left for us to imagine.
Quite right. I have to be vague since I wasn't involved with the
solution. Since this guy was careful only to install commercial products
(and Windows updates) he should not have had this problem. As I stated his
Mac worked perfectly fine. This may be an assumption, but I have never
heard of a company putting spyware in Mac or *NIX applications continuing
this practise very long...
>> but apparently the connection problem was fixed and Ad-Aware removed the
>> problem software. He only had 40 items. I've had to fix systems like that
>> of the original poster (people who download MP3s, porn, warez, etc.) which
>> had almost 100 times that amount. Another advantage to *NIX and the Mac is
>> we don't have to worry if there is spyware or not. If the software was
>> written for M$ it doesn't affect us.
>
> If the spyware was written for Mac, it doesn't affect Windows usres. If
> written for Linux, it doesn't affect Windows users. What's your point?
True. But I don't recall hearing about any spyware for the Mac and why
would anybody want to know what a *NIX user is up to...
>> >>>There is no 'best OS' or 'best computer system'
>
> Agreed. There is only best for this case, this person, this price, this set
> of conditions.
>
>> >> I agree. Something may work better in one situation than another. I
> know
>> >> people on both sides of the issue. Most who use *NIX have more than one
>> >> machine or use a dual-boot system.
>
> Probably true.Could also be true of Windows users.
I did quantify my statement with the word "most". This means 50% + 1.
Most Windows users I know only run a single machine with a single
operating system.
>> Most who use Windows can barely find the on button.
>
> A mischaracterisation and untrue.
True. I should have put a smiley at the end. ;-)
> You know this whole "my OS is better than your OS" evengelisation reminds me
> of the old Atari-Amiga wars. Or the Ti/994a-Apple wars. What is is with us
> males and our toys? :-)
I didn't think I was THAT much over the top. Rather than beat around the
bush I'll come out with a clear statement...
If a computer user has a problem with their machine there are many
potential reasons. The user should not automatically assume it is their
fault. Often times the program is at fault. The solution is to use a
different/better program. If it is because of defective hardware then
replace the hardware. In the case of a lot of people I have encountered
and helped, the problem was indeed the operating system. Those which use
something different are happier than those who continue to tolerate the
old conditions. I have issues with people who suggest other people
accept a situation which does them no good. As was stated before no
operating system is perfect. Also stated earlier, some operating systems
are better in some circumstances than others. A kneejerk reaction designed
to prevent someone from considering a solution which may provide better
results than accepting the current situation should always be challenged.
If the user is in charge of their computer they should be able to do what
they want with it. If someone suggests trying something, should they not
be able to verify if it does what is claimed? My claim is moving away from
Windows will improve stability, reduce or eliminate spyware, reduce or
eliminate virus programs, reduce business costs over the long term, and
generally result in a less stressful environment. I further claim the
issue that Linux (or the Mac) being too tough to use or lacking
applications is quickly becoming nonsense. A GUI can be used instead of a
commandline. Some of the applications are available on all platforms.
Others have comparable programs which are or are becoming compatible with
"standard" programs on popular platforms. For the original poster there
are P2P applications which are faster, easy to use, and completely free of
spyware. Most are also available as source code and can be VERIFIED as
being free of spyware. For the true computer geek this is the preferred
format for important software. Of course if someone has no problems with
their operating system or is willing to tolerate the problems then more
power to them because there is no need to change...
>> > the person involved plays a huge part. Do you want to start to teach an
> 80
>> > year old woman who just wants to email her great grandson while he's
> abroad how
>> > to use a *nix machine?
>>
>> Funny you should mention that. She was 63 and a friend set her up. GUI
>> login screen. Put your name here and your secret word there. Click the
>> "Login" button. See this button on the screen that says "e-mail"... Click
>> that and when it comes up click on the "to:" box and tell the computer who
>> you want to send it out to. Type your message in the big box and click on
>> the button that looks like an envelope to send it. When you're done click
>> the big "X" in the corner. Click this button then click the "logout"
>> button. Just remember how to turn everything off after that. If you want
>> to know how to do a little more give me a call.
>
> She doesn't need *nix to do this. She needs a GUI. Any OS with a GUI does
> this. You've made no case for "*nix is better than Windows" in this story.
> You have made a case for "GUI is better than command line". Totally agree
> for this case.
What my friend told me (and I didn't include) was this lady knew nothing
about computers and was having stability issues not related to software or
hardware. For her (it was on the families second computer) replacing XP
with Linux was better for her. To follow up, she now surfs the web and
downloads MP3s of 40's and 50's music.
>> Most *NIX people would agree Lindows is terrible.
>
> I've heard the same. I'm going to start another thread re *nix and a GUI.
> I'd appreciate any input.
There is a debate of Gnome versus KDE (the two most popular). There are
other window managers under *NIX. It's usually a matter of installing them
all and finding one which does what you want. For those making the
transition from XP there is a semi-functional window manager (sort of)
called XPDE. It's a free download. It looks good. It is a fairly accurate
representation of the interface. However there were times when things
didn't run quite right.
Configuring the window managers for the first time can be tough. The best
thing to do is spend time and play around with it for half an hour. Be
careful not to install too many bells and whistles especially on slow
machines. A friend had an 850MHz system and installed so many little
extras it actually worked slower than his highly tweaked Windows.
There is a major problems for all the GUIs I encountered. If the hard
drive is filled up to 100% capacity, NOTHING will work. Actually I can't
speak for the Mac since I never completely filled up a Mac hard drive.
Come to think of it the Apple// GUI still worked well enough to free some
space.
Later
Mike
The Wizard of Oz
>
> Hey, do you guys remember using pc chaff for confetti and that magical day
> when the floppy drive arrived with its immense storage capacity? :-)
I bought my first computer (an Apple][+) shortly after the 5.25 drives
were available for it. I later found out there were 8 inch drives for
other computers. In 1990 I actually saw one still used by the city. I
thought the 8 inch disk would hold more than the 5.25. I think it was
about half the capacity of an Apple// 5.25.
Of course my supervisor at the time had some interesting stories about
the conversion to the 3.5 disks. ;-)
Later
Mike
No Spam
news:L5%0d.469$Uo1....@news1.mts.net...
> I do, though, know one fellow who claims to have been around long
> enough to have had discussed Unix and C design decisions with K&R,
> before either were publically released.
Yah...well I had a discussion on newsgroup content with Norm Gall
before he wrote "yangsp"...LOL
Actually it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the person telling you that
was being truthful. I seem to recall Kernighan went to the U of T at
one time, and over the years even Winnipeg has had it's share of very
savvy hi tech "computer people" be it PC or mainframe related...
The Wizard of Oz
> "Dave Rhodes" <cap...@teamnasty.net> wrote in message
> news:4cn6k0t0mba7prhjr...@4ax.com...
>
> <snipage>
>
>> ........................................... Microsoft wasn't even formed
>> until
>> '75 and Gates and Allen were working on BASIC (barf) for the Altair.
>
> Aside from MS Visual Basic that will compile directly into machine
> code (with some language specific overhead), there's a number of
> different versions of basic still around although usually as some form
> of variant such as a text or script language usually with a specialized
> optimizer/P-code/compiler/engine.
>
> It has it's purpose for writing quickie routines or down and dirty's
> tasks that aren't timing critical and is a hell of a lot easier to follow
> than pages of C++ code.
>
> Piss poor programing can be accomplished in any language be
> it C++, Fortran, or BASIC.
