Is Linux for Writers?
Kit Lemmonds
subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
I am a writer who owns a machine dedicated entirely to word
processing. This machine is basically a typewriter which can save
documents in a variety of formats and print them as needed. The trick
is, I need this machine to be absolutely stable - as stable as a
typewriter in fact, which means no crashes and absolutely no data
loss. Previously, I ran this machine with Microsoft Windows 2000 and
it was extremely stable, but one day it crashed and, thanks to
MSWord's write-behind cache, none of the backups made it to the hard
drive. I disabled the write-behind cache, but I was still disgruntled
over the loss of a chapter of work.
"That's it," I decided. "I'm migrating to Linux. It's the most
stable operating system there is."
So I invited a linux-using acquaintance over, let's call him Vince,
and we proceeded to install Mandrake Linux onto my souped-up
typewriter. I explained my simple requirements for this machine, and
Vince assured me that, not only was Linux more stable than Windows, it
was also faster - much faster, in fact. This was good to hear, but
word-processing generally doesn't require much speed. Anything faster
than my typing speed would be a waste.
As Mandrake went through its long file copy/installation process,
Vince gave me a brief history of Linux, and a detailed list of its
strong points over windows - mentioning Apache and a series of other
Linux hallmarks. I nodded at all of this politely; remember, all I
needed was word processing, so as impressive as these strengths were,
they were outside of my immediate needs.
Finally, the big moment came. We launched my new Linux word
processor. There were a few problems at first - Linux couldn't seem
to push my video card to the 16 bit color performance that Windows
2000 could - and while this vexed Vince to no end, I told him not to
worry about it; you only need 2 colors for word processing - so he
begrudgingly let it go.
When we finally got into the KDE desktop, Vince opened something that
looked like Windows's file manager and described the directory
structure to me. As he was doing this, I noticed that it took almost
5 complete seconds to open a folder, and when I mentioned this to him
he shrugged it off saying, "That's just KDE."
I let that go - like I said, speed isn't so important in word
processing. As he was maneuvering through
folders, the file manager window suddenly froze.
"Oops," Vince said.
"What?" I asked.
"KDE," said Vince. The file manager window would not close, but he
could minimize it, which he did and promptly opened another.
"Vince," I said. "Did that application just crash?"
"That instance did," Vince said, "But you notice it didn't take your
whole system down. If you were in windows, you'd be looking at a blue
screen of death right now."
"But Vince," I said, politely but alarmed, "That was the first thing
you ran and it crashed."
"It's just KDE," he explained. "It has some glitches, but they'll be
worked out eventually."
"So could that happen with the word processing program?"
"It can always happen," Vince said, "especially in Windows."
"Vince," I said. "I just dumped Windows 2000 because it crashed once
in a year. This crashed in the first 2 minutes."
Vince began to look uncomfortable. I was plainly alarmed at the
situation, especially since Vince did not seem at all surprised that a
Linux application had crashed on its first instance, and while I was
not blaming Vince, all this had happened mere minutes after his long
narrative on the indisputable superiority of Linux.
"Would you say," I asked him, "that I am more likely to crash and lose
data now than when I was using Windows 2000?"
"No," Vince said quickly. "I wouldn't say that at all."
I leaned over and pointed at the offending rectangle of the dead and
minimized file manager program. "What if that were Chapter 8 of my
novel?" I asked.
Vince crossed his arms and leaned back in the chair. For an instant I
actually thought he was going to shrug. Instead, he began to explain
to me that Linux was always a product 'in the works,' and that it was
not designed with the philosophy of a word processor in mind. This
was mind-boggling to me. I was under the impression that an operating
system was a system in which applications, any applications, would
operate. He explained that it was initially designed for development.
Still this didn't make sense to me; developers are more tolerant of
data loss and instability than word processors? And even if somehow
Linux was a developer's dream come true, was it just as effective, or
even feasible, for non-developers?
I did not say any of this to Vince because his tone had taken a
decidedly defensive turn and I recognized why. Though I was simply
asking about Linux's practicality in my situation, it was akin to
inviting a Christian to share his faith and then hurling severe
scientific questions at him, or, perhaps more accurately, accusing
Jesus of being a lousy carpenter.
It had never occurred to me before that an operating system could be
an issue of faith. I had always though of an OS as a tool, a thing
useless in itself but critical to a certain end result. I have never
heard anyone say, "Brand X chainsaws are better than all others,
though they don't cut wood very well."
I suddenly knew, without asking, that Vince was a very different type
of computer user than I was. Vince was the type of guy whose computer
is an end in itself - a thing which he devotes a great amount of time
to - not unlike those guys who work on souped-up trophy cars in their
driveways, cars which are not driven over 30 miles a year. Though he
had heard me say that I wanted this machine to be a word processor, he
had apparently ignored it. He was making a Linux box. Had he
understood my purpose for this machine, he surely would have looked at
me with the sort of disdain that mathematicians reserve for physicists
who soil beautiful mathematical principles with practical
applications.
Vince maintained that Linux was the only operating system he would
use, and it became apparent to me that even with all the advantages he
had listed earlier, the main reason he used it was because Linux was
not Microsoft. My cat's litterbox is not Microsoft, either, but it's
not going to help me write that critical scene I want (unless my cat
gets very creative in ways I'd rather not think about). In no other
way did Vince seem like a zealot, but he was apparently fanatical
about Linux.
This disappointed me and also made me feel a little bad. Vince had
come over to share his excitement over Linux (and perhaps convert me
into a Linux zealot as well) and it hadn't worked out that way.
Perhaps he felt he didn't explain Linux's strong points well enough.
He did go on to show me some great applications that came with
Mandrake, and I agreed that they were, indeed, great applications
(some of the desktop effects available in KDE are years ahead of
Microsoft), and some breathtaking wallpapers (I didn't inform him that
I didn't use wallpaper), but there was a considerable awkwardness to
his visit after that, a kind of palpable disappointment. I hoped that
he didn't feel that he had let me down - since it was just the fact
that Linux was apparently not equipped for my specific requirements.
As Vince was leaving, I actually thought he might try to apologize -
apologize that he hadn't explained Linux well enough, or that he
wasn't enough of a Linux specialist to fit it exactly to my needs.
Luckily, he did not apologize, and he had no reason to. I thanked him
heartily for helping me, and promised him I would toy around with
Linux until I could iron out the kinks, but I knew even as I said it
that I didn't have time to toy around with anything; I had writing to
do.
I am not relating this incident to embarrass Vince - who is a great
guy who volunteered to come to my house and help me out. Nor do I
want to insult Linux, an operating system with amazing potential.
What I learned from my Linux experience is that Linux, the trend, is
much more developed than Linux, the operating system. As is the case
with trends, the hype is always more substantial than the actual
product. There is an old saying that certain things "may sound like
gospel when they're only church," and I think the hype surrounding
Linux fits this perfectly.
Right now it seems like Linux is more a movement than a practical
tool, which is great if you are interested in technological trends.
Unfortunately, if you require straight-ahead productivity from
a specific application, it seems you're going to have to look
somewhere else. In my case, this means going back to old Uncle Bill.
This isn't as catastrophic as it seems. I learned long ago how to use
Uncle Bill's software without becoming Uncle Bill's supplicant: you
simply don't pay for it.
If anyone has any suggestions on how I can convert Linux into a
bullet-proof word processor, please drop me a line. I'd love to give
it a second shot, and I'd really love to call Vince back and tell him
that the world's next great novel is going to be written using Linux.
Until then, I'll be waiting in Microsoft purgatory for Linux to become
writer-friendly.
PS - My attorney has informed me that I was only kidding about not
paying for Microsoft products, that - in fact, no infringement of the
Microsoft EULA was suggested or implied in the preceding document. A
legal disclaimer for the preceding document has been posted in my
cat's litterbox and at:
http://www.IbarelypassedthebarexambutnowIrepresentmicrosoft.com
Hal Burgiss
<kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>If anyone has any suggestions on how I can convert Linux into a
>bullet-proof word processor, please drop me a line. I'd love to give
>it a second shot, and I'd really love to call Vince back and tell him
>that the world's next great novel is going to be written using Linux.
Boot 'linux 3'
login.
At the prompt type 'vim <filename>', and start writing. Well, take a few
weeks to beat vim into submission first.
Sorry, that was so long I just scimmed. For my money, the best writing
tool ever invented is a good text editor. Screw so-called
wordprocessors. Bloatware. Any writing starts with letters, ie text. If
need be, take the text and dump it into a wordprocessor later.
If you need to do something fancy, write SGML or XML with docbook which
can be rendered into various formats quite easily. But you get to use
that all purpose, deluxe, infinitely flexible and customizable writing
tool -- the text editor. Somebody will probably chime in about LaTeX,
which I can't speak to, but is available as well.
--
Hal B
h...@foobox.net
h...@burgiss.net
hbur...@bellsouth.net
Spamtrap: u...@ftc.gov and rep...@fraud.org
--
Jon M. Hanson
applications. All of the major computer companies (IBM, HP, etc.) sell it to
their customers who need stability for their applications.
It's unfortunate that you and your friend had such difficulty with your
installation. Linux should be more than adequate for a word processor.
Perhaps you should try a different window manager other than KDE since your
friend seemed to think that was the cause of your troubles. You could even
try a different Linux distribution and that may also solve your problems.
I'd have to say that your experiences are not typical.
"Kit Lemmonds" <kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b852dd7...@news.qwest.net...
c...@ragwind.localdomain.net
> This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
> I am a writer who owns a machine dedicated entirely to word
> processing. This machine is basically a typewriter which can save
> documents in a variety of formats and print them as needed. The trick
> is, I need this machine to be absolutely stable - as stable as a
> typewriter in fact, which means no crashes and absolutely no data
> loss. Previously, I ran this machine with Microsoft Windows 2000 and
> it was extremely stable, but one day it crashed and, thanks to
> MSWord's write-behind cache, none of the backups made it to the hard
> drive. I disabled the write-behind cache, but I was still disgruntled
> over the loss of a chapter of work.
>
> "That's it," I decided. "I'm migrating to Linux. It's the most
> stable operating system there is."
>
...<snip story of difficulty with linux friend tried>...
>
> If anyone has any suggestions on how I can convert Linux into a
> bullet-proof word processor, please drop me a line. I'd love to give
> it a second shot, and I'd really love to call Vince back and tell him
> that the world's next great novel is going to be written using Linux.
>
...<snip>...
I wonder how you define 'word processor'. I have very little
experience with MS-Word, and it doesn't exist on linux. When I want
to create a nice document I use TeX, and sometimes LaTeX, very stable,
very nice, but probably very different from what you're used to, not
at all WYSIWYG, in fact you have to use a text editor with it. I like
emacs for editing tex documents, vi or it's clones for program source
code. My daughter uses LyX for her writing, which she does a lot of,
both for her middle-school projects and on her own, which is pretty much
WYSIWYG though built on a LaTex foundation. There's a thing called
StarOffice which is supposed to be more like the MicroSoft products.
I've never used it and there seem to be a lot of complaints about it.
TeX and LaTeX, not being graphical, are extremely stable. LyX has some
warts IMHO but is OK.
--
Replace ragwind.localdomain with rahul for a working email address
Dennis Armstrong
p://www.IbarelypassedthebarexambutnowIrepresentmicrosoft.com
>
I'm new to Linux too. Started playing with it about 4 years ago. I still
can't find a file or install a program without running into a wall of
frustration. Linux is not exactly something I've spent hours playing with
mainly because my first experience with it was much different than yours.
I wasn't looking for a word processor. I was looking for a means to
entertain my family. What I found was a collection word processors that
offered much more than any Microsoft program. They are high quality
professional class programs which, I believe are so powerful that they
offer a writer an opportunity to by pass those who charge for formating,
type setting...??? they make it ready for the printing press.
These work without the need for a desk top like Gnome, KDE or whatever.
These of course are designed for those like myself, who are looking for
family entertainment.
Linux has always been very effective system for those who view a computer
as a means to perform professional quality work. It was designed by
professional writers to facilitate the needs of professional writers. In
fact I keep coming back to Linux because I get tired of the literary trip
which organizations like Microsoft, Intuit, and Intel pay professional
propagandist to produce.
The Linux community, with one or two exceptions, has provided real value
and have demanded very little in return. That is, they have offered those
who have a desire to be professional writers the means to do so, but have
asked that their writing offer concrete benefit to humanity.
This has never actually been a requirement even as it has never been
necessary to buy a copy of Linux. There're some, of course, who are not so
dedicated and will provide an opportunity for the propagandist to inflate,
distort and poison the truth so as to increase market value for their brand
of Linux.
They would do better not to advertise at all. Linux has come to its place
in the free market because it is a better operating system for the serious
minded than anything offered by free market preditors.
This endorsement cost nothing. My hope is that it will make it unnecessary
for those who invest their resources in the future of LINUX will not need
to divert those resources to combat the negative statements of unemployed
advertising script writers.
>
Stanislaw Flatto
>
> This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
> I am a writer who owns a machine dedicated entirely to word
> processing. This machine is basically a typewriter which can save
> documents in a variety of formats and print them as needed.
Not to discourage you, but your attitude is faulty.
You want a tool for specific purpose, Unix/Linux can provide such, and
make it much more secure (lost info wise) than any variant of
MS-Glassware except, maybe NT.
But to achieve it you need an administrator who can order the system to
behave in well defined matter.
Installing any OS with the multitude of real and imaginary possible uses
invites crashes, so the system has to be trimmed to your requirements.
Ref. Stallmans concept of Free Software.
Good luck.
Stanislaw.
Slack user from Ulladulla.
PS. Mandrake is Unix copy, in appearance and behaviour of Windows.
PS2. Did you consider DOS+Win3.11??? May supprise you.
Hal Burgiss
wrote:>X and the window managers used with it are not as stable as Linux itself.
