The Only Way Linux Can Win a Poll
Drestin Black
(http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11997&PCID=11846 but don't look
yet).
it's been there a while. the "winner" changes now and again. But, the votes
have been coming in at a steady pace and, well, actually... BSD was on top
for quite some time with NT just a little behind. We're talking about a few
hundred votes between them and the top vote has some 3000 total.
The OS's are rated on: A - Reliability C - Administration B - Scalability
D - Cost / Benefit. It's not very scientific but you give it the oS a rating
in each of those four categories and it's totaled up. NO biggie.
Well... some /. punk notices... after quite some time, linux is dead last. I
mean, bottom. Well, this just can't be. NT in 2nd and Linux dead last?
Behind OS/2, MacOS, hell, even netware and rhapsody get way more votes and
much much higher ranks!
So, off to /. he whines where the sysops, knowing the power of the "slashdot
effect" make a harmless mention on the front page. "Gee guys, Linux is
losing a poll. Um, just wanted to mention it, that's all, no hints or
suggestions <wink wink>"
And then you get a post like
(http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/12/31/234221&cid=18)
[How to spoof the poll (Score:4, Informative)
by Wizard of OS (jver...@freemail.nl) on Saturday January 01, @07:54AM EST
(#18)
Okay, take a *nix box and type:
lynx -accept_all_cookies -source
"http://www.deja.com/rate/user_rate.xp?CR1=5&CR2=5&CR3=5&CR4=5&CID=11997&P
DID=5281"
You only have to put this in a while (1==1) loop (and remove the
~/.lynxcookies file) and withing 10 minutes linux wil be on 4.9, 4.9,4.9,
4.9 with 100.000 votes :-))
Wizard of OS, at your service. ]
And guess what... a very interesting thing happens:
NT is now ranked at the very bottom. Absolutely the bottom. And Linux is at
the very top, aces across the line. What's really interesting. Amazing cause
now you'll notice unlike the 200 here or 300 there votes for other OS's.
Linux has 13,000 votes (up from under 300) and NT has 12,000 votes (up from
2000).
And all this happened within 6 hours of it being posted on /.
Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is being
COMPLETELY ignored by CIOs in every significant company in the world. I
mean, I can't find a CIO anywhere that will admit to considering Linux. I've
not had a single RFQ for linux in a year. I've never had to bid against
Linux cause not even my competitors would dare put it on the table. CIOs
consider it a "hackers toy" and I think it's the mentality of places like /.
that convince them of that. Oh, don't go thinking CIOs don't read newsgroups
and places like /. - they sure do. Lurking... learning. And know what they
learned today? Linux wins when it's zealots spam polls - not when it's put
in the harsh light of heavy benchmarking and real world testing. Zillion day
uptimes? Who cares when it's Joe's internet gateway with a ISDN line for
bandwidth. Never been cracked? Who cares when no one would a) find the site
cause it doesn't have a static IP, b) there is nothing of any value inside
(i.e., anything on a linux box can be downloaded for free anyway) and c)
sites where the money is are on Solaris or NT.
Bill Altenberger
<dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote:
> Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is being
> COMPLETELY ignored by CIOs in every significant company in the world. I
> mean, I can't find a CIO anywhere that will admit to considering Linux. I've
> not had a single RFQ for linux in a year. I've never had to bid against
> Linux cause not even my competitors would dare put it on the table. CIOs
> consider it a "hackers toy" and I think it's the mentality of places like /.
> that convince them of that. Oh, don't go thinking CIOs don't read newsgroups
> and places like /. - they sure do. Lurking... learning. And know what they
> learned today? Linux wins when it's zealots spam polls - not when it's put
> in the harsh light of heavy benchmarking and real world testing. Zillion day
> uptimes? Who cares when it's Joe's internet gateway with a ISDN line for
> bandwidth. Never been cracked? Who cares when no one would a) find the site
> cause it doesn't have a static IP, b) there is nothing of any value inside
> (i.e., anything on a linux box can be downloaded for free anyway) and c)
> sites where the money is are on Solaris or NT.
Linux wont be a viable option until the community comes out with live
updates that user don't have to fret over. I deployed a couple of Linux
units and both got hacked into within weeks..It is cool stuff, but I would
consider it a work in progress product..
Bill
>
>
>
mcs...@ginmill.bar
boxes all the time. OS/2 even won product of the year from one of the
major rags.
The basic reason is that geeks care about operating systems and in
general the public does not. It's about comparability, look and feel
and applications base.
Normal everyday people USE Windows or Mac to run applications. They
have a completely different outlook on things compared to Linux users.