A bit of trivia for you here. There were two versions of BASIC included
with the Apple//. One was the older Integer BASIC and was similar to
MBASIC by M$. The other was Applesoft - an extended BASIC. Bill Gates
wrote one and Steve Wozniak wrote the other. I'm not sure which.
Later
Mike
The Wizard of Oz
> Hi, Dave (anyone else)
>
> Where does CP/M fit into this timeline? :-)
It predates M$DOS. I'm not sure if it is concurrent with the Apple// DOS.
I remember there were a few CP/M cards for the Apple//. It was a big thing
because some of the cards included an 80 column card. M$ even made a
couple of CP/M cards if I remember correctly.
Later
Mike
Mbm56ca
Manny
>Manny, don't confuse criticism with negativity.
>And see a doctor about that oozing.
Mbm56ca
Manny
>Of course you don't Manny. You know nothing about anything.
>Please sit back and enjoy the flight. Seat belt on?
No Spam
news:pan.2004.09.12...@emeraldcity.gov...
> A bit of trivia for you here. There were two versions of BASIC included
> with the Apple//. One was the older Integer BASIC and was similar to
> MBASIC by M$. The other was Applesoft - an extended BASIC. Bill Gates
> wrote one and Steve Wozniak wrote the other. I'm not sure which.
Some more trivia...
The following programming languages are known to exist for the CBM
computers:
Ada
APL
Assembly Language
BASIC (interpreted and compiled)
BASIC extenders
C
COBOL
COMAL
FORTH
FORTRAN
LISP
LOGO
MUMPS
Pascal
PILOT
One of the mysteries of the universe is how much Commodore
paid Gates et al for the exclusive rights to the MS BASIC
version (3?) that every CBM came with. I've used V7.5 and
often wondered what V10 was like although I suspect probably
very much like QBasic.
Here's a link for info on PC basics:
http://www.emsps.com/oldtools/msbasv.htm
Walter Roberson
The Wizard of Oz <wiz...@emeraldcity.gov> wrote:
: I bought my first computer (an Apple][+) shortly after the 5.25 drives
:were available for it. I later found out there were 8 inch drives for
:other computers. In 1990 I actually saw one still used by the city.
Hard sectored or soft sectored? ;-)
I still have at least one 8" drive... but it is true that it's been
about 6 years since I last spun it up.
__SPooKY__
Peter D wrote:
lol
i need a new disclaimer in my sig then... most of my 'tantrum' posts are at
like 4am when i've only been getting 1 hours sleep a day for a week.
That's my excuse anyway - i'm as irratable as the next person - sometimes
moreso. It is not even slightly interesting to note the main time i wander
into the newsgroups, is when something is frustrating me elsewhere on the
computer and i need a break from it....
It is quite acceptable to just ignore everything i ever say... everyone else
does and i am well aware i rarely make sense
anyone noticed i just awoke from a 10 hour sleep >:D< ??
'just cause you're not paranoid, doesn't mean that they're not after you'
__SPooKY__
The Wizard of Oz wrote:
>
> Games are a valid reason to keep M$ around.
>
with changing hardware and OSs from MS all the time, and the costs, i think i
would prefer a console if the 'only' reason i'm keeping doze is for the gaming...
it's never happen, but if all the gamers stopped using MS, they would develop
in other platforms, i'm sure (and no, i have no FACTS to back that up - it's
just common sense in my eyes - supply/demand)
Mbm56ca
Manny
>Weak reply there superstar. Just go back to your bell expressvu ng ok.
>TY
The Wizard of Oz
My supervisor said it was hard sectored.
Later
Mike
The Wizard of Oz
>
>
> The Wizard of Oz wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Games are a valid reason to keep M$ around.
>>
>
> with changing hardware and OSs from MS all the time, and the costs, i think i
> would prefer a console if the 'only' reason i'm keeping doze is for the gaming...
We have an agreement with a publicity firm where they send us some
console games for review if we pick up the console unit. Same applies to
some hand held units. We usually don't get to keep them very long. Still
it's content for the magazine.
> it's never happen, but if all the gamers stopped using MS, they would develop
> in other platforms, i'm sure (and no, i have no FACTS to back that up - it's
> just common sense in my eyes - supply/demand)
A couple of years ago I read an article on Slashdot (it could even have
been the Register) about how a majority of big time game developers use
*NIX to develop the software. Apparently *NIX has better development and
project management tools. I followed up with a couple of companies and
one confirmed it outright and the other said it depended on the developer
(multiple developers single distributor). I also asked why they didn't
release the *NIX version. The response was it was because of a contract
they had with M$. If they released a *NIX version, they would no longer
have access to the inner workings of the operating system. I guess this is
changing because there are a couple of companies re-releasing *NIX
versions of the games. There are also some places which have asked the
companies if they could release the *NIX source. I'd have to dig around
but I think I could find links for both groups.
I usually review an older game every month but I am seriously short on
time right now. It's tough sitting down for more than ten minutes at a
time. If someone has something they picked up from the bargain bin and
wants to write a one page review, let me know. I'd prefer *NIX or Mac
games but if there is a Windows game with a Mac or *NIX version then
that's OK too.
Later
Mike
an...@sci.sci
> by themselves) by 2008.
I nominate that for quote of the month, and maybe even quote of the year.
> for sheer uptime you can't beat BSD. Windows = days/months (max)
> Linux = years. BSD = decades.
How would Macintosh rate on that scale?
(Separate answers for Systems 6.0.x, 7.5.x, and 10.x)
> I tried to give Windows a chance as a production machine. Frankly, the
> only things I was doing with it at the time was using Word and playing Civ
> II. I was on dial-up at the time so I did some surfing and e-mail. Man, I
> can tell you I was ANGRY when it wiped out all that work. It still gets my
> dander up even today.
Do you mean that you got lazy and were mid-edit without having saved
any work to disk for hours, then Windows crashed and your edit was lost?
Or everything was properly saved to the disk, but Windows trashed the
formatting of your disk causing you to lose your entire file system,
and you didn't have a tape backup of your file system?
> > I think people are just 'used' to complaining about Microsoft
> > products all the time, it's habit more than anything.
> In my case it was justified.
> It's actually more of a habit to bend over and take it.
Oh oh, another nomination for quote of the month!!
You really *are* pissed at Micro$hit and good at expressing your experience.
> > I'm the first person to sit there are give microsoft bullcrap for
> > everything they do - as a business, a 'monopoly', i hate them -
> > actually hate - but for what they have done to the computer world,
> > i admire and respect them (well, Bill, i suppose) - he had his
> > goal, he set out to do it, he did it (their mission statement says
> > it all).
First of all, he did one great thing before he founded MicroSoft,
namely wrote Basic for the 8080. But everything after that has been
faulty. (Actually, even Basic was a crock. There were already better
languages he could have implemented.)
He was too little and too late with the Windows system. For years he
badmouthed Macintosh's window-based system, then he used vulture
tactics to almost destroy Apple Computer Inc. and push his cruddy
versions of Windows on former DOS users.
Then he finally got a decent version of Windoes about a dozen years
after Apple already had one with the Mac, but at the expense of
Windows being a security nightmare.
And per your first candidate as quote-of-the-month, it'll be several
more years before Windows becomes even tolerable in the security
department, and probably *never* before it becomes usable in any
environment where security really is important, such as military or
even fortune-500 business. (Any fortune-500 company that uses Windows
now needs a new CEO, IMO.)
> If the American Department of Homeland Security said tomorrow
> "We are going to expand our recommendation against using Internet
> Explorer/Outlook/Outlook Express to include all Microsoft products", how
> many people would be aware of any alternatives.