Well I get your point, but not universally true. I don't recall
WindowMaker ever crashing on me in 4+ years. Never. X, well, yea, but
rare to take the system down. But for just a 'typewriter', X certainly
isn't needed.
Henk Schaefer
"Kit Lemmonds" <kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b852dd7...@news.qwest.net...
Nice story, I enjoyed reading it :)
To get to the point, yes, Linux can be an extremely stable system for
mission critical servers and here lies the problem. Linux mission critical
servers normally don't use a GUI (like KDE, GNOME etc.). As some people
suggested here, if you use a text editor in console mode without a fancy GUI
you will have a very stable texteditor. If you want to use a wordprocessor
in a graphical environment like MS Word, stability is not guaranteed in
Windows nor linux, no matter what anyone here would like you to believe :)
Henk
SwifT
> subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
In my eyes, KDE is only a toy to play with. The same goes for GNOME also. The
problem is already mentioned. The X-server (server that translates commands
into graphical images/handles and vice versa) is not yet really stabilized
for everyone. Depending on the hardware, X can be very stable, or unstable.
You said you were a writer. What kind of writing do you do? If it is books
and columns, working on the console is going to make you a lot happier. I
write regularly (too), and I write it using LaTeX. LaTeX is a text-processor
(!= wordprocesser). That means that you need to know the functions and
language (LaTeX is a language based on TeX). You can learn LaTeX in half a
day (to begin with) and have excellent results in no-time.
If it's more typesetting, graphical work etc... then using a graphical GUI
will be necessary. I would recommend using a lightweight windowmanager (f.i.
blackbox), but that is not the problem. The problem is the software you need.
There are several DTP-packets for Linux available, but none of them really
turned me on (hehe). YMMV.
So it would be handy for us to know what kind of writer you are.
--
SwifT
|- LUG : http://www.lugwv.be
|- PGP Key-# : 0xCDBA2FDB
`- "Happy Linux-user :)"
Gorkem Gungor
I think I have to say something. In linux, you don't actually have
to run a Xserver for wordprocessing. You can write in in text file
using latex commands, and get the output in postscript format from
the printer. Of course, you will want to look at how it is in the computer
KDE is not analogous to Windows. Windows is an operating system, KDE
is a window manager. I don't like KDE because it makes new users think
they are using a windows-like system. All you need is an Xserver to run
correctly. Graphics should not be a big problem, if you can't find
your graphics card driver, you can just use a generic vga driver.
If you really want to run a window manager, run ICE. I am using it,
and I have not seen any problems with it.
In using latex, all you do is enter plain text. The commands used in the
program prepare the document for you. If you find something you don't like
in the output, you play with the commands, you don't scroll the text to
left and right. And it definitely does not crash. Learning may seem
difficult in the beginning, but there are simple latex manuals in the internet
for free.
Chris
>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
Nice work of fiction, Kit.
Chris
--
"Never trust an operating system for which you
don't have the source code."
E pluribus UNIX
goodboy
<kitlemmonds@*getridofthis*hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it reveals
> some general issues new users face with this operating system.
Here's my story, a bit shorter than yours.
I write for a living, have done so for 20 years. I write using a computer,
like you. I need it to be stable, like you. I've used Word, like you.
Using Winblows, I suffered from crashes that required days of file
reconstruction or actual rewrites. I moved to Linux (Mandrake) nearly a
year ago and haven't looked back. I use StarWriter, sometimes KWord or
AbiWord, depending on what I need to do at the time. I don't use vi or
latex or emacs. I've had no crashes from the OS whatsoever, unlike
Winblows 3.1 through 98 (NT was stable, too). StarWriter hasn't frozen on
me at all, yet, but who trusts software to run perfectly all the time, so
I backup every 5 minutes when I'm doing a critical writing task. KDE
hasn't frozen, either. No offense to your friend Vince, and not to
disparage your hardware, either, but I'll bet dollars to donuts your
problem wasn't with the OS or even KDE.
--
regards
goodboy
fan_de_ranger
10 minutes, and at the end of the day make a backup to a floppy, Zip or
CDRW.
"goodboy" <mho...@worldpath.net> wrote in message
news:20010823.074937...@localhost.localdomain...
Steve
I installed Red Hat Linux 7.1 two weeks ago. It came with the KDE
2.1.1 and Koffice.
I had none of your problems.
My computer in a 3 year old Gateway G6 -333. It packs a Pentium II
333mhz processor, a 6 gig hard drive ( partitioned 60/40 - 40 for
windows 98 ), and 191 mb ram.
My only problem with what I had was that the default fonts in linux
look terrible.
It took me some huffing and puffing to improve it.
I am told that SUSE 7.2 personal comes with a program to take care of
this for you and that SUSE 7.2 is tailored to desktop users ( ie word
processors, web browsing). Its $23 from SUSE...about the cost of a
cheap book on linux.....and it comes with _a_ book on linux and 2
months of telephone support.
I am told that the Mandrake distribution of linux is basically Red Hat
with bleeding edge ( not necessarily stable ) technology in it.
Since you are writer maybe you want to write a story about your
experiences.. from a non-techie windows user perspective trying all 3
and publish it to a tech journal like zdnet.
I think it would be interesting as linux has a reputation for being a
pain in the ass and I think that stereo type is outdated.
Given a hard drive, or partitioned hard drive space, as a windows
user, I think the only pain is the font situation. I had to buy a
modem for linux, but windows users are used to buying hardware for
windows.
Split Personality
Your primary requirement of absolute stability and data security is not
attainable. It doesn't matter what OS or software that you wish to use,
lots can happen. Your hard drive could die. A power spike could reset your
computer before you have saved your data. The dog could chew off the power
cord. A neutron could zip into a ram chip and invalidate your data, etc.
There are lots of writers who get along quite well with computer technology
and who benefit from it. The happy ones understand that computer technology
is not infallible. Be a little more realistic with your expectations. Use
a few simple techniques and your data will survive about 99.99% percent of
all problems that can possibly occur. If you live by the premise that your
data is only as good as your last backup, then you can also be one of those
happy writers.
If you want 100% reliability and data security, get some paper and a pen.
"Kit Lemmonds" <kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b852dd7...@news.qwest.net...
Stanislaw Flatto
>
{Giga-snip}
Hi Kit!
Followed the thread and a question popped.
You put editorial preferences at top.
<question>
Are you QWERTY or gone Dvorak?
</question>
Have fun.
Stanislaw.
Locomotive = crazy reason for doing things.
KC7ZRU - Tate
Lemme guess - you work for Microsoft, right?
With their recent attacks on Open Source and LINUX in general. This type of posting/article/publication fits into their classic FUD PR model.
If you aren't a Microsoft employee, then my appologies for a false accusation. But the question does ring....
later
Kit Lemmonds wrote:
>
> This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
--
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| CARC Repeater 146.940 DN62 |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RM-APRS |
| "The Dungeon" at http://go.to/KC7ZRU |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
fan_de_ranger
"Split Personality" <fo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:M8eh7.95809$B37.2...@news1.rdc1.bc.home.com...
> My two bits:
>
> Your primary requirement of absolute stability and data security is not
> attainable. It doesn't matter what OS or software that you wish to use,
> lots can happen. Your hard drive could die. A power spike could reset
your
> computer before you have saved your data. The dog could chew off the
power
> cord. A neutron could zip into a ram chip and invalidate your data, etc.
>
> There are lots of writers who get along quite well with computer
technology
> and who benefit from it. The happy ones understand that computer
technology
> is not infallible. Be a little more realistic with your expectations.
Use
> a few simple techniques and your data will survive about 99.99% percent of
> all problems that can possibly occur. If you live by the premise that
your
> data is only as good as your last backup, then you can also be one of
those
> happy writers.
>
> If you want 100% reliability and data security, get some paper and a pen.
The dog could eat his book. Or he could accidentally lose the transcript.
Split Personality
"fan_de_ranger" <nos...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:QRfh7.346163$EF2.42...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
Ok then. How about a chisel and some stone tablets? It's unlikely the dog
will eat those, and if the tablets are accidentally lost, just wait a few
thousand years and someone will eventually find them.
;o)
Split Personality
news:slrn9obc3f.l...@linux1.linux.bogus...
> On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 23:23:46 GMT, Split Personality <fo...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> >Ok then. How about a chisel and some stone tablets? It's unlikely the
dog
>
> know that even stone tablets are not 100% reliable. :-)
>
> --
> Roger Blake
"I bring you the fifteen .... ooops .... I mean ten commandments!"
I always wondered what those five commandments were on that tablet. Perhaps
"Thou shall not place blind trust in technology" was one of them?
Split
M. J. Blom
> Kit Lemmonds wrote:
>>
>> This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux,
>> and subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>> reveals some general issues new users face with this operating
>> system.
>
>
> With their recent attacks on Open Source and LINUX in general.
> This type of posting/article/publication fits into their classic
> FUD PR model.
>
> If you aren't a Microsoft employee, then my appologies for a false
> accusation. But the question does ring....
Well, I always like the "Microsoft sucks" messages from people
using:
| X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
;-)
--
Menno
Stephen Cornell
>
> I think I have to say something. In linux, you don't actually have
> to run a Xserver for wordprocessing. You can write in in text file
> using latex commands, and get the output in postscript format from
> the printer.
For that matter, WordPerfect doesn't need X as it has a Linux console
driver.
--
Stephen Cornell cor...@zoo.cam.ac.uk Tel/fax +44-1223-336644
University of Cambridge, Zoology Department, Downing Street, CAMBRIDGE CB2 3EJ
Barry OGrady
>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
Your experience is typical. The X windows GUI in linux is feeble compared
to MS Windows. Serious users of linux don't use a GUI.
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barryog
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
Voicemail/fax number +14136227640
Mark Mynsted
> This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
> I am a writer who owns a machine dedicated entirely to word
> processing. This machine is basically a typewriter which can save
> documents in a variety of formats and print them as needed. The trick
> is, I need this machine to be absolutely stable - as stable as a
> typewriter in fact, which means no crashes and absolutely no data
> loss.
If I were you I would use linux from the console, i.e. do not even
start X, or use BlackBox, rather than KDE, if you must have X.
Use a text editor like Emacs or vi. As a writer you will reap big
rewards once you are free from the GUI limitations. I recommend Emacs
and LaTeX. Many writers are using DocBook now, but I have not had
time to get into it yet. Emacs can/will autosave your documents for
you.
Here is some info from the documentation:
" Emacs does auto-saving periodically based on counting how many
characters you have typed since the last time auto-saving was done.
The variable `auto-save-interval' specifies how many characters there
are between auto-saves. By default, it is 300."
If you are REALLY paranoid, you could tell emacs to autosave your
document every time you type five characters. Up to you. (I would
not recommend that.)
If you want revision control, not the same as auto-saving, use CVS
with your documents.
--
-MM
/"\
(No un-solicited email please.) \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
See following url, X Against HTML Mail
http://pages.prodigy.net/mmynsted/spamoff.htm / \
Dan Mercer
kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) writes:
> This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
If you were really a serious writer, you would get a Mac or a
PowerBook like the rest of the publishing world. As for Linux,
it suffers from poor hardware support. I personally run my
Linux boxes as servers and use Xvnc for X11. Then my Microcrap
boxes can access them from anyware and I don't have to worry
about Video card support. I can put a POS monitor on the linuxes
for maintenance. The last time I used the monitor I was trying to
find out why one box just dropped offf the world. I fired up the
monitor and I couldn't get anything on the screen - it was pure
white. The power was on the box and the drive light was
flickering, so I wondered if I had dropped into some version
of a Linux BSOD - then I noticed the monitor had been
disconnected, as had the Ethernet cable. Some M$ jockey had seen
the monitor off AND WAS GETTING READY TO CANNIBALIZE MY SERVER,
because in the M$ world, if the screen ain't on, the machine
ain't working. So now the server has a banner on it proclaiming
that it is a production server - do not touch.
As for authoring, I use Applixware which runs on Linux, HP-UX,
and NT/98/ME/etc.
--
Dan Mercer
dame...@mmm.com
>
> http://www.IbarelypassedthebarexambutnowIrepresentmicrosoft.com
>
>
>
Opinions expressed herein are my own and may not represent those of my employer.
Hal Burgiss
>On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:11:18 GMT, kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) wrote:
>
>>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
>Your experience is typical. The X windows GUI in linux is feeble compared
>to MS Windows. Serious users of linux don't use a GUI.
This is utter crap too. Let's see MS-windows do my six virtual
desktops, and currently 54 windows opened :/ And still usable. And then
export windows to other machines. Or support for multiple displays. Or
use fonts exported from another server on a LAN, etc, etc. X11 is 10
times more powerful than MS-Win. Just not as cute, or dumbed down.
KC7ZRU - Tate
Talk about forcing an extrapolation.
Where did I say "Microsoft sucks"? Does the OS a message was posted from change the message? The origional post does sound like a well crafted MS FUD artcile, or doen't it? Do you have an opinion on that? You know - on topic?
Oh, and to help you out here a bit, this isn't "my" box. It's a company box, I'm shirking duties here to raise a question. How about you read the message instead of trying to read into it, eh?
Tell ya what, just to make you feel better I'll repost this from my Penguin box at home after work, OK? That help you at all?
Now, you have something to contribute or do you want to know what kind of oil I put in my motorcycle?
"M. J. Blom" wrote:
>
>
> Well, I always like the "Microsoft sucks" messages from people
> using:
>
> | X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> ;-)
>
> --
> Menno
--
Floyd Davidson
>kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) wrote:
>
>>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
>Your experience is typical. The X windows GUI in linux is feeble compared
>to MS Windows. Serious users of linux don't use a GUI.
None of that is true.
X is not a GUI, it is a _networked_ _windowing_ _system_, which
nothing on MS Windows even begins to approach in functionality.
There are _many_ GUIs available to run under X. One of the
strange (or not) characteristics of the various GUIs that run
under X, is that the more they try to emulate MS Windows,
well... the less stable they are.