All the Macintosh computer stores have been run out of business by
MicroShit (and Fry's, the Wal-Mart of electronics, of course), and I
doubt Fry's sells Macs (although I admit I haven't actually looked
there; Fry's is so huge it's hard to find what I want, and by then I'm
too tired to browse the rest of the store).
> How difficult is it to use a file manager or click on a desktop icon...
I admit, I've been using computers all my adult life but I don't know
what a file manager is or what it'd be used for. (Yeah, I know it must
manage files in some sense, but I have no idea what that really means.)
> Most who use Windows can barely find the on button.
It's the unlabeled button with the green light that's on on everybody
else's computer but not yours, then goes on when you press yours, then
a minute later it goes back off when the system crashes during startup.
(That happened to me at a public computer access place just yesterday!)
> I doubt they'd even know what RedHat was... As far as they'd be
> concerned they wouldn't know what an operating system is and wouldn't
> care (unless they got caught doing something they shouldn't). For
> those requirements a 16MB stick of RAM, running on a 486/66, and 3GB
> hard drive (storage for EVERYTHING and then some) with RedHat 7.3 or
> Mandrake 9.1 (on a Pentium/75) should be far more than adequate.
If they're trying to run J2EE, they'll need more RAM, a *lot* more.
(I'm not saying they'd actually know now to write one line of Java
code, but their boss might want them to install J2EE with some standard
applications, and then run distributed-architecture commerce from
there. No way to do it with only 16MB RAM.)
> My experience there is the only reason the software needs Windows is
> because the publishers usually refuse to release the original *NIX
> development version or a *NIX port (as simple as recompiling it on a *NIX
> machine).
Probably because Bill Gates has them by the balls. :-(
Bill Gates is like George Bush: "If you don't agree with me 100%, you
are my enemy, and I will spare no effort to destroy you."
> My experiences with Windows have been nothing short of awful.
> My experiences with the Mac, Apple, OS/2, Linux, and BSD have been so
> much better by comparison. Not perfect though. If you didn't have a
> firewall, which of the above machines would you rather have connected
> to the net? This is part of the reason I suggested the original
> poster take a serious look at Linux.
That reminds me: I've been thinking of someday getting PPP access for
my RedHat Linux computer. But I've been afraid of various problems,
which though not as bad as on Windows would neverthess be bad if even
once a worm got on my system. Do you know of any Web site that has
really good advice how to totally secure a Linux that is directly on
the net via PPP dialup? Also I understand even Micro$hit has admitted
that JavaScript in IE is unsafe and should be avoided. Is JavaScript in
Netscape or Mozilla also somewhat unsafe, or is either of them 100%
safe when using JavaScript on Redhat Linux?
> Three hours per night is not good.
Hey, take care of yourself, don't burn out. I may need your advice again.
Norm Gall
<tjo...@nerver.mind> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:51:25 -0800, an...@sci.sci wrote:
>
> I would read this all except neither of you know what you are talking
> about.... funny how MAC is on version 10.x of it's operating system,
> yet still it's users say it is perfect, lololololol
Straw man. Please provide (lots of) quotes from MacOS X users that
imply it is perfect; your statement implies that most MacOS X users say
it is perfect.
> On that is right, all those versions were enhancements not upgrades,
Upgrade can imply enhancement or bug fix. But since no one has
seriously claims that MacOS X is (or every was) perfect, your retorts
are rather empty.
But since you seem to have an inside track, provide a list of, say, ten
_bug fixes_ in MacOS X (that weren't corrections of software that Apple
does not maintain) that track from, say, MacOS 10.0 to 10.4.3.
Take you time.
ng
The Wizard of Oz
Since I appear to be one of the two posters you refer to in your reply,
for future reference it would be a good idea to leave in the lines which
relate who said what. Those lines also contain the dates the original
messages were posted. As I recall this discussion took place this last
spring so you are responding to a long expired message.
>> Windows will start meeting MINIMUM security requirements (as defined
>> by themselves) by 2008.
>
> I nominate that for quote of the month, and maybe even quote of the year.
I agree it's still newsworthy.
>> for sheer uptime you can't beat BSD. Windows = days/months (max)
>> Linux = years. BSD = decades.
>
> How would Macintosh rate on that scale?
> (Separate answers for Systems 6.0.x, 7.5.x, and 10.x)
It would only be a guess. I've found the various forms of Mac system
software to be fairly stable. Unfortunately, before OS X they didn't
handle unstable *applications* very well. OS X is a form of BSD so I'd
guess it would be just as stable. The jump from System 9.x to OS X is a
major rewrite. It seems as though hardware is becoming less relevant these
days. Linux, BSD, and Windows (through Virtual PC) will run on Macs. There
are 68K emulators for *NIX so people can run up to (I think) System 7.5.5
and maybe as high as 8.1. There have been a couple of hacks which allowed
people running generic PCs to run the OS X beta.
>> I tried to give Windows a chance as a production machine. Frankly, the
>> only things I was doing with it at the time was using Word and playing Civ
>> II. I was on dial-up at the time so I did some surfing and e-mail. Man, I
>> can tell you I was ANGRY when it wiped out all that work. It still gets my
>> dander up even today.
>
> Do you mean that you got lazy and were mid-edit without having saved
> any work to disk for hours, then Windows crashed and your edit was lost?
> Or everything was properly saved to the disk, but Windows trashed the
> formatting of your disk causing you to lose your entire file system,
> and you didn't have a tape backup of your file system?
Everything was properly saved. I was in Word when something happened and
both my M$ and Linux hard drives got mangled. I fixed the problem with a
reformat. I reduced the size of the M$ partition and used Windows only for
games (I have another solution now). Windows still crashed, but as long as
I didn't connect to the net or use any M$ applications the it behaved. Of
course now I do all my non-gaming stuff under Linux with no problems.
>> > I think people are just 'used' to complaining about Microsoft
>> > products all the time, it's habit more than anything.
>> In my case it was justified.
>> It's actually more of a habit to bend over and take it.
>
> Oh oh, another nomination for quote of the month!!
> You really *are* pissed at Micro$hit and good at expressing your experience.
Yes I was (and still am). And thank you.
>> > I'm the first person to sit there are give microsoft bullcrap for
>> > everything they do - as a business, a 'monopoly', i hate them -
>> > actually hate - but for what they have done to the computer world,
>> > i admire and respect them (well, Bill, i suppose) - he had his
>> > goal, he set out to do it, he did it (their mission statement says
>> > it all).
>
> First of all, he did one great thing before he founded MicroSoft,
> namely wrote Basic for the 8080. But everything after that has been
> faulty. (Actually, even Basic was a crock. There were already better
> languages he could have implemented.)
This is the other guy you are responding to (look at the indent
characters).
M$ also wrote a BASIC for the Apple// as well as produced a CP/M card for
the Apple//.
> He was too little and too late with the Windows system. For years he
> badmouthed Macintosh's window-based system, then he used vulture
> tactics to almost destroy Apple Computer Inc. and push his cruddy
> versions of Windows on former DOS users.
And still Apple produces better software and is more innovative. Almost
every thing M$ touts as their own innovation has been on the Mac in some
form or another for years.
> Then he finally got a decent version of Windoes about a dozen years
> after Apple already had one with the Mac, but at the expense of
> Windows being a security nightmare.
Having used a variety of other systems quite a bit, I'd disagree with
anybody who calls any version of Windows decent.
> And per your first candidate as quote-of-the-month, it'll be several
> more years before Windows becomes even tolerable in the security
> department, and probably *never* before it becomes usable in any
> environment where security really is important, such as military or
> even fortune-500 business. (Any fortune-500 company that uses Windows
> now needs a new CEO, IMO.)
Here is a link you may find interesting...
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.general/browse_thread/thread/f4842f89e9a51e9e/06a53fb43552964f#06a53fb43552964f
The link may wrap. Just copy parts into your location bar and remove the
spaces.
>> If the American Department of Homeland Security said tomorrow
>> "We are going to expand our recommendation against using Internet
>> Explorer/Outlook/Outlook Express to include all Microsoft products", how
>> many people would be aware of any alternatives.
>
> All the Macintosh computer stores have been run out of business by
> MicroShit (and Fry's, the Wal-Mart of electronics, of course), and I
> doubt Fry's sells Macs (although I admit I haven't actually looked
> there; Fry's is so huge it's hard to find what I want, and by then I'm
> too tired to browse the rest of the store).
We still have a couple in Winnipeg. They all seem to be doing a decent
business.
>> How difficult is it to use a file manager or click on a desktop icon...
>
> I admit, I've been using computers all my adult life but I don't know
> what a file manager is or what it'd be used for. (Yeah, I know it must
> manage files in some sense, but I have no idea what that really means.)
Goody! Time for a lesson. ;-)
On the older Macs, the Finder is a file manager. Under Windows, both the
"My Computer" and "Windows Explorer" (in reality both are IE with
different settings) are file managers. They allow direct operations on
files. For example: copy, move, rename, delete. That sort of thing. More
often than not programs can be run by a click or double-click on an icon
displayed in the file manager. In essence these programs are an
alternative way of dealing with files.
In the *NIX world, file managers are not embedded into the operating
system as they are in M$. They can be added and removed at the whim of the
user.
>> Most who use Windows can barely find the on button.
>
> It's the unlabeled button with the green light that's on on everybody
> else's computer but not yours, then goes on when you press yours, then
> a minute later it goes back off when the system crashes during startup.
> (That happened to me at a public computer access place just yesterday!)
Yes, but you actually KNEW where it was. I did some tech support for a
LARGE American ISP (you all know the one I'm talking about), and I'd much
rather deal with a Mac/*NIX user than a M$ user. Simpler solutions without
having to reformat hard drives make me happy. I stand by my earlier
statement. The people here are a different matter. If they figured out how
to use the newsgroups then they must be the exception rather than the
rule. I know of people who make it a practise of yanking the power cord
rather than doing a proper shut down.
>> I doubt they'd even know what RedHat was... As far as they'd be
>> concerned they wouldn't know what an operating system is and wouldn't
>> care (unless they got caught doing something they shouldn't). For
>> those requirements a 16MB stick of RAM, running on a 486/66, and 3GB
>> hard drive (storage for EVERYTHING and then some) with RedHat 7.3 or
>> Mandrake 9.1 (on a Pentium/75) should be far more than adequate.
>
> If they're trying to run J2EE, they'll need more RAM, a *lot* more.
> (I'm not saying they'd actually know now to write one line of Java
> code, but their boss might want them to install J2EE with some standard
> applications, and then run distributed-architecture commerce from
> there. No way to do it with only 16MB RAM.)
I was talking about minimum requirements. A boss wouldn't give
an employee a 486 unless they were running something like the LTSP (Linux
Terminal Server Project). Then again, for development work the LTSP may or
may not have adequate horsepower.
>> My experience there is the only reason the software needs Windows is
>> because the publishers usually refuse to release the original *NIX
>> development version or a *NIX port (as simple as recompiling it on a *NIX
>> machine).
>
> Probably because Bill Gates has them by the balls. :-(
> Bill Gates is like George Bush: "If you don't agree with me 100%, you
> are my enemy, and I will spare no effort to destroy you."
Quite right. The new CEO (Steve Balmer) is known to throw chairs at
people. Sort of a running gag you see.
>> My experiences with Windows have been nothing short of awful.
>> My experiences with the Mac, Apple, OS/2, Linux, and BSD have been so
>> much better by comparison. Not perfect though. If you didn't have a
>> firewall, which of the above machines would you rather have connected
>> to the net? This is part of the reason I suggested the original
>> poster take a serious look at Linux.
>
> That reminds me: I've been thinking of someday getting PPP access for
> my RedHat Linux computer.
I have a friend on dial-up doing just that. It works. Setting it up for
the first time is a little daunting. However, once you have it working
it's really quite simple. I use cable so it's even easier.
> But I've been afraid of various problems,
> which though not as bad as on Windows would neverthess be bad if even
> once a worm got on my system.
Consequences can be terrible on any machine. Having said this, the
problem is on a couple orders of magnitude less intense. As long as you
don't make a habit of running your software as "root" (the same as "admin"
in M$) you should be reasonably safe. This way, if something DOES happen,
then all you lose is (at most) the home directory for the individual user
account. You'll be safe from M$ virus programs. Although there some *NIX
virus programs and exploits, just make sure you do your weekly updates.
These problems are fixed in hours, not months.
> Do you know of any Web site that has
> really good advice how to totally secure a Linux that is directly on
> the net via PPP dialup?
Google.ca/linux. Look for "ppp howto".
> Also I understand even Micro$hit has admitted
> that JavaScript in IE is unsafe and should be avoided. Is JavaScript in
> Netscape or Mozilla also somewhat unsafe, or is either of them 100%
> safe when using JavaScript on Redhat Linux?
I don't know. I think Mozilla is working on it.
>> Three hours per night is not good.
>
> Hey, take care of yourself, don't burn out. I may need your advice again.
That problem has mostly been resolved.
Later
Mike
Jeff Stapleton
"The Wizard of Oz" <wiz...@emeraldcity.gov> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.12.18....@emeraldcity.gov...
yet there is still more pc software than will ever be available on
mac....what mac has is usually a few years behind what pc has.....office is
one example
No Spam
news:F5spf.137173$ki.136493@pd7tw2no...
> yet there is still more pc software than will ever be available on
> mac....what mac has is usually a few years behind what pc has.....office
> is one example
MS Office is a piece of shit. Corel's Word Perfect Suite is a hell of
a lot more stable and half the price. Adobe is a bit better than Office
but not by much. Actually Open Office is the best bang for the buck...
Norm Gall
<tjo...@nerver.mind> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 21:41:15 GMT, Norm Gall <ga...@spammyhill.org>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <43a67cb9...@news.mts.net>, T.N.J.
> ><tjo...@nerver.mind> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:51:25 -0800, an...@sci.sci wrote:
> >>
> >> I would read this all except neither of you know what you are talking
> >> about.... funny how MAC is on version 10.x of it's operating system,
> >> yet still it's users say it is perfect, lololololol
> >
> >Straw man. Please provide (lots of) quotes from MacOS X users that
> >imply it is perfect; your statement implies that most MacOS X users say
> >it is perfect.
>
> Somehow Norm I knew this would get you in the thread.
Well, sure. You know perfectly well that I find it hard to stand by
when pure Bullshit flys by.
> >> On that is right, all those versions were enhancements not upgrades,
> >
> >Upgrade can imply enhancement or bug fix. But since no one has
> >seriously claims that MacOS X is (or every was) perfect, your retorts
> >are rather empty.
> >
> >But since you seem to have an inside track, provide a list of, say, ten
> >_bug fixes_ in MacOS X (that weren't corrections of software that Apple
> >does not maintain) that track from, say, MacOS 10.0 to 10.4.3.
> >
> >Take your time.
>
> No need Norm, I never said I had an inside track, but I have seen you
> as well as many others come on here suggesting the MAC is superior to
> windows as well as other OS.