I have no figures, but a good guess might be that virtually
*all* serious users of Linux use a GUI. (It would be pretty
difficult to define someone as a serious user if they don't run
X and some kind of a GUI.)
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.ptialaska.net/~floyd>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@barrow.com
Hal Burgiss
>
>I have no figures, but a good guess might be that virtually
>*all* serious users of Linux use a GUI. (It would be pretty
>difficult to define someone as a serious user if they don't run
>X and some kind of a GUI.)
Well, I don't know. I know some in both camps. But overall yes, most do
use X. It's just too damn flexible to live without it :/ I started using
Linux in console mode only because I thought MS whizbang GUI sucked the
big one. Who needs pretty pictures, when command line does it faster?
Then I found X. Then learned a little about what it can do. Never looked
back. No comparison. None at all.
c...@ragwind.localdomain.net
> gorkem...@superonline.com (Gorkem Gungor) writes:
> >
> > I think I have to say something. In linux, you don't actually have
> > to run a Xserver for wordprocessing. You can write in in text file
> > using latex commands, and get the output in postscript format from
> > the printer.
>
> For that matter, WordPerfect doesn't need X as it has a Linux console
> driver.
I've been following this thread, even posted to it myself before, and
it occurred to me to mention something that I do with my prose writing.
I save off various drafts with RCS, something I started using for code.
I kind of like it. I almost never go back to an earlier draft but once
it's nice to know you can, and once in awhile I find myself getting
hopelessly bogged down and do want to go back. Bear in mind that RCS
is NOT A BACKUP! Not in the sense that if your disk crashes your data
is saved.
Do any other writers use RCS?
--
Replace ragwind.localdomain with rahul for a working email address
Mark Mynsted
Yes, source control is nice. I use CVS rather than RCS. Version
control works better for plain text formats like TeX than binary
formats like Word...
Erik Max Francis
> Do any other writers use RCS?
I use Perforce, but same difference.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ They make it a desert and call it peace.
\__/ Tacitus
Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
An Esperanto reference for English speakers.
Morris Jones
>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
Kit, I loved your story, thank you!
I've been a Linux user for several years, but my Linux sits in that box
over there -- the one in the corner. It serves my web pages and my email
lists, and about a dozen domains for different local astronomy clubs.
I love my Linux machine! It has freed me from the vagaries of an ISP
with limits on my mailbox size or web page storage. It let me set up
name service for friends and read newsgroups using my favorite newsgroup
reader (NOT the one built into IE or Netscape!).
But here on my desktop, I run Windows 2000, with Pagemaker and Photoshop
and Acrobat for producing the monthly newsletter for my astronomy club.
(Some colleagues would chide that I should be using a Mac for those
things. :) )
I'm a professional programmer, but I can usually find the right tool for
what I need to do -- sometimes it's on Windows, sometimes it's on Linux,
sometimes Solaris, and sometimes PalmOS! Most of the time that tool is
a good terminal emulator (Secure CRT www.vandyke.com) that gives me a
command line on a unix machine where all my servers are powered.
You already know the moral of your story, of course. Even the best tool
is going to fail at times. When the work is important you use what you
have at hand, get the best tools you can, and deal with the occasional
failure. It's okay to blame the tools when they fail, but long ago a
wise man said to me "A poor craftsman always blames his tools." :)
See http://www.whiteoaks.com/about.html
Mojo
--
Morris Jones <*>
San Rafael, CA
mo...@whiteoaks.com
http://www.whiteoaks.com
Young4ert
I senconded that. I used to write my whole Ph.D. dissertation with emacs
and compiled it using LaTeX2e. Things were much better with these two
combination than using MS words. When I did my master's thesis, I
struggled with lots of problems using MS words. Both my dissertation and
thesis dealt with a lot of colod images.
--
youn...@MailandNews.com
PS. Remove "4" from e-mail address should you want to reply.
Onan Salad
<737kc7...@arrl.net> wrote:
>
>Lemme guess - you work for Microsoft, right?
I wish (my stock options would be looking much better if I did).
No, I don't care much for microsoft's business practices and I don't
like much of their software. My problem with linux is that most linux
developers' software seem to look down on word processing - and I
think this is because it grew from programmers whose words only need
to be read by a machine and not other people.
In order to prevent further crashes, which I have been informed are an
inevitable result of the graphical interface (KDE specifically, and
X-windows more generally), I have been looking for a good command line
word processor, but guess what... I can't find any - not so much as a
wordstar clone (if you're old enough to remember that).
Even Lyx is dependent on X (and Lyx keeps giving me segmentation
errors). I'm trying Ted next, then I'm going to try Jed. I guess I
could try running Dos edit under the Dos emulator - buy why mess with
linux if I have to do that - why not cut out the middle-man?
No, I don't work for Microsoft; but I don't work for linux, either.
I'm just a frustrated user with a specific purpose that linux
developers seem to ignore.
Hal Burgiss
>
>In order to prevent further crashes, which I have been informed are an
>inevitable result of the graphical interface (KDE specifically, and
>X-windows more generally), I have been looking for a good command line
This is not true either. It is probably a driver or hardware
incompatibility. But the point being you don't need it for "just
wordprocessing" so why use it. It will eat significant RAM.
>word processor, but guess what... I can't find any - not so much as a
>wordstar clone (if you're old enough to remember that).
Look harder. There are several text editors with default wordstar key
bindings. Vim or emacs can emulate any editor, and are much better at
'word processing' than 'WordProcessors' are. Meaning that if all you need
is to write words, these are the best there is. Anywhere. How you format
it, is a different matter. I believe wordperfect may have a command line
version for linux.
>Even Lyx is dependent on X (and Lyx keeps giving me segmentation
>errors). I'm trying Ted next, then I'm going to try Jed. I guess I
>could try running Dos edit under the Dos emulator - buy why mess with
>linux if I have to do that - why not cut out the middle-man?
DOS edit sucks. It is one of the worst text editors ever devised by man.
Listen closely: vim (vi clone) or emacs. They are light years ahead of
DOS edit.
>I'm just a frustrated user with a specific purpose that linux
>developers seem to ignore.
No, you just haven't found where to look.
You need to learn either vim or emacs. There is a learning curve, but
that is only because they can do so much.
Eric Y. Chang
are some parts of it that are believable. Personally, I have never seen a
dead window (but I have in Microsoft Windows), but I suspect it is possible.
After all, I have seen just about everything else. I have also written
documents on both systems, and both crash. Linux is definitely the OS of
choice for large documents, especially those that must look good, such as
camera ready copy. For a quick little note, Windows is just fine.
Chris (ahls...@home.com) wrote:
: After takin' a swig o' grog, Kit Lemmonds belched out this bit o' wisdom:
: >This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
: >subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
: >reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
: Nice work of fiction, Kit.
: Chris
: --
: "Never trust an operating system for which you
: don't have the source code."
: E pluribus UNIX
Floyd Davidson
>Mark Mynsted wrote:
>> If I were you I would use linux from the console, i.e. do not even
>> start X, or use BlackBox, rather than KDE, if you must have X.
>>
>> Use a text editor like Emacs or vi. As a writer you will reap big
>I senconded that. I used to write my whole Ph.D. dissertation with emacs
>and compiled it using LaTeX2e. Things were much better with these two
>combination than using MS words. When I did my master's thesis, I
>struggled with lots of problems using MS words. Both my dissertation and
>thesis dealt with a lot of colod images.
I'll agree with the Emacs (or vi) and LaTeX (or plane TeX), but
it should be noted that running them under X provides some very
useful options which should not be minimized when recommending
tools to a beginner.
By running X it is possible to have one window open with the
editor and other can be used to run LaTeX or TeX, while even
another can be used to run xdvi or ghostview to preview
results. Switching between them is merely a matter of moving the
mouse and doesn't even require clicking. Of course at the same
time another (or several other) virtual desktops can be
available too, because Usenet and Email might be in one, one or
more games in one or more others, or whatever business or
recreation it is that you tend to do with a computer can be in
others.
None of these need interfere with each other and they need not
be shutdown or made difficult to access just to keep the screen
uncluttered.
I am forced to use WindowsNT at work, and I find it a virtual
jail cell.
Floyd Davidson
>On Thu, 23 Aug 2001 16:51:45 -0600, KC7ZRU - Tate
><737kc7...@arrl.net> wrote:
>... My problem with linux is that most linux
>developers' software seem to look down on word processing - and I
>think this is because it grew from programmers whose words only need
>to be read by a machine and not other people.
Well, consider that the second purpose to which the original
UNIX OS was directed (second only to making it a programming
environment) was as a document development and control system
for AT&T's not exactly small patents office.
Which means that right from the start the *best* tools for
writers have been available. That, for example, is why any unix
system comes standard with a typesetter (or two) and no word
processor. (Think about it... :-)
>In order to prevent further crashes, which I have been informed
>are an inevitable result of the graphical interface (KDE
>specifically, and X-windows more generally), I have been
>looking for a good command line word processor, but guess
>what... I can't find any - not so much as a wordstar clone (if
>you're old enough to remember that).
Stop trying foolish things, and start listening to what people
here have been telling you.
1) you don't want to run KDE
2) you do want to run X
3) you don't want a word processor
4) you do want to learn a good text editor (vi or Emacs or XEmacs)
5) you don't want to substitute a DOS emulator
6) you do want to learn either TeX or LaTeX
7) you don't want to apply MS patterns to your work with Linux
8) you do want to learn how to use linux in a traditional unix way
Hal Burgiss
>
> 7) you don't want to apply MS patterns to your work with Linux
This is the hang up, and hardest part! The MS way of thinking is hard to
shake at first. It is the only point of reference.
One difference in philosophy is that with MS you use one tool with as
much functionality as possible (or as affordable). Hence, you have to
have a "WordProcessor". With *nix you use many lighter weight tools,
combined in a manner of one's preference, to get to the desired result.
Once those tools are learned, you get there faster, and with much more
control over the entire process.
elbo...@gogogo.com
kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) wrote:
>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
Blah Blah Blah Blah
You have to be a real moron to give up something that crashed once in
a year. BTW Once a year? Do you have some version of Windows 2000
that no one else can get? They have removed the blue screens but my
Win 2000 machine still freezes. I wish I cold get this mythical
Windows that doesn't crash. Windows 2000 still needs to be rebooted
at least ever few days.
I know after talking about how reliable Win 2000 is most Microsofties
blame the hardware. So go ahead it's all on the damn windows hardware
list. The list is bullsh@t anyway. If you have a product on the list
it doesn't mean that the manufacturer hasn't changed it in the
meantime.
Neil Miller
letters to Senators and Congressman stating that microsoft isn't so
bad.. whatever..This is supposed to have a grassroot influence on their
anti-trust case. Officials determined that many of these letters were
not authentic when similar sentences etc showed up.
Does it not occur to anyone that people might write to question your
support for the linux os maybe because they are part of microsoft. I am
not accusing "Kit" of anything, but those of you that support linux, see
that some people might not have honest motives.
-Neil
pa...@wood.com
wrote:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/134332634_microlob23.html
Microsoft lobbying campaign backfires; even dead people write in
support of firm
Letters purportedly written by at least two dead people landed on the
desk of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff earlier this year,
imploring him to go easy on Microsoft for its conduct as a monopoly.
The pleas, along with more than 100 others from Utah residents, are
part of a carefully orchestrated nationwide campaign by the software
giant that may be backfiring. Microsoft sought to create the
impression of a surging grass-roots movement, aimed largely at the
attorneys general of some of the 18 states that have joined the
Justice Department in suing Microsoft.
The Microsoft campaign goes to great lengths to create an impression
that the letters are spontaneous expressions from ordinary people.
Letters sent in the last month are on personalized stationery using
different wording, color and typefaces, details that distinguish
Microsoft's efforts from lobbying tactics that go on in politics every
day.
State law-enforcement officials became suspicious after noticing that
the same sentences appear in the letters and that some return
addresses appeared invalid.
Gandalf the Grey
On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Kit Lemmonds wrote:
>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
>I am a writer who owns a machine dedicated entirely to word
>processing. This machine is basically a typewriter which can save
>documents in a variety of formats and print them as needed. The trick
>is, I need this machine to be absolutely stable - as stable as a
>typewriter in fact, which means no crashes and absolutely no data
>loss. Previously, I ran this machine with Microsoft Windows 2000 and
>it was extremely stable, but one day it crashed and, thanks to
>MSWord's write-behind cache, none of the backups made it to the hard
>drive. I disabled the write-behind cache, but I was still disgruntled
>over the loss of a chapter of work.
>
>"That's it," I decided. "I'm migrating to Linux. It's the most
>stable operating system there is."
>
>So I invited a linux-using acquaintance over, let's call him Vince,
>and we proceeded to install Mandrake Linux onto my souped-up
>typewriter. I explained my simple requirements for this machine, and
>Vince assured me that, not only was Linux more stable than Windows, it
>was also faster - much faster, in fact. This was good to hear, but
>word-processing generally doesn't require much speed. Anything faster
>than my typing speed would be a waste.
>
>As Mandrake went through its long file copy/installation process,
>Vince gave me a brief history of Linux, and a detailed list of its
>strong points over windows - mentioning Apache and a series of other
>Linux hallmarks. I nodded at all of this politely; remember, all I
>needed was word processing, so as impressive as these strengths were,
>they were outside of my immediate needs.
>
>Finally, the big moment came. We launched my new Linux word
>processor. There were a few problems at first - Linux couldn't seem
>to push my video card to the 16 bit color performance that Windows
>2000 could - and while this vexed Vince to no end, I told him not to
>worry about it; you only need 2 colors for word processing - so he
>begrudgingly let it go.
>
>When we finally got into the KDE desktop, Vince opened something that
>looked like Windows's file manager and described the directory
>structure to me. As he was doing this, I noticed that it took almost
>5 complete seconds to open a folder, and when I mentioned this to him
>he shrugged it off saying, "That's just KDE."