Well, certainly. It is, for many tasks.
> If MAC had as many hackers trying to continually infect it with
> problems as Windows does, MAC would no longer exist.
Nonsense. Please provide evidence other than the small numbers of
viruses/hacks designed for MacOS X that Mac and Linux _do not_ have as
many hackers working on it. This mantra has been chanted for a while
now; let's see the evidence.
> I do hear from many MAC users, you as well as other state how rock
> solid the MAC OS is, when both you and I know it crashes especially
> the networks.
Sigh. Neither you nor I know any such thing. What the hell does that
mean: "crash the network"? From what I have seen over the past 15 years
of hooking PCs and Macs into the same networks, that phrase is used by
people who don't have a clue that the hell they are talking about. What
they actually mean is that one or more machines or serivices on the
network has/have become unavailable to some other machines on the
network and this is almost always due to a misconfiguration or a
Windows machine dying.
> I did work for a company that's majority was Windows PC
> but had a small network or MAC's for their publishing department. The
> Network Admin was full of horror stories about the network.
Sure. Same at the University of Winnipeg. What I find remarkable is
that at York University and at the University of Calgary, they both
have large numbers of PCs, Mac, and Linux boxes all running on various
networks and there are no troubles other than making Windows software
do what it was advertised it would do. The word here and at York is
that Macs and Linux boxes require far less attention than do Windows
boxes on the same networks. I guess at small companies that hire guys
from the Winnipeg Business School (or whatever it is calling itself
this year) with those MS 'certficates' get employees with limited and
highly specialised educations that can't or won't allow them to learn
anythig bt what is in the shiny manuals they've been given. I've had to
explain how TCP/IP works to too many MS-trained techs to be impressed.
> And before you or anyone else accuses me of saying so, I do not
> maintain Windows is perfect, superior or any other adjective you can
> come up with....I simply maintain that if you have a product that
> captures over 80% of the world market you will have hordes of people
> trying to knock you off the top.
Sure, but this is a circumstantial ad hominem. I don't care whether MS
is 'tops'. If it worked as well as alternative technology, I'd be the
first guy to say fine. Implying that I am just taking pot shots at the
big dog for some lgically irrelevant reason is not only fallacous but a
cheap shot.
> And to top it all off MAC is overpriced.
Well, you get what you pay for.
David Kehler
> MS Office is a piece of shit. Corel's Word Perfect Suite is a hell of
> a lot more stable and half the price.
This has not been my experience. However, to be fair, the last version of
WordPerfect suite that I used was 8.0.
> Adobe is a bit better than Office
> but not by much. Actually Open Office is the best bang for the buck..
Haven't tried the latest version of open office, but the previous versions
pretty much sucked compared to MS office.
David
David Kehler
version of Dragon NaturallySpeaking, let me know. ;-)
And correct me if I'm wrong, but I have heard that in terms of software,
Windows has pretty much caught up with the Mac with respect to the things
that the Mac used to be superior at, like desktop publishing etc.
And I can leave my Windows XP box on for weeks at a time with no problems.
I'm not saying this is better than Linux, BSD or Mac OS, but it's good
enough that I'm quite satisfied with it.
David
Norm Gall
Kehler <dkeh...@REMOVEshaw.ca> wrote:
> When the Mac gets a speech recognition package as good as the latest
> version of Dragon NaturallySpeaking, let me know. ;-)
Hmmm... I have a few students who use Mac voice recognition for writing
their papers. Do you mean VR for writing or just controlling the
machine? The built-in VR is good enough for me, but I've never really
put it to the test.
> And correct me if I'm wrong, but I have heard that in terms of software,
> Windows has pretty much caught up with the Mac with respect to the things
> that the Mac used to be superior at, like desktop publishing etc.
I'd say that the Audio and Video sw is better on the Mac (or so my
professional buddies tell me). DP is probably fine too
> And I can leave my Windows XP box on for weeks at a time with no problems.
> I'm not saying this is better than Linux, BSD or Mac OS, but it's good
> enough that I'm quite satisfied with it.
And I'd say that this is probably good enough. On the other hand, I've
never met anyone (except MIS 'professionals' who had a vested interest
in MS) who wasn't impressed with Mac OS X. If it doesn't tickle your
fancy or doesn't run the very latest games (and this is important to
you), YMMV.
My daughter is a avid gamer; her attitude is that if you are using your
GP computer primarily for games, you have your priorities in the wrong
place. Get a PS2, XBox, etc.
n
No Spam
news:Xns97316F7C91711dk...@24.66.94.159...
> This has not been my experience. However, to be fair, the last version of
> WordPerfect suite that I used was 8.0.
IMHO WP Suite versions 11 and 12 are miles ahead of version 8. MS's
paranoia about registration keys for their overpriced bloatware that needs
continual patching is more than a little irritating. I've stopped upgrading
at
version 2002 (XP), and won't buy any more of their junk.
> Haven't tried the latest version of open office, but the previous versions
> pretty much sucked compared to MS office.
Open Office isn't MS Office or even WP by any stretch, but the price
is right, and it does a reasonable job for most casual use.
David Kehler
news:191220051023265277%ga...@spammyhill.org:
> In article <Xns973170EA66D39dk...@24.66.94.159>, David
> Kehler <dkeh...@REMOVEshaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> When the Mac gets a speech recognition package as good as the latest
>> version of Dragon NaturallySpeaking, let me know. ;-)
>
> Hmmm... I have a few students who use Mac voice recognition for
> writing their papers. Do you mean VR for writing or just controlling
> the machine? The built-in VR is good enough for me, but I've never
> really put it to the test.
I can tell you that in speech recognition circles, there is nothing
currently out that compares to the latest version of Dragon
NaturallySpeaking in terms of accuracy out-of-the-box (about 96%) and
after a well-trained user file (99% plus). And for whatever reason,
Dragon doesn't work with PC emulators.
I use it for dictation and command-and-control with a great deal of
success. Version 8 is far and away better than any of the numerous
previous offerings I've tried.
I'd say that one area that PCs are ahead of Macs in is assistive software
technology. Admittedly, this is a limited market.
>
>> And correct me if I'm wrong, but I have heard that in terms of
>> software, Windows has pretty much caught up with the Mac with respect
>> to the things that the Mac used to be superior at, like desktop
>> publishing etc.
>
> I'd say that the Audio and Video sw is better on the Mac (or so my
> professional buddies tell me). DP is probably fine too
>
Just out of curiosity, how do the software prices compare?
>> And I can leave my Windows XP box on for weeks at a time with no
>> problems. I'm not saying this is better than Linux, BSD or Mac OS,
>> but it's good enough that I'm quite satisfied with it.
>
> And I'd say that this is probably good enough. On the other hand, I've
> never met anyone (except MIS 'professionals' who had a vested interest
> in MS) who wasn't impressed with Mac OS X. If it doesn't tickle your
> fancy or doesn't run the very latest games (and this is important to
> you), YMMV.
I've never seen it.
>
> My daughter is a avid gamer; her attitude is that if you are using
> your GP computer primarily for games, you have your priorities in the
> wrong place. Get a PS2, XBox, etc.
>
> n
She certainly has a point with respect to the convenience and
compatibility that consoles provide over PCs. While I play the
occasional game, (my current favourite being Civilization IV), the huge
number of possible hardware configurations often lead to finicky issues
with many games.
David
David Kehler
> "David Kehler" <dkeh...@REMOVEshaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns97316F7C91711dk...@24.66.94.159...
>
>> This has not been my experience. However, to be fair, the last
>> version of WordPerfect suite that I used was 8.0.