>
>I let that go - like I said, speed isn't so important in word
>processing. As he was maneuvering through
>folders, the file manager window suddenly froze.
>
>"Oops," Vince said.
>
>"What?" I asked.
>
>"KDE," said Vince. The file manager window would not close, but he
>could minimize it, which he did and promptly opened another.
>
>"Vince," I said. "Did that application just crash?"
>
>"That instance did," Vince said, "But you notice it didn't take your
>whole system down. If you were in windows, you'd be looking at a blue
>screen of death right now."
>
>"But Vince," I said, politely but alarmed, "That was the first thing
>you ran and it crashed."
>
>"It's just KDE," he explained. "It has some glitches, but they'll be
>worked out eventually."
>
>"So could that happen with the word processing program?"
>
>"It can always happen," Vince said, "especially in Windows."
>
>"Vince," I said. "I just dumped Windows 2000 because it crashed once
>in a year. This crashed in the first 2 minutes."
>
>Vince began to look uncomfortable. I was plainly alarmed at the
>situation, especially since Vince did not seem at all surprised that a
>Linux application had crashed on its first instance, and while I was
>not blaming Vince, all this had happened mere minutes after his long
>narrative on the indisputable superiority of Linux.
>
>"Would you say," I asked him, "that I am more likely to crash and lose
>data now than when I was using Windows 2000?"
>
>"No," Vince said quickly. "I wouldn't say that at all."
>
>I leaned over and pointed at the offending rectangle of the dead and
>minimized file manager program. "What if that were Chapter 8 of my
>novel?" I asked.
>
>Vince crossed his arms and leaned back in the chair. For an instant I
>actually thought he was going to shrug. Instead, he began to explain
>to me that Linux was always a product 'in the works,' and that it was
>not designed with the philosophy of a word processor in mind. This
>was mind-boggling to me. I was under the impression that an operating
>system was a system in which applications, any applications, would
>operate. He explained that it was initially designed for development.
>Still this didn't make sense to me; developers are more tolerant of
>data loss and instability than word processors? And even if somehow
>Linux was a developer's dream come true, was it just as effective, or
>even feasible, for non-developers?
>
>I did not say any of this to Vince because his tone had taken a
>decidedly defensive turn and I recognized why. Though I was simply
>asking about Linux's practicality in my situation, it was akin to
>inviting a Christian to share his faith and then hurling severe
>scientific questions at him, or, perhaps more accurately, accusing
>Jesus of being a lousy carpenter.
>
>It had never occurred to me before that an operating system could be
>an issue of faith. I had always though of an OS as a tool, a thing
>useless in itself but critical to a certain end result. I have never
>heard anyone say, "Brand X chainsaws are better than all others,
>though they don't cut wood very well."
>
>I suddenly knew, without asking, that Vince was a very different type
>of computer user than I was. Vince was the type of guy whose computer
>is an end in itself - a thing which he devotes a great amount of time
>to - not unlike those guys who work on souped-up trophy cars in their
>driveways, cars which are not driven over 30 miles a year. Though he
>had heard me say that I wanted this machine to be a word processor, he
>had apparently ignored it. He was making a Linux box. Had he
>understood my purpose for this machine, he surely would have looked at
>me with the sort of disdain that mathematicians reserve for physicists
>who soil beautiful mathematical principles with practical
>applications.
>
>Vince maintained that Linux was the only operating system he would
>use, and it became apparent to me that even with all the advantages he
>had listed earlier, the main reason he used it was because Linux was
>not Microsoft. My cat's litterbox is not Microsoft, either, but it's
>not going to help me write that critical scene I want (unless my cat
>gets very creative in ways I'd rather not think about). In no other
>way did Vince seem like a zealot, but he was apparently fanatical
>about Linux.
>
>This disappointed me and also made me feel a little bad. Vince had
>come over to share his excitement over Linux (and perhaps convert me
>into a Linux zealot as well) and it hadn't worked out that way.
>Perhaps he felt he didn't explain Linux's strong points well enough.
>
>He did go on to show me some great applications that came with
>Mandrake, and I agreed that they were, indeed, great applications
>(some of the desktop effects available in KDE are years ahead of
>Microsoft), and some breathtaking wallpapers (I didn't inform him that
>I didn't use wallpaper), but there was a considerable awkwardness to
>his visit after that, a kind of palpable disappointment. I hoped that
>he didn't feel that he had let me down - since it was just the fact
>that Linux was apparently not equipped for my specific requirements.
>
>As Vince was leaving, I actually thought he might try to apologize -
>apologize that he hadn't explained Linux well enough, or that he
>wasn't enough of a Linux specialist to fit it exactly to my needs.
>Luckily, he did not apologize, and he had no reason to. I thanked him
>heartily for helping me, and promised him I would toy around with
>Linux until I could iron out the kinks, but I knew even as I said it
>that I didn't have time to toy around with anything; I had writing to
>do.
>
>I am not relating this incident to embarrass Vince - who is a great
>guy who volunteered to come to my house and help me out. Nor do I
>want to insult Linux, an operating system with amazing potential.
>
>What I learned from my Linux experience is that Linux, the trend, is
>much more developed than Linux, the operating system. As is the case
>with trends, the hype is always more substantial than the actual
>product. There is an old saying that certain things "may sound like
>gospel when they're only church," and I think the hype surrounding
>Linux fits this perfectly.
>
>Right now it seems like Linux is more a movement than a practical
>tool, which is great if you are interested in technological trends.
>Unfortunately, if you require straight-ahead productivity from
>a specific application, it seems you're going to have to look
>somewhere else. In my case, this means going back to old Uncle Bill.
>This isn't as catastrophic as it seems. I learned long ago how to use
>Uncle Bill's software without becoming Uncle Bill's supplicant: you
>simply don't pay for it.
>
>If anyone has any suggestions on how I can convert Linux into a
>bullet-proof word processor, please drop me a line. I'd love to give
>it a second shot, and I'd really love to call Vince back and tell him
>that the world's next great novel is going to be written using Linux.
>
>Until then, I'll be waiting in Microsoft purgatory for Linux to become
>writer-friendly.
>
>PS - My attorney has informed me that I was only kidding about not
>paying for Microsoft products, that - in fact, no infringement of the
>Microsoft EULA was suggested or implied in the preceding document. A
>legal disclaimer for the preceding document has been posted in my
>cat's litterbox and at:
>
>http://www.IbarelypassedthebarexambutnowIrepresentmicrosoft.com
Grant Edwards
> Try Corel Word Perfect 8 (or later) for Linux.
>
> On Wed, 22 Aug 2001, Kit Lemmonds wrote:
>>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
[200 lines of quote text]
Good god, man, learn to edit your posts!
You quoted 200+ lines to add *ONE* line of your own.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I have the power
at to HALT PRODUCTION on all
visi.com TEENAGE SEX COMEDIES!!
William Burrow
Gandalf the Grey <us...@server.com> wrote:
>Try Corel Word Perfect 8 (or later) for Linux.
>
Dunno if it was just me or what, but WP8 wasn't useful for more than a
single page letter for me. After nearly losing an entire report due to
a crash, I ditched it.
--
William Burrow -- New Brunswick, Canada o
Copyright 2001 William Burrow ~ /\
~ ()>()
Young4ert
document type setting is way much better than the print out from the MS
Word or even MS Office 2K! Don't take my words for it and give it a try. I
am affraid once you managed working with LaTeX, you will not be migrating
back to MS Office!
Dichotimus Grok
though 8^}
Young4ert <youn...@MailandNews.com> wrote in message
news:dQDi7.147$Vr2.5...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
> I wrote Dissertation thesis on Linux using LaTeX! The end result of the
> document type setting is way much better than the print out from the MS
> Word or even MS Office 2K! Don't take my words for it and give it a try.
I
> am affraid once you managed working with LaTeX, you will not be migrating
> back to MS Office!
>
>
>
> Gandalf the Grey wrote:
>
> > Try Corel Word Perfect 8 (or later) for Linux.
> >
<snip>
zippe...@swoonwer.org
(William Burrow) wrote:
>Dunno if it was just me or what, but WP8 wasn't useful for more than a
>single page letter for me. After nearly losing an entire report due to
>a crash, I ditched it.
Ha That's funny. Linux is now crashing all the time according to
these people. Look like grass but it's not! WOW
Matthew van de Werken
> You obviously don't know how to use MS-Word. Nice sweeping generalization
> though 8^}
>
I know how to use Word, and for large documents, give me LyX anyday of the
week. Try it, you'll like it (once you're used to the change in paradigm).
LyX doesn't require a multi-GHz machine with half a gigabyte of RAM to run,
either...
Cheers,
MvdW
Elf Sternberg
kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) writes:
While I will confess to sympathizing with your position, I must
disagree with your conclusions. I will admit to being a computer geek;
it's my profession. It isn't my hobby, though; that is writing. I have
written well over two million words of fiction, some published, most
not, and I have almost exclusively used Linux as my OS of choice.
I have a laptop. While it's true that my desktop computer is a
geek's paradise, full of unstable tools and dubious programs, that is
not true of the laptop. It's an Thinkpad 380ED, a veritable armored
tank, running Linux 2.2.18, X 3.3.6, Gnome 1.2, and Xemacs 21.1. These
are tried-and-true versions with nothing particularly weird or dubious
about them. The only oddity on it is a wireless networking stack for
802.11a (that is not a typo. *sigh*). This is a workbox; it's entire
job is to Get Things Done. I take it with me everywhere; I write an
average of a thousand words a day during my commute to and from my job,
using a city bus. (Okay, the other oddity is a Dvorak keyboard, but
that's not going to affect your stability.)
I've never had a problem with it. Suspend works great, it keeps
all of my stories and work in order, it supports a great to-do list, an
idea book, and index. Better yet, because I use a text processor (not a
"word processor") I am not tempted to waste time fiddling with fonts and
page layout and other things. The entire purpose of this box is to be a
receptacle for fiction. When I get home, I press one button and the
entire archive is backed up (via CVS and the household's wireless LAN)
onto the household fileserver. Using Aspell, Xemacs has a better
spell-checking engine that anything on Windows. I have Diction and
Style modes, so I have grammar checking equivalent to Word. I have a
thesaurus and, when stuck for a character's name, a name database of
206,000 names, organized by gender and nationality or functionality
('names that sound like dates', 'names that sound like titles', etc.).
I can't say this about my experiences under Windows. I had a
Windows box for a while, and it was not as easy tool to learn how to
use. The opacity of the .doc format made looking for character
references in a two-million-word collection difficult and sometimes
impossible; preparing the work for publication was often a chore in and
of itself. And the constant fiddling with the word processor to "get it
just right" was a waste of time. (Not to mention that Windows, unlike
Unix, cannot use the HLT instruction and so wastes precious battery
resources.) I could never have written my name database engine under
Windows and made it be efficient, especially not on a P-166 with 32 megs
of ram and a 6 gig hard drive. (Run Access AND Word in that space?
Forget it. But Xemacs, Postgres *and* Apache? Done!) I plan on moving
to a journaling filesystem as soon as I get enough confidence that
ext3fs is stable, because when the battery does die (and I get ten
minutes of warning; it's frequently a matter of "just one more
paragra... damn!") the reboot time is a nuisance.
My experience is the opposite of yours. A knowledgeable person
can put together a writer's toolkit for Linux far more dependable than
anything one can find on Windows. Properly tuned, Xemacs saves my work
every couple hundred keystrokes. I've never lost any work, not even
when the battery completely dies on me. My Linux laptop is as
dependable as a pencil, if only a slight bit heavier.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.halcyon.com/elf/
Today is gone, today was fun. Tomorrow will be a better one.
From there to here, from here to there, funny things are everywhere.
Kit Lemmonds
Thanks for your reply. I had to hunt down another newsserver to get
to it, but it was well worth it.
My system is a 233 pentium 64MB ram dual booting Win2k/mandrake 8.0.
Naturally, win2k drags a bit on this system, but not as much as linux
(I'm still trying to figure out how to unload some of the stuff linux
is loading into memory to speed things up).
You mentioned using Xemacs. I've been told that the X-server itself
is still buggy, so anything running under it will never be
bullet-proof. I'm assuming that Xemacs is emacs under X. Would emacs
under the terminal ("command prompt" for this old dos user) be an
option for a writer moving from windows to linux?
As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm looking for a word processor as
stable and bullet proof as a typewriter. I even considered stripping
my system back to DOS and using the Edit program. Leave it to my wife
to blurt the obvious, practical option. "Why not look for an old
typewriter," she said. I felt like I had to give some excuse, just so
she wouldn't think I wasn't so stubborn that I had completely ignored
the obvious. I have 3 computers, and the sad truth is, I'd feel a
little silly hunting for an old Underwood.
Thanks again for your constructive reply. It definitely stood out
from the dogma. I still have linux on the partition of that computer,
but I haven't really had time to tweak it (my first job is to speed it
up - at least as fast as win2k, but preferably faster).
Have fun with your writing.
Jim Ankrum
> Elf,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I had to hunt down another newsserver to get
> to it, but it was well worth it.
>
> My system is a 233 pentium 64MB ram dual booting Win2k/mandrake 8.0.
> Naturally, win2k drags a bit on this system, but not as much as linux
> (I'm still trying to figure out how to unload some of the stuff linux
> is loading into memory to speed things up).
>
I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt until I saw this. I
run Win2k dual-booting with RedHat. Have been since Feb.2000. I have set
up Win2k on several machines of various speeds/ configurations. I like
Win2k a lot. I am very comfortable with Win2k.
To run Win2k on a system as yours... well... if you can tweak it to get
enough performance out of it to honestly say it only "drags a little"
then getting any flavor of Linux to scream is well within your technical
ability.
I've met several people that think they're running Win2k when in fact
they're running WinME. Are you sure you're not running WinME?
Jim
Chris F.A. Johnson
> My system is a 233 pentium 64MB ram dual booting Win2k/mandrake 8.0.
> Naturally, win2k drags a bit on this system, but not as much as linux
> (I'm still trying to figure out how to unload some of the stuff linux
> is loading into memory to speed things up).
>
> You mentioned using Xemacs. I've been told that the X-server itself
> is still buggy, so anything running under it will never be
> bullet-proof. I'm assuming that Xemacs is emacs under X. Would emacs
> under the terminal ("command prompt" for this old dos user) be an
> option for a writer moving from windows to linux?
>
> As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm looking for a word processor as
> stable and bullet proof as a typewriter. I even considered stripping
> my system back to DOS and using the Edit program. Leave it to my wife
> to blurt the obvious, practical option. "Why not look for an old
> typewriter," she said. I felt like I had to give some excuse, just so
> she wouldn't think I wasn't so stubborn that I had completely ignored
> the obvious. I have 3 computers, and the sad truth is, I'd feel a
> little silly hunting for an old Underwood.
If you are only running an editor, I doubt that you'll find X buggy.
Even if you are running a lot more, I expect you'll find it stable.
I'm running on a 300MHz Pentium II with 96MB RAM. The systen was compiled
from source code (www.linuxfromscratch.org). I usually have a dozen or
more xterm windows open (mostly with telnet/ssh, shell, pine, or lynx),
one or two instances of Mozilla, one or two xemacs sessions (usually
multiple windows on each), gentoo (file manager), a chess program, and
apache running in the background. I use WindowMaker for my window manager.
The only time I've had problems was when I tried to load a VERY large file
into xemacs. What do I mean by large? 90+ megabytes! :(
With [x]emacs, you can start being productive knowing no more than 2 or 3
commands, yet you can do almost anything with it (even play Tetris).
--
Chris F.A. Johnson bq...@torfree.net
=================================================================
c.f.a....@home.com http://cfaj.freeshell.org
cf...@freeshell.org http://members.home.net/c.f.a.johnson
Floyd Davidson
>Elf,
>
>Thanks for your reply. I had to hunt down another newsserver to get
>to it, but it was well worth it.
>
>My system is a 233 pentium 64MB ram dual booting Win2k/mandrake 8.0.
>Naturally, win2k drags a bit on this system, but not as much as linux
>(I'm still trying to figure out how to unload some of the stuff linux
>is loading into memory to speed things up).
I posted a list of things you do want and don't want awhile back
in this thread, and you might have noticed that one of those
items got a few comments to emphasize just how important it
really is (because we realize that it wouldn't necessarily be
obvious that it is important).
That was "you don't want to apply MS patterns to your work with
Linux". One typical pattern that is common with MS (and a
typewritter) is to turn the thing off when you are not using it.
For that reason it seems to take forever to be ready to use when
you first turn it on. In one word: don't. Turn it on and
_leave_ it on. I suppose you might turn off the monitor, but I
personally see no point at all in doing so. Leaving it on will
probably increase your electric bill by $2 a month.
Now how long does it take to be ready? Login time is nothing,
and on a home computer I wouldn't necessarily logout either!
Hitting the shift key to get the screen turned on is fast
enough, eh?
>You mentioned using Xemacs. I've been told that the X-server itself
>is still buggy, so anything running under it will never be
You have been told wrong.
I have two computers running on my network right now. The one
I'm typing this on has been up for 6 months. The X server has
been running since April 15th, and the particular XEmacs process
that I read news and email with has been up since May 29th. The
XEmacs server process that I edit other things with has been
running since the X server started.
I don't remember the reasons each of those were restared when they
were, but I assure you none were due to buggy software. I bought
a new optical mouse a month ago, and one of these days I'm going to
restart the whole thing just to get rid of the old ball mouse. That
is typical of why this machine ever gets restarted. I do have
another machine here, which does some specific things and does not
have a keyboard or monitor attached at all. It has been up for
444 days today.
>bullet-proof. I'm assuming that Xemacs is emacs under X. Would emacs
>under the terminal ("command prompt" for this old dos user) be an
>option for a writer moving from windows to linux?
GNU Emacs and XEmacs both run under X, or not. But please don't
avoid X. I don't think you want KDE or GNOME though, and
recommend any of the other window managers. I use fvwm95, but
others are at least as good. The point is, there is no need to
avoid things that work and which definitely make the computer a
more useful tool.
Dowe Keller
<kitlemmonds@*removethis*hotmail.com> wrote:
>My system is a 233 pentium 64MB ram dual booting Win2k/mandrake 8.0.
>Naturally, win2k drags a bit on this system, but not as much as linux
>(I'm still trying to figure out how to unload some of the stuff linux
>is loading into memory to speed things up).
as root:
rpm -e offending_package
>You mentioned using Xemacs. I've been told that the X-server itself
>is still buggy, so anything running under it will never be
>bullet-proof. I'm assuming that Xemacs is emacs under X. Would emacs
>under the terminal ("command prompt" for this old dos user) be an
>option for a writer moving from windows to linux?
IMHO the X server itself isn't that buggy. Some of the newer
whizz-bang desktop managers (Gnome && KDE) are still a bit buggy (and
horendously bloated), but the underlying server is relativly robust.
You may wish to try some of the more reasonably sized window managers,
like fvwm.
Xemacs is what Lucid EMACS became, it's just a different fork in the
EMACS family. Both GNU/EMACS and Xemacs have both X-aware, and non-X
versions of the editor (both EMACS editors have the same options when
run from console as within, X).
As for writing I use GNU/EMACS and LaTeX for formatting, and would
recomend this combination.
>As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm looking for a word processor as
>stable and bullet proof as a typewriter. I even considered stripping
>my system back to DOS and using the Edit program. Leave it to my wife
>to blurt the obvious, practical option. "Why not look for an old
>typewriter," she said. I felt like I had to give some excuse, just so
>she wouldn't think I wasn't so stubborn that I had completely ignored
>the obvious. I have 3 computers, and the sad truth is, I'd feel a
>little silly hunting for an old Underwood.
When you say a word-processor, do you wan't something that integrates
formatting (i.e. bold face, italics, etc.), or just a text editor with
spell checker and lots of nice goodies (EMACS, either version fits the
latter definition).
>Thanks again for your constructive reply. It definitely stood out
>from the dogma. I still have linux on the partition of that computer,
>but I haven't really had time to tweak it (my first job is to speed it
>up - at least as fast as win2k, but preferably faster).
The best advice I could give anyone trying to use Linux on less than
state-of-the-art machines, is get rid of the cruft you don't need,
especially Gnome and KDE. They are pretty, and probably alright if you
have memory and cycles to spare, but are mainly just chrome.
--
do...@sierratel.com Homepage: http://www.sierratel.com/dowe
Project : http://freshmeat.net/projects/vsh
Madhusudan Singh
You might have to learn a few initial keystrokes, but that is a part of
the business.
I guess <CTRL>(henceforth called C)-x-f to open the file, C-x-s to save it
ought to be enough initially. As you grow with it, you will get more
efficient.
And remember to change the run level in your /etc/inittab to 3 (from 5, if
you are currently using X).
On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Kit Lemmonds wrote:
Hal Burgiss
wrote:
>
>I posted a list of things you do want and don't want awhile back
>in this thread, and you might have noticed that one of those
>items got a few comments to emphasize just how important it
>really is (because we realize that it wouldn't necessarily be
>obvious that it is important).
I wonder if he is seeing all the posts? He seems to ignore most. Maybe
his news server is flaky.
>I have two computers running on my network right now. The one
>I'm typing this on has been up for 6 months. The X server has
>been running since April 15th, and the particular XEmacs process
>that I read news and email with has been up since May 29th. The
>XEmacs server process that I edit other things with has been
>running since the X server started.
[hal@junior hal]$ uptime
10:52pm up 128 days, 6:16, 5 users, load average: 0.77, 0.72, 0.70
[hal@junior hal]$ ps aux |grep X
root 20888 0.0 7.5 20368 4676 ? S May14 0:52 /etc/X11/X -auth
That is Gnome with Windowmaker. My main desktop does not use gnome, just
Windowmaker, but I tinker more with it. Installed a newer kernel, so
rebooted. Yea, X is real flaky. Riiiiighht. FUD.
Stefano Ghirlanda
> My system is a 233 pentium 64MB ram dual booting Win2k/mandrake 8.0.
> Naturally, win2k drags a bit on this system, but not as much as
> linux (I'm still trying to figure out how to unload some of the
> stuff linux is loading into memory to speed things up).
Note that your system is sort of "low end" nowadays. This does
_not_at_all_ mean that it is too little, just that a recent Linux
distribution, and especially mandrake 8, might be tuned by default to
expect something more.
I repeat it loud: your machine is more than enough for a responsive
and productive linux system. A guest researcher at our dept worked for
over 18 months with a 90MHz, 32MB RAM machine writing scientific
papers, making statistical analysis and graphs with fair data sets,
and playing go over the net, and being happy with it.
--
Stefano - Hodie quarto Kalendas Septembres MMI est
Walnut
Use it for every text file on your system that changes; especially
/etc/*
Barry OGrady
>On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:58:35 +1000, Barry OGrady <billy...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>>On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:11:18 GMT, kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) wrote:
>>
>>>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>>>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>>>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>>
>>Your experience is typical. The X windows GUI in linux is feeble compared
>>to MS Windows. Serious users of linux don't use a GUI.
>
>This is utter crap too. Let's see MS-windows do my six virtual
>desktops, and currently 54 windows opened :/ And still usable. And then
>export windows to other machines. Or support for multiple displays. Or
>use fonts exported from another server on a LAN, etc, etc. X11 is 10
>times more powerful than MS-Win. Just not as cute, or dumbed down.
X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
because it is not as refined.
>Hal B
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barryog
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
Voicemail/fax number +14136227640
Hal Burgiss
>On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:38:05 GMT, h...@burgiss.net (Hal Burgiss) wrote:
>
>>
>>This is utter crap too. Let's see MS-windows do my six virtual
>>desktops, and currently 54 windows opened :/ And still usable. And then
>>export windows to other machines. Or support for multiple displays. Or
>>use fonts exported from another server on a LAN, etc, etc. X11 is 10
>>times more powerful than MS-Win. Just not as cute, or dumbed down.
>
>X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
>because it is not as refined.
More total bullshit and FUD. X predates MS-Windows. Windows was created
to emulate the Mac GUI BTW. If yours looks cheap, it is the loose nut
behind the wheel syndrome. Mine is much more atuned to me than anything
Uncle Bill could even dream about.
Erik Max Francis
> X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
> because it is not as refined.
haha. X predates Windows, bub.
--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, US / 37 20 N 121 53 W / ICQ16063900 / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ My land's only borders lie / Around my heart
\__/ The Russian, _Chess_
Alcyone Systems' Daily Planet / http://www.alcyone.com/planet.html
A new, virtual planet, every day.
Jean-David Beyer
>
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:38:05 GMT, h...@burgiss.net (Hal Burgiss) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:58:35 +1000, Barry OGrady <billy...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:11:18 GMT, kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) wrote:
> >>
> >>>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> >>>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> >>>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
> >>
> >>Your experience is typical. The X windows GUI in linux is feeble compared
> >>to MS Windows. Serious users of linux don't use a GUI.
> >
> >This is utter crap too. Let's see MS-windows do my six virtual
> >desktops, and currently 54 windows opened :/ And still usable. And then
> >export windows to other machines. Or support for multiple displays. Or
> >use fonts exported from another server on a LAN, etc, etc. X11 is 10
> >times more powerful than MS-Win. Just not as cute, or dumbed down.
>
> X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
> because it is not as refined.
>
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 11:50am up 12 days, 15:11, 4 users, load average: 2.18, 2.14, 2.05
Mark Mynsted
> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:38:05 GMT, h...@burgiss.net (Hal Burgiss) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:58:35 +1000, Barry OGrady <billy...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
> >>On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:11:18 GMT, kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) wrote:
> >>
> >>>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> >>>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> >>>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
> >>
> >>Your experience is typical. The X windows GUI in linux is feeble compared
> >>to MS Windows. Serious users of linux don't use a GUI.
> >
> >This is utter crap too. Let's see MS-windows do my six virtual
> >desktops, and currently 54 windows opened :/ And still usable. And then
> >export windows to other machines. Or support for multiple displays. Or
> >use fonts exported from another server on a LAN, etc, etc. X11 is 10
> >times more powerful than MS-Win. Just not as cute, or dumbed down.
>
> X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
> because it is not as refined.
I do not think so. Although MS Windows was created before X, I do not
believe that MIT's project Athena (X) was as you say an attempt to
emulate MS Windows at all. Look it up.
It does not "look cheap". The way it looks is only a small part of
X. If you want your GUI to look like Windows, by all means do so.
At least one of the common window managers that I have used has a "windows"
theme that may be used if that is your preference.
It is not my preference. Go check out the UI options available when
using X. Then re-evaluate what looks cheap and what does not. My
window manager of choice is BlackBox. It is simple, fast, and does
what I want.
--
-MM
/"\
(No un-solicited email please.) \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign
See following url, X Against HTML Mail
http://pages.prodigy.net/mmynsted/spamoff.htm / \
Jean-David Beyer
>
> Barry OGrady wrote:
>
> > X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
> > because it is not as refined.
>
> haha. X predates Windows, bub.
Sure does: 1984, IIRC.
--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ Registered Machine 73926.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 11:55am up 12 days, 15:16, 4 users, load average: 2.08, 2.08, 2.04
Dowe Keller
<jdb...@exit109.com> wrote:
>Erik Max Francis wrote:
>>
>> Barry OGrady wrote:
>>
>> > X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
>> > because it is not as refined.
>>
>> haha. X predates Windows, bub.
>
>Sure does: 1984, IIRC.