>
> IMHO WP Suite versions 11 and 12 are miles ahead of version 8. MS's
> paranoia about registration keys for their overpriced bloatware that
> needs continual patching is more than a little irritating. I've
> stopped upgrading at
> version 2002 (XP), and won't buy any more of their junk.
Yeah, the registration key crap is a pain.
David
Norm Gall
Kehler <dkeh...@REMOVEshaw.ca> wrote:
> Norm Gall <ga...@spammyhill.org> wrote in
> news:191220051023265277%ga...@spammyhill.org:
>
> > In article <Xns973170EA66D39dk...@24.66.94.159>, David
> > Kehler <dkeh...@REMOVEshaw.ca> wrote:
> >
> >> When the Mac gets a speech recognition package as good as the latest
> >> version of Dragon NaturallySpeaking, let me know. ;-)
> >
> > Hmmm... I have a few students who use Mac voice recognition for
> > writing their papers. Do you mean VR for writing or just controlling
> > the machine? The built-in VR is good enough for me, but I've never
> > really put it to the test.
>
> I can tell you that in speech recognition circles, there is nothing
> currently out that compares to the latest version of Dragon
> NaturallySpeaking in terms of accuracy out-of-the-box (about 96%) and
> after a well-trained user file (99% plus). And for whatever reason,
> Dragon doesn't work with PC emulators.
>
> I use it for dictation and command-and-control with a great deal of
> success. Version 8 is far and away better than any of the numerous
> previous offerings I've tried.
>
> I'd say that one area that PCs are ahead of Macs in is assistive software
> technology. Admittedly, this is a limited market.
Interesting. I'll have to follow this up.
> >> And correct me if I'm wrong, but I have heard that in terms of
> >> software, Windows has pretty much caught up with the Mac with respect
> >> to the things that the Mac used to be superior at, like desktop
> >> publishing etc.
> >
> > I'd say that the Audio and Video sw is better on the Mac (or so my
> > professional buddies tell me). DP is probably fine too
> >
>
> Just out of curiosity, how do the software prices compare?
With few exceptions, Windows and Mac versions of the same software are
priced the same.
> >> And I can leave my Windows XP box on for weeks at a time with no
> >> problems. I'm not saying this is better than Linux, BSD or Mac OS,
> >> but it's good enough that I'm quite satisfied with it.
> >
> > And I'd say that this is probably good enough. On the other hand, I've
> > never met anyone (except MIS 'professionals' who had a vested interest
> > in MS) who wasn't impressed with Mac OS X. If it doesn't tickle your
> > fancy or doesn't run the very latest games (and this is important to
> > you), YMMV.
>
> I've never seen it.
The next time I'm in Wpg, I'll drop by.
;)
> > My daughter is a avid gamer; her attitude is that if you are using
> > your GP computer primarily for games, you have your priorities in the
> > wrong place. Get a PS2, XBox, etc.
> >
> > n
>
> She certainly has a point with respect to the convenience and
> compatibility that consoles provide over PCs. While I play the
> occasional game, (my current favourite being Civilization IV), the huge
> number of possible hardware configurations often lead to finicky issues
> with many games.
Indeed. Not a problem with MacOS machines.
n
No Spam
> Yeah, the registration key crap is a pain.
I upgraded a couple of systems with new motherboards
and CPU's a couple of months ago, and was expecting
a real hassle when I re-installed XP Pro on them, based
on the hoops I had to jump through a couple of years ago
when a hard drive bit the dust and I had to re-install an XP
upgrade SP1 version.
I nearly fell over when both systems (upgrade SP1 & OEM
SP2) re-registered automatically via the internet without any
human intervention.
Yet when I went to install Office on the systems again, I ended
up having to call MS and deal with some snotty asshole who
practically wanted to know my life history and the serial
numbers of the motherboards before I could get my Office
Suites registered.
I was about 5 seconds away from telling him to shove it
up his ass and phoning MS Canada and telling them I wanted
a full refund for the software packages because of the hassle,
when he finally got around to giving me a new key for the two
3 year old software packages
I wasn't overjoyed at some of the going on at Corel after
they were bought out a few years ago in terms of customer
support, but they seem to have sorted it all out now, are miles
ahead of MS in that area. The WP Suites seems to very stable
on machines running XP Home...which is something in itself...
David Kehler
ga...@spammyhill.org:
> The next time I'm in Wpg, I'll drop by.
>
> ;)
Feel free. :-) Just e-mail me ahead of time.
David
David Kehler
It's just another example of how often times pirated software is more
convenient to the end-user.
David
The Wizard of Oz
>
> "The Wizard of Oz" <wiz...@emeraldcity.gov> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.12.18....@emeraldcity.gov...
>> On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:51:25 -0800, anon1 wrote:
<snip>
>> And still Apple produces better software and is more innovative. Almost
>> every thing M$ touts as their own innovation has been on the Mac in some
>> form or another for years.
>
> yet there is still more pc software than will ever be available on
> mac....what mac has is usually a few years behind what pc has.....office is
> one example
Well look at what company WRITES Office... There's your answer. An
alternative is at http://www.openoffice.org. Mac, M$, and Linux versions.
All compatible with M$ Office.
I agree there is far more software for the M$ platform than there is for
anything else. Some is good, most is terrible. Or worse yet, useless. My
experience with Word (part of Office) illustrates the point. What's the
good of having 10,000 titles if only 50 of them are any good? Wouldn't it
be better to have 1,000 titles with 50 good applications (45 of which
overlap with the other platform)?
As far as the OS (and software from Apple itself) is concerned, it
appears to be farther ahead than what I've seen coming out of M$.
In the end I agree with the Three Dead Trolls group. "Every OS sucks".
It's just some suck more than others. ;-)
Later
Mike
The Wizard of Oz
> "No Spam" <no....@shaw.ca> wrote in news:vxtpf.145531$Gd6.4514@pd7tw3no:
<snip>
>> Adobe is a bit better than Office
>> but not by much. Actually Open Office is the best bang for the buck..
>
> Haven't tried the latest version of open office, but the previous versions
> pretty much sucked compared to MS office.
Open Office 2.0 (at least under Linux) has shown major signs of
improvement. The load time is slightly lower and the speed is a little
higher. I think they also reduced the footprint in memory. At least that's
my subjective opinion.
Later
Mike
an...@sci.sci
> which relate who said what.
But I don't know any of the people posting, and I have no way to verify
that the From: fields in headers aren't being forged. And given that
I'm posting anonymously, it would be hypocritical of me to insist I
know who everyone else is while denying anybody knowing the slightest
clue who I really am.
> Those lines also contain the dates the original messages were posted.
No, you're mixing up two different lines in the header:
> From: The Wizard of Oz <wiz...@emeraldcity.gov>
That line claims to tell who posted, but Google Groups trashes it so it
isn't of much use to identify some individual. And in your case, your
name and e-mail address are both totally bogus, so for all I know you
could be my brother. (And for all you know, I could be one of your
close relatives too. I could even be one of your alternate
personalities if you suffer from MPD, or even if you enjoy MPD.)
(Joke: Intake psychiatrist to prospective patient: "Do you often
suffer from halucinations?" Prospective patient: "No, I rather enjoy them.")
> Message-Id: <pan.2005.12.18....@emeraldcity.gov>
> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:40:06 GMT
> X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1134945606 24.66.94.143 (Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:40:06 MST)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:40:06 MST
Each of those lines claims to show *when* the posting occurred, and
show different times but within a fraction of a second of each other.
> before OS X they didn't handle unstable *applications* very well.