And one should add, that far from being unrefined, X is much superior
to WinDOS in that it has networking built in, I can use a program on
my X-server that's actually running on a computer on the other side of
the globe. Also, IMNSHO, The fact that Kernel, Graphics Engine (The X
server), and the GUI (fvwm, gnome, kde, etc.) are separated from each
other is a huge win. No one should be forced to use the same GUI as
everyone else. This, I believe, is the one major lose in Apple's OS-X
system. They have a pretty nifty BSD system, but they put a stupid
non-standard GUI on top of it.
Elf Sternberg
kitlemmonds@*removethis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) writes:
>You mentioned using Xemacs. I've been told that the X-server itself is
>still buggy...
Whoever told you that was wrong. X is nearly fifteen years old,
and the high-number versions (3.3.6, for example) have been debugged and
gone over more intensely, on more computers, than Linux has ever seen.
Gnome, which is an application environment on top of X, has
significantly less of a track record, but if you want absolute
stability, you don't need to run Gnome (or its competitor, KDE). You
can run X with a simple window manager such as FVWM or OLVWM and Xemacs
will be far more reliable than Word.
For the record, I am running Gnome 1.2. I haven't had any
problems with it, but, like I said, I don't *do* anything weird with my
work machine.
>As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm looking for a word processor as
>stable and bullet proof as a typewriter.
The problem with a typewriter is that it doesn't remember what
you wrote, can't help you revise, and certainly can't help you get your
words to an editor.
Elf Sternberg
c...@ragwind.localdomain.net writes:
>Bear in mind that RCS is NOT A BACKUP! Not in the sense that if your
>disk crashes your data is saved. Do any other writers use RCS?
I use CVS, and it certainly *is* a backup if the CVS repository
is on another computer entirely. CVS can be a backup if you have the
sense to put your $HOME on one drive and your repository on another
drive. All it takes is a little common sense.
Brady Montz
> You mentioned using Xemacs. I've been told that the X-server itself
> is still buggy, so anything running under it will never be
> bullet-proof. I'm assuming that Xemacs is emacs under X. Would emacs
> under the terminal ("command prompt" for this old dos user) be an
> option for a writer moving from windows to linux?
I definitely disagree with any claims that X is unstable. While it is
true that there are bugs, since there are bugs in all code, they are,
in my exerience, very hard to find. Keep in mind that X is a rather
old system that has been beaten on for way over a decade on many
different OSes. The main gotchas I've hit are where X runs into other
stuff - either the device drivers on the hardware side, or the window
manager/gui libraries on the software side. If you have a new video
card that hasn't yet gotten stable drivers, then you may hit
trouble. If you use new windowing/gui systems like kde or gnome, then
you will hit trouble. If you stay with the tried and true, like the
fvwm window manager and emacs/xemacs rather than, for example, KDE and
KOffice, then you should expect, and should get, an extremely stable
setup.
The xemacs name causes so much confusion! :) As you've probably been
told by others, xemacs is just a different version of emacs. Both have
X support, and both work in terminals. The 'x' in xemacs MIGHT come
from the fact that way back when xemacs decended from the lucid
emacs/epoch implementaions which had more aggressive support for X
than the "regular" emacs. And historically, xemacs has kept pushing
the GUI front more so than emacs (fonts, menus, ...). I prefer xemacs,
as both a user and someone who writes emacs extensions, but it's
really just a matter of taste. Try both.
Emacs in the terminal is a fine option, especially since the linux
console is rather nice, supporting colors, hi-res fonts, and the
mouse. And not only is each console nice (compared to other OSes) you
can have a bunch of them that you switch between with alt-function key
commands. I know plenty of people who use linux that way exclusively.
In fact, at this moment, I am composing this post using xemacs running
inside of a terminal window. Although it's not exactle the same
situation since that terminal is itself a gnome terminal in my nice
and pretty and bleeding edge kinda frustrating yet still cool gnome
desktop :). But as far as xemacs is concerned, it's the same
thing. The only gotcha is that when you don't have the GUI, it's a
little harder to use the menu so you have to get good with the
keyboard commands. I think xemacs (or emacs) is probably easier to
learn when you can freely wander around the menus exploring.
If you are editing in the console, then there are many other fine,
rock solid editors to choose from: vim, jed, joe, etc. All are
simpler, smaller, and faster than emacs, but less powerful. They are
still way more powerful than most editors out there. A matter of
taste.
Final point on (x)emacs. I like to think of it as the photoshop of
text editors. An unimaginable number of man-hours have been devoted
towards making it the most powerful and flexible text editor out
there, and there's an amazing number of extensions for it. The price
is that it does have a seriously daunting learning curve, and not
everyone feels that it's worth the learning effort, and plenty
question whether it's worth the developer effort to make the single
all-encompassing ubereditor. At least it's a lot cheaper than
photoshop :).
Finally, I very much liked the original post. There are plenty of
linux users out there who love the technology and just want you to
share their joy in all the cool little bells and whistles. I am often
one of them :). But, for the first 8 or so years of my unix use
(undergrad and grad school) I pretty much only used the editor,
compiler, printer, shell, and email. Nowadays, tack on a web browser
and music player, and that's what I pretty much use it for. The other
stuff is sexy and attracts the most attention, but it isn't as
essential or stable. Fortunately, at least in the unix world, the
closer you get to the essential core, the more stable and predictable
things get. As an aside, I think that in order for that property to be
true, the system generally has to have a solid foundation, and I don't
think the microsoft world has had that since the dos days.
Given your needs, you would probably be best served using a trimmed
down bare-essentials linux (or BSD) setup. Since you already have a
machine with linux installed, I'd put it on a diet, switch to fvwm,
use the xterm terminal and the bash shell, and use the stable releases
of emacs or xemacs. All of those should be on the CD. If you don't
like how fvwm looks, you may want to fiddle with that. There's plenty
of people out there to help with that when that time comes. Everything
else should be good to go out of the box.
Have fun, and good luck!
--
Brady Montz
bra...@balestra.org
Hartmann Schaffer
Barry OGrady <billy...@dingoblue.net.au> writes:
> ...
> X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
it is better to shut up and let people think you are an idiot than to
type uninformed nonsense and remove any doubt
hs
--
Lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur Qvtvgny Zvyraavhz Pbclevtug Npg ol oernxvat
gur cebgrpgvba bs pbclevtugrq zngrevny. Vs lbh ner abg n pvgvmra be
erfvqrag bs gur HFN, lbh evfx orvat vzcevfbarq naq uryq jvgubhg onvy
sbe hc gb gjb jrrxf hcba ragel gb gur HFN
(c) Copyright 2001 by Hartmann Schaffer (signature only)
Stroller
> This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
> It had never occurred to me before that an operating system could be
> an issue of faith. I had always though of an OS as a tool, a thing
> useless in itself but critical to a certain end result.
I didn't see this posting until I just subscribed now & saw your
"Thanks" posting. Although I'm not going to read the whole thread, I
thought I had to post something, as I'm inclined to agree. As a recent
Linux convert, I have to say that I'm really quite pleased with it,
but it's not an out-of-the-box solution, yet.
For example, my DVD player works. This is a result for Linux, despite
some niggly functionality, as my system had been bluescreening Windows
for the past year every time I put a disk in.
I tend not to mind taking a while to get something working, as long as
it continues to do so; it took a couple of hours working out which DVD
software to use & a little tweaking, but Linux has suceeded where
Windows has failed & I reckon it will continue to do so. Having said
that, I'm confident enough with operating systems to install Linux
myself, and recomile the kernel with only a little assistance. I'm
getting it working pretty much the way I want it after a couple of
weeks. That's using it all day, every day. And that's probably longer
than you want to spend configuring a typewriter. I'm very confident
that I'll shortly have all my data secure & backed-up under Linux
better than it ever was under Windows. But I have a heck of a lot more
data than you do, with all sorts of different priorities.
I also haven't seen a text-editor under Linux with the functionality,
ease of use or GUI of Word. I'm probably going to get flamed for this,
but I really don't think Star Office or AbiWord hacks it. Sure, Word
can be a pain, when it wants to bullet lists you don't want bulletted,
or indend sections you don't want indented, but you can usually switch
that off pretty easily & carry on typing. I'm sure there are many of
it's features that I don't use, but it works & I can imbed graphics &
eXcell spreadsheets & graphs and make footnotes without much hassle. I
actually don't know what I'm going to do when I need these features
under Linux - learn LaTex, maybe. Microsoft's Word seems to read than
Linux's X-windows, it highlights spilling mistakes as I type, and I
can disable the more annoying rude grammer hints.
For yur application, then, my recommendation would be to stick with
Windows 2000. Back-up your data, and use Partition Magic on your
drive. Split it into two partitions of about 1.5 gig each, and at
least one other with the remaning space. On the first partition
install Windows2000, Word2000 & nothing else, then use Partition Magic
to copy make a copy of that partition on to the 2nd partition. Boot
from the first partition each day and, should it fail, back up from
the 2nd one.
Save all your data to the 3rd partition and back it up reguarly to the
4th, or (better still) buy a small 2nd hard-drive for back-up. Learn
about Word's autosave feature - you can get it to save every 10
minutes, or even more frequently, I think, and find out where the
files are saved. Look on shareware.com - you should be able to get a
small batch utility to regularly copy not only your main "saved" work
files from partition 3, but also to back up these autosaved files to
your 4th drive-partition.
I'm not quite this paranoid, well, maybe I am, but I'm just lazy, so I
tend to simply copy the whole directory into a new sub-directory
called "Previous" every hour, day, or week, whenever I feel good about
what I'm writing. Thus I have a recursive stack of snapshts of my work
over the previous day, week or month, just in case of human error -
say I'm dumb enough to really make a hash-up of big edit late at night
- and I can clean these out periodically or when I'm finished.
Using Outlook Express, backing up of email data is also fairly easy,
providing you know where it's kept. Much more than this - email & one
directory (possibly containing sub-directories) - gets impractical to
do manually, and this is probably where Linux excells over Windows.
In your post you say mention a 15-year timescale. I hope that in 5
you'll be using Linux, or that Linux would be better justified for
many users like yourself. I suspect that day may not be far way.
Stroller.
jon
After 40 mins of playing I had several frozen windows, 1 windows still
blocking the display - and no ability to kill them.
This was 2 years ago, I tried an updated system a month back - it was much
the same. Linux/Gnome/KDE/X will not be a desktop system until its faster,
its more stable [Yes linux people STABLE!] and lastly until the linux kernel
grows up and lets you kill frozen GUI processes.
I use linux for an Internet server, I use Windows 2000 for a desktop -
amazingly its faster than X, uses LESS RAM and is more stable. I use the
same winows 2000 session for months at a time, I even develope code without
the O/S crashing.
Jon
"Eric Y. Chang" <er...@nntp-server.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:9m6m90$i...@gap.cco.caltech.edu...
> How do you know that this is fiction? At least it reads well. And, there
> are some parts of it that are believable. Personally, I have never seen a
> dead window (but I have in Microsoft Windows), but I suspect it is
possible.
> After all, I have seen just about everything else. I have also written
> documents on both systems, and both crash. Linux is definitely the OS of
> choice for large documents, especially those that must look good, such as
> camera ready copy. For a quick little note, Windows is just fine.
>
> Chris (ahls...@home.com) wrote:
> : After takin' a swig o' grog, Kit Lemmonds belched out this bit o'
wisdom:
>
> : >This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
> : >subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
> : >reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>
> : Nice work of fiction, Kit.
>
> : Chris
>
> : --
> : "Never trust an operating system for which you
> : don't have the source code."
>
> : E pluribus UNIX
Lovecraftesque
out properly. Standard word processors don't achieve that. In fact, the
output they produce is hopelessly amateurish.
You might like to try LyX (http://www.lyx.org) Using it is easy as pie,
and when you see the output it produces you'll acknowledge that Word is a
big POS - for which you have to pay, to boot.
In article <3b852dd7...@news.qwest.net>, "Kit Lemmonds"
Simon Gornall
>
> It might be fiction, but its the same as my first experience with KDE/Gnome.
> After 40 mins of playing I had several frozen windows, 1 windows still
> blocking the display - and no ability to kill them.
>
> This was 2 years ago, I tried an updated system a month back - it was much
> the same. Linux/Gnome/KDE/X will not be a desktop system until its faster,
> its more stable [Yes linux people STABLE!] and lastly until the linux kernel
> grows up and lets you kill frozen GUI processes.
Points of note:
o The linux kernel has no responsibility for the graphics display - all
graphics are done in userland (ie: the kernel is not responsible).
o You can *always* drop down into a non-graphical environment and kill
the process - use CTRL-ALT-Fn (typically n=1 through 6) to get a
console terminal. Log in, get the pid of the offending process and
type 'kill -KILL pid-number'. Unlike Windows, the terminals are still
there when in graphical mode.
o You can almost always (99.9% of the time) use 'xkill' to kill errant
windows. Get a shell window, type 'xkill', move the mouse over the
window, and press the button.
o I have never had X lock up on me. On the other hand, I despise the
X desktop interfaces for exactly the same reason I despise the
Microsoft UI. In both cases, the interface simply gets in the way.
Personally I run ctwm, I spent a half-morning configuring it, and
I've been very happy ever since. I'm certainly a lot more productive.
> I use linux for an Internet server, I use Windows 2000 for a desktop -
> amazingly its faster than X, uses LESS RAM and is more stable. I use the
> same winows 2000 session for months at a time, I even develope code without
> the O/S crashing.
>
> Jon
I use Linux everywhere. So does my business (ok, there's only 8 of us
so that's not as impressive as it might otherwise be) but Linux is a
very stable and useful office system, if it is set up correctly. The
same thing applies to Windows, I just don't like it as much because
you're locked into doing it how Microsoft want you to do it...
Simon.
--
Freedom ? What's that ? (see http://www.domesday.co.uk/ )
Matthew van de Werken
>
>
> o You can always drop down into a non-graphical environment and kill
> the process - use CTRL-ALT-Fn (typically n=1 through 6) to get a
> console terminal. Log in, get the pid of the offending process and
> type 'kill -KILL pid-number'. Unlike Windows, the terminals are still
> there when in graphical mode.
>
>
Agreed with most of the post, but this is just not true. X is responsible
for the keyboard - if X crashes completely, you *cannot* get to a console
to killall X. This has happened to me not infrequently. But then again, my
box is nowhere near setup right.
Cheers,
MvdW
jon
> This is utter crap too. Let's see MS-windows do my six virtual
> desktops, and currently 54 windows opened :/
And still usable. And then
> export windows to other machines. Or support for multiple displays.
[[Oh look, monitor on the left - monitor on the right [Matrox G400 dual
head]
Or
> use fonts exported from another server on a LAN,
[[Look, lots of nice fonts - not a large number of crap ones like X
etc, etc. X11 is 10
> times more powerful than MS-Win. Just not as cute, or dumbed down.
[[I have two telnet sessions to linux open, that count.
I use linux for serious business, I also use Windows 2000 - more than 10
years of experience has proved to me that X is over-rated. It was more
stable on the Sun3 than modern machies, but its still shit. I've used Sun3,
Sparc, SGI Linux on PC (5.X 6.X 7.X Redhat and Mandrake) - but they still
have desktops that suck. X display support is hit and miss, dual monitor
support is poor and unreliable, desktop multi-media is a joke, its slow, its
RAM greedy - yes folks ! X uses more RAM than windows !! But worst of all,
its not very stable, ok its better than Windows 98 - but NT and now 2000
whip its arse !
Chris F.A. Johnson
But if the box is on a network, you can usually still telnet/ssh to it to
killall X.
Mark Mynsted
I have never seen ANY software that could better support any type of
display than X. You can configure it for anything.
If the desktops suck, blame yourself. If you do not like one of the
MANY desktop option, configure one yourself. (Do more with that
10 years of experience than complain.)
I really can't imagine what you are doing to your system to provide
you with such poor results. Perhaps you should stick with Windows
where you have no choices.
If you truly believe that crap, what are you doing reading this forum?
Hal Burgiss
>
>> This is utter crap too. Let's see MS-windows do my six virtual
>> desktops, and currently 54 windows opened :/
>[[Does 83 count
Count for what? Virtual desktops or windows? If vitual desktops, yes it
counts. If that many windows on one desktop it would be unusable for me,
as it would be too much clutter. I prefer some organization.
>And still usable. And then
>> export windows to other machines. Or support for multiple displays.
>[[Oh look, monitor on the left - monitor on the right [Matrox G400 dual
>head]
>
> Or
>> use fonts exported from another server on a LAN,
>[[Look, lots of nice fonts - not a large number of crap ones like X
Yes, default X fonts suck the big one. Fix it. Not that hard.
> etc, etc. X11 is 10
>> times more powerful than MS-Win. Just not as cute, or dumbed down.
>[[I have two telnet sessions to linux open, that count.
Count for what?
>I use linux for serious business, I also use Windows 2000 - more than 10
>years of experience has proved to me that X is over-rated. It was more
>stable on the Sun3 than modern machies, but its still shit. I've used Sun3,
>Sparc, SGI Linux on PC (5.X 6.X 7.X Redhat and Mandrake) - but they still
>have desktops that suck. X display support is hit and miss, dual monitor
>support is poor and unreliable, desktop multi-media is a joke, its slow, its
>RAM greedy - yes folks ! X uses more RAM than windows !! But worst of all,
>its not very stable, ok its better than Windows 98 - but NT and now 2000
>whip its arse !
Right. I've run X with 16M of RAM. I'd bet I'd whoop NT/w2K's arse on
that challenge. You must've used the other OSes because the boss made
you as you didn't seem to care to learn much.
Dichotimus Grok
Hartmann Schaffer <h...@heaven.nirvananet> wrote in message
news:3b8d...@news.sentex.net...
Are you sure about that? I don't think that clicking on unscramble message
(ROT13) constuties a violation of the DMCA. Can you explain why you are
saying this, or should you be following your own advice?
Also, are you sure the message is copyrighted? It seems to me the 'garbage'
is correctly copyrighted, but the 'unencrypted' text may not be. Just a
thought.
For those who cannot easily ROT13 the above, here it is in it's
'unencrypted' form:
You have just violated the Digital Milennium Copyright Act by breaking
the protection of copyrighted material. If you are not a citizen or
resident of the USA, you risk being imprisoned and held without bail
for up to two weeks upon entry to the USA
(p) Pbclevtug 2001 ol Unegznaa Fpunssre (fvtangher bayl)
Hartmann Schaffer
"Dichotimus Grok" <jdi...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> Hartmann Schaffer <h...@heaven.nirvananet> wrote in message
> news:3b8d...@news.sentex.net...
>> Lbh unir whfg ivbyngrq gur Qvtvgny Zvyraavhz Pbclevtug Npg ol oernxvat
>> gur cebgrpgvba bs pbclevtugrq zngrevny. Vs lbh ner abg n pvgvmra be
>> erfvqrag bs gur HFN, lbh evfx orvat vzcevfbarq naq uryq jvgubhg onvy
>> sbe hc gb gjb jrrxf hcba ragel gb gur HFN
>>
>> (c) Copyright 2001 by Hartmann Schaffer (signature only)
>
> Are you sure about that? I don't think that clicking on unscramble message
> (ROT13) constuties a violation of the DMCA. Can you explain why you are
it certainly is circumvention copyright protection. apparently it
doesn't how weak it is (unless the courts are going to diagree, which
still has to be determined)
> saying this, or should you be following your own advice?
>
> Also, are you sure the message is copyrighted? It seems to me the 'garbage'
> is correctly copyrighted, but the 'unencrypted' text may not be. Just a
> thought.
if you were right, skyalarovs program would only make the unprotected
version of the ebooks accessible. so why did they arrest him. i'm
not a lawyer, but it would appear to me that a legal notice that is
only recognizable after you broke the cypher can't have any legal
strenghth
hs
> For those who cannot easily ROT13 the above, here it is in it's
> 'unencrypted' form:
>
> You have just violated the Digital Milennium Copyright Act by breaking
> the protection of copyrighted material. If you are not a citizen or
> resident of the USA, you risk being imprisoned and held without bail
> for up to two weeks upon entry to the USA
>
> (p) Pbclevtug 2001 ol Unegznaa Fpunssre (fvtangher bayl)
>
--
jon
> o You can *always* drop down into a non-graphical environment and kill
> the process - use CTRL-ALT-Fn (typically n=1 through 6) to get a
> console terminal. Log in, get the pid of the offending process and
> type 'kill -KILL pid-number'. Unlike Windows, the terminals are still
> there when in graphical mode.
that wont go away, you can "kill -AnyF*insignal_you_Like PID" to your hearts
content, it wont die.... If the process had just crashed then even the GUI
will normaly kill it, if not then xkill would, your lecturing the wrong guy
and missing the technical point, why doesnt the kernel (hence the effort
typing it) let you kill ALL processes. Its not good enough to say 'its in a
semephore and it might break something' - make the thing stateless if you
have to, its just poor design.
Dichotimus Grok
One can't 'break' the ROT13 cypher. It's also known as 'Ceaser' encryption
because old Julius himself used to use it.
Now *thats* prior IP.
And you aren't coming anywhere close to trying to keep the message hidden.
You made the message with the express intent that someone would ROT13 it, so
again, no, it is definatelt *NOT* a DMCA violation.
Since you can't possibly patent the Ceaser cypher, you can't possibly claim
I 'cracked you code.' Now your starting to see the pattern ... for this
reason as well I did not violate the DMCA. Which is really too bad. I was
kind of hoping I'd be on a few news show.
Hartmann Schaffer <h...@heaven.nirvananet> wrote in message
news:3b8e...@news.sentex.net...
jon
> I have never seen ANY software that could better support any type of
> display than X. You can configure it for anything.
[[And often nothing ......... Yes I can set sync polority, I even use an old
cad-monitor on one machine. But what do I do when the latest Xfree86 bundle
produly (and correctly) detects my AGP card then gives black ?? Or when the
driver for my card scrambles the display or doesnt clip/refresh properly. X
is very clever, but can still be pretty poor.
> If the desktops suck, blame yourself. If you do not like one of the
> MANY desktop option, configure one yourself. (Do more with that
> 10 years of experience than complain.)
[[Ahhhh the "standard" linux answer to everything, because I dont have a
spare week to piss away re-configuring over and over and over again to get a
"just about adequate" desktop then i'm a M/Soft synpathyser and an idiot ??
Linux is OK, BSD is better and X is just plain crap, very clever network
distributed (if you dont use bitmaps), flexable (if you have all year),
clever (if you want to spend all year building the right version of obscure
packages) but still crap. Its slow, its greedy and it plain doesnt work that
well.
> I really can't imagine what you are doing to your system to provide
> you with such poor results. Perhaps you should stick with Windows
> where you have no choices.
[[I have 2 linux machines and 6 windows machine. I currently run no copies
of X.
> If you truly believe that crap, what are you doing reading this forum?
[[Because it is needlessly crap. If X had grown up when it should have (5
years agao) then it would be useable. If its going to be distributed then it
needs the ability to work with compressed bitmaps - I tried using
distributed X it slogged my 100MB network, if its going to be a desktop then
it needs to be fast and slick. I've been using X on and off for 10+years and
it still doesnt even have a good basic file manager, the windows 3.11 one
was better. All this development of pretty pictures and crap for X, yet I
still tend to crash it to the point I have to re-start it within the 1st 1/2
hour. Why does linux still stack up zomby rocesses, especially under X ??
The core of linux has moved in the right direction, but X has just got
larger and slower. I prefer uwm when I have to use X, I keep looking at KDE
but always only 80% done, then next time I check back (every six months) -
its bigger, but still only 80% done. Windows 2000 is good because it behaves
like a product, a tool for a job - not a poor solution looking for a problem
.............
Simon Gornall
> [deletia] ...
> and missing the technical point, why doesnt the kernel (hence the effort
> typing it) let you kill ALL processes. Its not good enough to say 'its in a
> semephore and it might break something' - make the thing stateless if you
> have to, its just poor design.
As I said, I've never had any problems. If you want to make a technical
point, it's probably worth making that technical point to start off
with,
rather than a vague accusation.
Frankly I find it hard to believe anyway. Perhaps I've been lucky but
I've been using X on Linux since I had Linux/68k on my Atari ST about
8 years ago, and it has *never* happened to me. Not once. Nada. I've
had a variety of graphics cards and monitor types during that long
journey.
Which monitor/graphics card are you using? Currently I have 2 SGI
monitors
from Indy's on my machine here, running on a Matrox G450 using xinerama.
One of the monitors is older, and fixed-frequency, but X happily reads
the monitor info over the VGA socket, and sets it up just fine.
Suffice it to say, X works just fine and dandy for me. If it doesn't for
you, then I suggest you either (in descending order):
a) Fix it
b) Get someone else to fix it, if you're not competent/can't be
bothered/don't have the time
c) Don't use it
d) Use windows instead.
In other words, get over it. Life's too short.
Simon.
Mark Mynsted
> > If you truly believe that crap, what are you doing reading this forum?
> [[Because it is needlessly crap. If X had grown up when it should have (5
> years agao) then it would be useable. If its going to be distributed then it
> needs the ability to work with compressed bitmaps - I tried using
> distributed X it slogged my 100MB network, if its going to be a desktop then
> it needs to be fast and slick. I've been using X on and off for 10+years and
> it still doesnt even have a good basic file manager, the windows 3.11 one
> was better. All this development of pretty pictures and crap for X, yet I
> still tend to crash it to the point I have to re-start it within the 1st 1/2
> hour. Why does linux still stack up zomby rocesses, especially under X ??
> The core of linux has moved in the right direction, but X has just got
> larger and slower. I prefer uwm when I have to use X, I keep looking at KDE
> but always only 80% done, then next time I check back (every six months) -
> its bigger, but still only 80% done. Windows 2000 is good because it behaves
> like a product, a tool for a job - not a poor solution looking for a problem
> .............
You seem to have many "suggestions" for improving X. Although I
personally do experience these problems, they certainly have merit, at
least to you.
Since you are not interested in addressing any of these issues
yourself, perhaps you should forward your concerns to somebody who
could help you. Here are some good resources:
comp.os.linux.x
http://www.xfree86.org/mailman/listinfo
Good luck. I hope somebody helps you. You seem very unhappy.
Divine Enigma
> you're locked into doing it how Microsoft want you to do it...
>
> Simon.
One of the most biased, and nonsense views I have ever heard.
We had a whole debate on this one in some other newsgroup.
Tell me what car do you have? Ford? Chevy?
It's up to the car vendor what to put in the car and you cannot take
it apart and put it back as a motorcycle unless (which is very
unlikely) you are one of the master pro mechanics (even they'd have
quite a hard time doing that).
So there, if you don't like MS then don't like any other
Car/Electronic vendors out there and don't use them... hey why aren't
you pissed that the processor is in the PC and not the monitor (as you
might like it to be, and thus why are you even using a computer..
hehe)...
Paul
nob...@nowhere.com
:> I just don't like it as much because
:>
:> Simon.
: One of the most biased, and nonsense views I have ever heard.
: We had a whole debate on this one in some other newsgroup.
Agreed. This view is especially amusing when espoused by an Apple owner.
Talk about being locked in to a proprietary system!
Heyguys- OS is just a tool like any other tool- at least for 99% of computer
users. Every OS has strengths and weaknesses, but its primary purpose
is to delivery APPLICATIONS and otherwise stay out of the way.
I choose OS's based on the apps I need and how well they stay out of the
way. hence for different installations I have Linux, Windows, DOS, HPUX,
etc. Except for DOS (very simple/basic but also comparatively bulletproof)
they ALL need a lot more care and feeding than I would hope for.