In theory if your computer froze (typical result of unstable
application), you could press button to go into debugger, abort the bad
application, and return to Finder. But I could never remember where I
put the crib sheet for the debugger, so I could never actually try
that. Did it ever work for you?
> Everything was properly saved. I was in Word when something happened
> and both my M$ and Linux hard drives got mangled. I fixed the problem
> with a reformat.
Ugh! That's awful. Too bad there wasn't a way to perform an autopsy on
the disk and figure out whether M$-Word was at fault, and if so then
sue M$ for damages.
But of course if this was a business computer, you *should* have made
regular backups, like incremental backup once every night, streaming
event backup continually to two different remote sites, and *full*
backup at least every month.
> > Then he finally got a decent version of Windows about a dozen years
> > after Apple already had one with the Mac, but at the expense of
> > Windows being a security nightmare.
> Having used a variety of other systems quite a bit, I'd disagree with
> anybody who calls any version of Windows decent.
Well, as a system to run software you've developed under Linux, a
recent version of Windows is decent enough. But of course without Emacs
it's pretty painful to actually develop anything. A "good" system would
be one that makes it easy to develop new software too.
> > All the Macintosh computer stores have been run out of business by
> > MicroShit (and Fry's, the Wal-Mart of electronics, of course), and I
> > doubt Fry's sells Macs (although I admit I haven't actually looked
> > there; Fry's is so huge it's hard to find what I want, and by then I'm
> > too tired to browse the rest of the store).
> We still have a couple in Winnipeg. They all seem to be doing a decent
> business.
Ah, I didn't realize you are in Canada. Yeah, Micro$hit hasn't yet
eaten all of Canada like it's eaten all of the USA where I reside.
> > I admit, I've been using computers all my adult life but I don't know
> > what a file manager is or what it'd be used for. (Yeah, I know it must
> > manage files in some sense, but I have no idea what that really means.)
> Goody! Time for a lesson. ;-)
> On the older Macs, the Finder is a file manager. Under Windows, both the
> "My Computer" and "Windows Explorer" (in reality both are IE with
> different settings) are file managers.
I've used "My Computer" which is a folder-view somewhat like on the Mac
except that when I double click on a folder it replaces the old view
instead of spawning a new one, and there's no way to permanently
configure a window to appear in a particular place on the desktop or to
permanently configure an icon to appear in a particular place within a
folder-view. I've also used the aliases for sub-directories of "My
Computer" which are also on the desktop on various public systems I've
used.
But AFAIK, I've never used any "Windows Explorer". Is that available
from the START menu, or from the DOS/CMD window, or what?
By the way, the first time I ever used Windows, it was utterly cruddy.
All the programs you could possibly run had to be laid out on the
desktop in non-overlapping windows within the "program manager". Do you
remember which early version of Windows that might be? Maybe 95??
> In the *NIX world, file managers are not embedded into the operating
> system as they are in M$. They can be added and removed at the whim of the
> user.
On RedHat Linux, there's a startup program that shows a window divided
into two panes: Left pane has tree view, right pane has folder view of
whichever item is currently selected from the tree view. Does that ring
a bell? Is that a "file manager" like you're talking about?
It's my understanding that on really old systems on the Mac (such as
6.0.x), when MultiFinder mode was not enabled, Finder was responsible
for the "desktop" view whereby the hard disk and any other devices show
near the right edge, trashcan at bottom and all other devices working
down from the top (although you can then drag them permanently anywhere
on the desktop you want). Is that a misunderstanding on my part?
One nice thing about Mac compared to Windows is that removeable media
have logical names, and you can eject one without dismounting it, and
then have a program that knows both names and asks for them whenever it
wants, and the system ejects the old media and alerts when you need to
insert another one requested by the program. That allows you to copy
files "directly" from one diskette to another, for example, or merge
information from multiple diskettes. I don't know if anything like that
is possible on Windows. Of course if you have to go back and forth a
lot it's a pain, and you'd rather copy all the data to the hard disk
and then work from there. But sometimes being able to work from several
removeable media on the same port is useful. Imagine for example if you
have several CD-ROMs and you need to refer to one item from each of
three of them, using your one-and-only CD-ROM drive, all from within a
single program which figures out which CD-ROMs it needs as it runs. You
just can't do that on Windows at all, right?
> > It's the unlabeled button with the green light that's on on everybody
> > else's computer but not yours, then goes on when you press yours, then
> > a minute later it goes back off when the system crashes during startup.
> > (That happened to me at a public computer access place just yesterday!)
> Yes, but you actually KNEW where it was.
No I didn't. I looked all over my computer, didn't see any, looked all
over neighbor's computer, saw green light, looked over at corresponding
location on my computer, saw circular depression with tiny dark glass
in center, presumed that was it, pressed, light went on, confirming my
guess that his computer and mine had it in corresponding locations.
> I did some tech support for a LARGE American ISP (you all know the
> one I'm talking about), ...
The only one I know of is AOL. I get their unsolicited hot-cocoa
coasters in the mail every several weeks, and the local post office has
a bin full of them too.
The Wizard of Oz
>> for future reference it would be a good idea to leave in the lines
>> which relate who said what.
>
> But I don't know any of the people posting, and I have no way to verify
> that the From: fields in headers aren't being forged. And given that
> I'm posting anonymously, it would be hypocritical of me to insist I
> know who everyone else is while denying anybody knowing the slightest
> clue who I really am.
That's OK. I'm using a fake nym myself. It stops spam. You don't have to
verify the authenticity of the headers. The thing is with the ">" symbols
you can keep track of which poster said what.
>> Those lines also contain the dates the original messages were posted.
>
> No, you're mixing up two different lines in the header:
Just talking about two different issues. The first is attribution and the
second is to determine if the thread is current. We went through this one
in late spring or early summer.
>> From: The Wizard of Oz <wiz...@emeraldcity.gov>
>
> That line claims to tell who posted, but Google Groups trashes it so it
> isn't of much use to identify some individual. And in your case, your
> name and e-mail address are both totally bogus, so for all I know you
> could be my brother. (And for all you know, I could be one of your
> close relatives too. I could even be one of your alternate
> personalities if you suffer from MPD, or even if you enjoy MPD.)
> (Joke: Intake psychiatrist to prospective patient: "Do you often
> suffer from halucinations?" Prospective patient: "No, I rather enjoy them.")
All it has there is the information I give it. As I said, it's fake
(obviously so). You are quite correct in saying you probably don't know
who I am. It doesn't matter. It keeps track of who (more precisely what
ID) said what.
>> Message-Id: <pan.2005.12.18....@emeraldcity.gov>
>> Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 22:40:06 GMT
>> X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1134945606 24.66.94.143 (Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:40:06 MST)
>> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:40:06 MST
>
> Each of those lines claims to show *when* the posting occurred, and
> show different times but within a fraction of a second of each other.
But the original post should have a different month or date. This could
be a problem with Google if this is the header you got from the original
post. In this case they would thank you for pointing this out to them.
>> before OS X they didn't handle unstable *applications* very well.
>
> In theory if your computer froze (typical result of unstable
> application), you could press button to go into debugger, abort the bad
> application, and return to Finder. But I could never remember where I
> put the crib sheet for the debugger, so I could never actually try
> that. Did it ever work for you?
The debugger was useless on a third party application. The <Command-.>
key worked, AFAIK, up to at least System 8.6. I've had some pretty bad
freezes where the only solution was to yank the power cord.
>> Everything was properly saved. I was in Word when something happened
>> and both my M$ and Linux hard drives got mangled. I fixed the problem
>> with a reformat.
>
> Ugh! That's awful. Too bad there wasn't a way to perform an autopsy on
> the disk and figure out whether M$-Word was at fault, and if so then
> sue M$ for damages.
The EULA was written in such a way as to say the user is out of luck even
if M$ damages the hardware. There will be something similar when the
BLU-Ray DVD comes out. It has a self destruct code built in for the case
where someone tries to do something "naughty".
> But of course if this was a business computer, you *should* have made
> regular backups, like incremental backup once every night, streaming
> event backup continually to two different remote sites, and *full*
> backup at least every month.
Not feasible when you're starting from scratch with no money. Our backup
was the final product released once/month on CDs.
>> > Then he finally got a decent version of Windows about a dozen years
>> > after Apple already had one with the Mac, but at the expense of
>> > Windows being a security nightmare.
>
>> Having used a variety of other systems quite a bit, I'd disagree with
>> anybody who calls any version of Windows decent.
>
> Well, as a system to run software you've developed under Linux, a
> recent version of Windows is decent enough. But of course without Emacs
> it's pretty painful to actually develop anything. A "good" system would
> be one that makes it easy to develop new software too.
There are a few authoring systems under Linux. The one included with KDE
is pretty good. I just do small stuff for the moment so kate is a decent
editor. It comes with syntax highlighting. There are similar products
under M$ but the ones I've heard about aren't free.
>> > All the Macintosh computer stores have been run out of business by
>> > MicroShit (and Fry's, the Wal-Mart of electronics, of course), and I
>> > doubt Fry's sells Macs (although I admit I haven't actually looked
>> > there; Fry's is so huge it's hard to find what I want, and by then I'm
>> > too tired to browse the rest of the store).
>> We still have a couple in Winnipeg. They all seem to be doing a decent
>> business.
>
> Ah, I didn't realize you are in Canada. Yeah, Micro$hit hasn't yet
> eaten all of Canada like it's eaten all of the USA where I reside.
The "wpg" part of the newsgroup name stands for "Winnipeg". Find North
Dakota on a map and go North.
M$ IS on a majority of the machines here too. More people are switching
to Macs and *NIX for their personal machines. Businesses are switching
too, but they need convincing first (and to fire PHBs and bean counters
which own M$ stock).
>> > I admit, I've been using computers all my adult life but I don't know
>> > what a file manager is or what it'd be used for. (Yeah, I know it must
>> > manage files in some sense, but I have no idea what that really means.)
>> Goody! Time for a lesson. ;-)
>> On the older Macs, the Finder is a file manager. Under Windows, both the
>> "My Computer" and "Windows Explorer" (in reality both are IE with
>> different settings) are file managers.
>
> I've used "My Computer" which is a folder-view somewhat like on the Mac
> except that when I double click on a folder it replaces the old view
> instead of spawning a new one, and there's no way to permanently
> configure a window to appear in a particular place on the desktop or to
> permanently configure an icon to appear in a particular place within a
> folder-view.
Lots of stuff here. You are correct. If you want it in a new window you
could configure the behaviour of the program to do it this way. I think
you should also be able to right-click on a directory icon and select
"open in a new window".
> I've also used the aliases for sub-directories of "My
> Computer" which are also on the desktop on various public systems I've
> used.
I created an alias of the "windows explorer" so it can be accessed on my
desktop. I show it to my bosses and they like the idea.
> But AFAIK, I've never used any "Windows Explorer". Is that available
> from the START menu, or from the DOS/CMD window, or what?
I think it's under the accessories section of the start menu. Like I
said, I created an alias of it on the desktop. Very useful.
> By the way, the first time I ever used Windows, it was utterly cruddy.
> All the programs you could possibly run had to be laid out on the
> desktop in non-overlapping windows within the "program manager". Do you
> remember which early version of Windows that might be? Maybe 95??
Maybe even as far back as 3.1?
>> In the *NIX world, file managers are not embedded into the operating
>> system as they are in M$. They can be added and removed at the whim of the
>> user.
>
> On RedHat Linux, there's a startup program that shows a window divided
> into two panes: Left pane has tree view, right pane has folder view of
> whichever item is currently selected from the tree view. Does that ring
> a bell? Is that a "file manager" like you're talking about?
Probably konqueror (if you're running KDE). That's a fairly generic
layout. The answer is "you are correct". That IS a file manager.
> It's my understanding that on really old systems on the Mac (such as
> 6.0.x), when MultiFinder mode was not enabled, Finder was responsible
> for the "desktop" view whereby the hard disk and any other devices show
> near the right edge, trashcan at bottom and all other devices working
> down from the top (although you can then drag them permanently anywhere
> on the desktop you want). Is that a misunderstanding on my part?
Now you mention it I recall that capability on all Macs up to System 9.1.
I haven't used OS X very much so I can't remember. If it's like Linux, it
can be configured in the control panel. I use a "snap to grid" option. I
suppose an automatic "clean up desktop" is also possible. It is also
possible there may be a configuration for which storage devices are to be
displayed on the desktop. In my case I had to enable some to use them.
> One nice thing about Mac compared to Windows is that removeable media
> have logical names,
That's up to the author of the media.
> and you can eject one without dismounting it,
Linux doesn't have this one either.
> and
> then have a program that knows both names and asks for them whenever it
> wants, and the system ejects the old media and alerts when you need to
> insert another one requested by the program.
It was a nice feature.
> That allows you to copy
> files "directly" from one diskette to another, for example, or merge
> information from multiple diskettes.
I still use that feature on my Apple//.
> I don't know if anything like that
> is possible on Windows.
Nope. You need the source and destination window open as well as both
media accessible.
> Of course if you have to go back and forth a
> lot it's a pain, and you'd rather copy all the data to the hard disk
> and then work from there.
That's what I do.
> But sometimes being able to work from several
> removeable media on the same port is useful. Imagine for example if you
> have several CD-ROMs and you need to refer to one item from each of
> three of them, using your one-and-only CD-ROM drive, all from within a
> single program which figures out which CD-ROMs it needs as it runs. You
> just can't do that on Windows at all, right?
Sort of. As I recall some game manufactures created floppies with zero
length files and used the filename to identify the floppy. I think they
MAY do the same thing with CDs.
>> > It's the unlabeled button with the green light that's on on everybody
>> > else's computer but not yours, then goes on when you press yours,
>> > then a minute later it goes back off when the system crashes during
>> > startup. (That happened to me at a public computer access place just
>> > yesterday!)
>> Yes, but you actually KNEW where it was.
>
> No I didn't. I looked all over my computer, didn't see any, looked all
> over neighbor's computer, saw green light, looked over at corresponding
> location on my computer, saw circular depression with tiny dark glass in
> center, presumed that was it, pressed, light went on, confirming my
> guess that his computer and mine had it in corresponding locations.
OK. Bad design aside, you knew there had to be one. ;-)
>> I did some tech support for a LARGE American ISP (you all know the one
>> I'm talking about), ...
>
> The only one I know of is AOL. I get their unsolicited hot-cocoa
> coasters in the mail every several weeks, and the local post office has
> a bin full of them too.
OK. In Winnipeg we have a series of call centres. The biggest doesn't
service AOL. This one services another LARGE ISP which also begins with an
"A". I don't know if they do Mac support any more. There were more than 10
times the people supporting M$ than there were supporting Macs. Man... M$
support is crushing compared to Mac or *NIX. Even to the local ISPs tech
support prefer supporting Macs and *NIX compared to M$. At least there are
only a finite number of problems the users can have...
Later
Mike