But they all serve a useful purpose- even including Apple.
The endless OS wars seen here and elsewhere are juvenile and pointless.
Some folks in these forums even resort to childish name-calling,
as bizarre as that seems.
Wouldn't it be more productive here in a LINUX group to discuss LINUX,
share problems and solutions, help each other, that sort of stuff?
Stan
--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com
Robb Aley Allan
desired. You've made a rather large extrapolation about the utility of
Linux and the credibility of its advocates based on what, from your
description, was an hour or two's exposure.
I've used Macintoshes, Windows machines, NextStep, and Linux boxes
extensively for many years (and many other machines, including CP/M and
Forth boxes, before that). I am a writer and more recently a business
executive who has tried with ALL of these systems to run financial, word
processing, communications, and other programs. ALL of the various OS's
have points where they excel, and ALL have weaknesses.
One area where Linux is NOT weak is reliability and data security. It is
VERY rare for a Linux app to die halfway through a project with the loss of
data. Further, it is virtually unheard of for an app crash to cause disk
problems. Yet these have been common and deadly problems with Macs and
Windows boxes for years.
It is OF COURSE possible for a Linux app to crash. ANY app can crash on ANY
OS. Libraries can be mixed up, disk directories can be corrupted,
preference files can be missing or damaged, etc., etc., etc. It simply is
unfair to conclude that because a single window of a single app froze,
therefore the entire OS and all of its apps are in some manner defective or
suspect.
I do not trust (as much as possible) ANY data file to a Windows computer,
if only because the possibility of virus damage is far too great in
Windows. Obviously, not all apps that exist for Windows exist for Linux as
well. But for 98% my needs running an office, handling correspondence,
writing articles and documents, etc., Linux works better and more reliably
than ANY other OS I have worked with.
Finally, you do a great disservice to the Linux community at large to
dismiss them as, essentially, ideological zealots. There are certainly some
who are -- as, no doubt, many employees of Microsoft and Apple are. But in
fact most users of Linux whom I know are converts who have learned from
experience that Linux offers certain fundamental qualities that have
historically been missing from the OS's from Microsoft and Apple:
reliability, control, open standards, and so forth.
--
Robb Aley Allan
ral...@helical.com ral...@minskoff.com all...@acm.org
Helical Design Myron A. Minskoff, Inc. ACM
Tim Kynerd
In article <99927969...@cswreg.cos.agilent.com>, nob...@nowhere.com wrote:
> Divine Enigma <buff...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[Divine Enigma didn't write the first quoted material below, Simon did.]
>:> I just don't like it as much because
>:> you're locked into doing it how Microsoft want you to do it...
>:>
>:> Simon.
>
>: One of the most biased, and nonsense views I have ever heard.
>: We had a whole debate on this one in some other newsgroup.
>
> Agreed. This view is especially amusing when espoused by an Apple owner.
> Talk about being locked in to a proprietary system!
>
> Heyguys- OS is just a tool like any other tool- at least for 99% of computer
> users. Every OS has strengths and weaknesses, but its primary purpose
> is to delivery APPLICATIONS and otherwise stay out of the way.
The point you've missed here is that Microsoft makes APPLICATIONS [sic] as
well as operating systems. Ever heard of Microsoft Word? The point being
that if you insist on finding something similar to Word, then "you're locked
into doing it how Microsoft want [sic] you to do it."
> I choose OS's based on the apps I need and how well they stay out of the
> way. hence for different installations I have Linux, Windows, DOS, HPUX,
> etc. Except for DOS (very simple/basic but also comparatively bulletproof)
> they ALL need a lot more care and feeding than I would hope for.
> But they all serve a useful purpose- even including Apple.
>
> The endless OS wars seen here and elsewhere are juvenile and pointless.
> Some folks in these forums even resort to childish name-calling,
> as bizarre as that seems.
>
> Wouldn't it be more productive here in a LINUX group to discuss LINUX,
> share problems and solutions, help each other, that sort of stuff?
Much of the discussion in this thread has been pointing out that Linux
offers excellent writing tools that bear no resemblance to "word processing
applications" like Word. If that isn't sharing solutions and helping each
other, then what the heck is?
--
Tim Kynerd Sundbyberg (småstan i storstan), Sweden t...@tram.nu
Sunrise in Stockholm today: 5:42
Sunset in Stockholm today: 19:53
My rail transit photos at http://www.geocities.com/tkynerd
Simon Gornall
Um. I was talking about Linux and X11. I never mentioned apple once ??!!
Simon Gornall
>
> > I just don't like it as much because
> > you're locked into doing it how Microsoft want you to do it...
> >
> > Simon.
>
> One of the most biased, and nonsense views I have ever heard.
> We had a whole debate on this one in some other newsgroup.
I have just re-read my post, and it seems quite factual to me, in fact
it finishes with:
but Linux is a
very stable and useful office system, if it is set up correctly. The
same thing applies to Windows, I just don't like it as much because
you're locked into doing it how Microsoft want you to do it...
How is "the same thing applies to Windows" biased ? Maybe you don't
listen to others very often if that is one of the most biased things
you have ever heard!
The phrase after is purely a personal opinion. It starts off with
"I ...". You need to be able to make sense of grammar before jumping
for your gun, or you'll shoot yourself in the foot. (Yuk! horrible
mixed metaphor, but it illustrates the point).
> Tell me what car do you have? Ford? Chevy?
> It's up to the car vendor what to put in the car and you cannot take
> it apart and put it back as a motorcycle unless (which is very
> unlikely) you are one of the master pro mechanics (even they'd have
> quite a hard time doing that).
I use a car to drive in. That's it. I could use a computer to code on,
to keep on the net, to talk to people across the world, to watch DVDs
on, to play music, to work on, to manage my finances, to create
artwork, to create music, to ... the list goes on. I actually *do* use
my computer for a fair number of those...
In other words, the car analogy falls somewhat short.
> So there, if you don't like MS then don't like any other
> Car/Electronic vendors out there and don't use them...
Oh yes. I dislike brand M, therefore I dislike the rest of the alphabet
too. I'm sure there's logic in there somewhere, but I have to say it
escapes me... especially when I'm espousing the benefits of brand L.
> hey why aren't
> you pissed that the processor is in the PC and not the monitor (as you
> might like it to be, and thus why are you even using a computer..
> hehe)...
This makes no sense to me. Why would I want my CPU in my monitor ?
Perhaps you should read up on monitors, they don't require CPU's.
Simon.
Barry OGrady
>Barry OGrady <billy...@dingoblue.net.au> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 24 Aug 2001 16:38:05 GMT, h...@burgiss.net (Hal Burgiss) wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 25 Aug 2001 00:58:35 +1000, Barry OGrady <billy...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote:
>> >>On Wed, 22 Aug 2001 22:11:18 GMT, kitlemmonds@*GetRidOfThis*hotmail.com (Kit Lemmonds) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>This is the story of one writer's attempted migration to Linux, and
>> >>>subsequent backslide into Microsoft purgatory, but I hope it
>> >>>reveals some general issues new users face with this operating system.
>> >>
>> >>Your experience is typical. The X windows GUI in linux is feeble compared
>> >>to MS Windows. Serious users of linux don't use a GUI.
>> >
>> >This is utter crap too. Let's see MS-windows do my six virtual
>> >desktops, and currently 54 windows opened :/ And still usable. And then
>> >export windows to other machines. Or support for multiple displays. Or
>> >use fonts exported from another server on a LAN, etc, etc. X11 is 10
>> >times more powerful than MS-Win. Just not as cute, or dumbed down.
>>
>> X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
>> because it is not as refined.
>
>I do not think so. Although MS Windows was created before X, I do not
>believe that MIT's project Athena (X) was as you say an attempt to
>emulate MS Windows at all. Look it up.
Linux is basically a text mode OS. X windows was added because people
were used to a GUI with Apple and MS Windows.
>It does not "look cheap". The way it looks is only a small part of
>X. If you want your GUI to look like Windows, by all means do so.
>At least one of the common window managers that I have used has a "windows"
>theme that may be used if that is your preference.
True, but it still looks like a cheap copy.
>It is not my preference. Go check out the UI options available when
>using X. Then re-evaluate what looks cheap and what does not. My
>window manager of choice is BlackBox. It is simple, fast, and does
>what I want.
The legendary stability of linux does not apply with X windows.
Serious users of linux use console mode.
>-MM
-Barry
========
Web page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~barryog
Atheist, radio scanner, LIPD information.
Voicemail/fax number +14136227640
Hal Burgiss
>>>
>>> X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks cheap
>>> because it is not as refined.
>>
>>I do not think so. Although MS Windows was created before X, I do not
>>believe that MIT's project Athena (X) was as you say an attempt to
>>emulate MS Windows at all. Look it up.
>
>Linux is basically a text mode OS. X windows was added because people
>were used to a GUI with Apple and MS Windows.
You keep trying to introduce you own personal version of reality, but it
is fubar. X11 predates MSWin. This is a verifiable fact. Please let this
reality percolate for a few minutes.
The main significant difference is that the Apple/MS GUIs were
specifically designed so even a moron could use a computer, and thus
bring the computer to a mass market while increasing revenue for
Apple/MS. Not to imply that this is *only* for morons, but that it is a
least common denominator approach to computing.
Lee Sau Dan
Dichotimus> And you aren't coming anywhere close to trying to keep
Dichotimus> the message hidden. You made the message with the
Dichotimus> express intent that someone would ROT13 it, so again,
................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Dichotimus> no, it is definatelt *NOT* a DMCA violation.
That sounds absurd to me. Did the DVD manufacture not encrypt the
video contents with an intent that somebody (actually many people)
would DeCSS it? I take that as an *express* intent, as that is the
only known way to view the video contents.
Dichotimus> Since you can't possibly patent the Ceaser cypher, you
Dichotimus> can't possibly claim I 'cracked you code.'
With the ignorance of the present patent office, I won't be surprised
when somebody successful got a patent for a tiny variation of the
Caesar (not Ceaser... oops... did you encrypt it?), such as ROT15.
--
Lee Sau Dan 李守敦(Big5) ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| e-mail: sd...@eti.hku.hk http://www.csis.hku.hk/~sdlee |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Lee Sau Dan
>> X was created in an attempt to emulate MS Windows. It looks
>> cheap because it is not as refined.
Mark> I do not think so. Although MS Windows was created before
Mark> X,
You're wrong. X was created before Windows. That you were exposed to
X after windows doesn't imply anything about their birth dates.
Mark> I do not believe that MIT's project Athena (X) was as you
Mark> say an attempt to emulate MS Windows at all. Look it up.
I believe project Athena predates MS Windows.
Lee Sau Dan
Dowe> As for writing I use GNU/EMACS and LaTeX for formatting, and
Dowe> would recomend this combination.
For non-techies, I think AucTeX, a very comprehensive Emacs package
for working with LaTeX, worths trying.
Hartmann Schaffer
"Dichotimus Grok" <jdi...@mediaone.net> writes:
> My question was rhetorical, and you are quite wrong.
>
> One can't 'break' the ROT13 cypher. It's also known as 'Ceaser' encryption
> because old Julius himself used to use it.
as i havesaid before, i am not a lawyer (and it appears that you arn't
either), but i got the impression that any whatever feeble attempt to
protect copyrighted contents by scambling it makes unauthorized
attempts to descramble it a violation of the dmca. and you can't
break a rot13 cipher? whatever use would it be then. have you tried
"rot13"? and what does the fact that cAEsar used it already to do
with rot13 being a cipher?
> And you aren't coming anywhere close to trying to keep the message hidden.
> You made the message with the express intent that someone would ROT13 it, so
> again, no, it is definatelt *NOT* a DMCA violation.
any dvd manufacturer produces his dvds with the express intent that
many people watch the contents. however, they want only authorised
viewers to have access to it (presumably the authorization being the
result of some payment). you might have a case, though. i probably
should have added something like "send $x to me for instructions how
to decipher the sig".
> Since you can't possibly patent the Ceaser cypher, you can't possibly claim
i promise i won't try, but given the way th patent office operates,
are you sure i can't patent it?
> I 'cracked you code.' Now your starting to see the pattern ... for this
i didn't say you cracked the code, but you used a decryption device to
access copyrighted contents. whether that is patented or not is
irrelevant. maybe somebody should inform some da that he can start a
trial against julius caesar for coming up with a copyright protection
circomvention device (which ironically is the same device used to add
the protection). any suggestion about a suitable penalty? like
eradication from all history books?
> reason as well I did not violate the DMCA. Which is really too bad. I was
you might have a case since i didn't state what would be required for
permission to access the message, but you did decipher a copyrighted
message
> kind of hoping I'd be on a few news show.
disappointed? the whole thing is probabl intellectually too demanding
to make it to news shows :-(
hs
Dichotimus Grok
news:m3d75a9...@lee.eti.hku.hk...
> >>>>> "Dichotimus" == Dichotimus Grok <jdi...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> Dichotimus> And you aren't coming anywhere close to trying to keep
> Dichotimus> the message hidden. You made the message with the
> Dichotimus> express intent that someone would ROT13 it, so again,
> ................^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Dichotimus> no, it is definatelt *NOT* a DMCA violation.
>
> That sounds absurd to me. Did the DVD manufacture not encrypt the
> video contents with an intent that somebody (actually many people)
> would DeCSS it? I take that as an *express* intent, as that is the
> only known way to view the video contents.
>
That's absolutely correct... DVD manufacturers *never* intend for you to
decrypt it. What they do intend is for licensed system to decrypt it.
Whenever you buy a DVD player or M$ Windows, a portion of what you are
paying.for is the licensed right to decrypt the DVDs.
If you don't believe me grab a copy of the encrypted CD and proceed to
manually decode it in front of knowledgable authorities. See if they don't
arrest you for violating the DMCA. You always did want meet Dmitry
Skylarov, right? Maybe you'll be cellmates!