Most probably don't even know, or care what an operating system is.
They buy a pre-load and cram it with every program known to mankind
and they simply work. They install easily, look good and have decent
support, meaning chances are your friends are running the same
programs.
Linux GUI looks like crap. Netscape is dying quickly (I just
downloaded 4.07 and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
Mozilla is vapor, to the general public, and most likely will be more
of the same garbage.
IE 5.x is state of the art and despite all the security problems,
still remains the leader by far. It ain't even close boys.
Where is Opera BTW? Still singing the blues I suspect. I love the way
they charge for a second rate browser and expect that people will pay
for it.
A joke at best.
Aside from cost, especially in the area of server or programmer tools,
there is absolutely no compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to convert to
Linux.
None at all.
Unless he/she hates Gates or something.
Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly, less geeky
and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
a BSEE to operate.
Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
mcswain
Stephen S. Edwards II
Drestin Black <dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:s6tss0...@news.supernews.com...
[Slashdot poll faking incident snipped]
> Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is being
> COMPLETELY ignored by CIOs in every significant company in the world. I
Well what do you expect when you have a product being
endorsed by a bunch of adolescent punks in combat boots,
and anti-government T-shirts? Too many of the younger
members of Linux's user base are making a voice for
themselves, and they are making the others look totally
foolish in the process.
It's not just the behavior that turns serious people away
from Linux. It's the way Linux is handled. There are some
commercial entities who are deploying Linux, but why is that?
Well, some of them do have a sincere use for it, because Linux
does interoperate well with existing UNIX networks, but in most
cases, it's because, their purchasers hear all of the hyping
and they sincerely believe that Linux and OpenSource software
is on the cutting edge of technology, which it is not... in
fact, it is far from it. Its development is totally messy and
disorganized, and despite what OSI proponents will tell you,
this is NOT a good thing. In fact, it is the very thing that
will end up killing Linux off, IMHO.
I remember a time when being a hacker meant that you wore
frumpy clothes, because you didn't care how you looked, since
you were too busy caring about how much fun you were having
with your systems at work and/or at home.
Nowadays, it seems that the term "hacker" invokes a "style",
where youngsters don laughable looking retro-80's punk-rock
anti-government gear, in an effort to look like "information
warriors" or some other ridiculous nonsense. I mean, people
are literally dressing the part, without knowing anything in
depth about computers or computing in general... this is
completely pathetic, IMHO. It's also what a lot of Linux
using "hacker wannabes" are doing, and they're only serving
to discredit the parts of Linux that might actually do some
people some good. In other words, Linux is only serving
to be a part of their "apparel".
"But Stephen, you don't actually expect us to believe that
what a user-base _says_ has anything to do with a product's
failure or success do you?", some of you might ask.
Well, have a look at what happened to the Amiga. Sure, its
main downfall was a lack of marketing, but ask anyone who
was at Commodore at the time, and they'll tell you what
they told me and my friends at an expo many years ago...
"The user zeal is not helping us at all, that's for sure."
I don't particularly care for Linux in the first place, but
the reason I simply cannot take it seriously anymore, is
because I have yet to meet any of its proponents that I can
take seriously.
The people who should be speaking, aren't. Most of the people
that I have spoken to in the recent past about Linux were
either suits buying into the hype, or just zealous wankers
who wanted a reason to justify their bitching and moaning
about Microsoft. This is why Linux is beginning to flail
about, from what I can tell. If Linux development was more
organized, and more professional, then we would start to see
it used more in critical commercial environments, and it
would be a far better product than it is now.
Yes, I know that corporations like Corel, and Amiga Inc.,
and RedHat, and SGI are pushing Linux, and are speaking
very positively about it, but none of that means anything
unless the market begins to accept Linux... very little of
the market has done just that.
Apple has the insight to state on their site that the
Macintosh isn't for everybody. Microsoft will immediately
address a problem with WindowsNT on their site once it is
brought to their attention. This is the sort of behavior
that is professional, and this is the reason why Microsoft
has been doing well for so long, and why Apple is beginning
to do quite well themselves.
So, why aren't any of Linux's shortcomings ever highlighted?
Why aren't Linux's faults publicly addressed for everyone to
see? I simply cannot and will not trust a product that exists
in such a community.
Consumers are sick of being bullshitted. They want to be
able to trust the companies they support. They cannot
respect companies who continue to hype a product, without
any tangible or noticeable results to show for it, and
neither can I.
> mean, I can't find a CIO anywhere that will admit to considering Linux. I've
> not had a single RFQ for linux in a year. I've never had to bid against
> Linux cause not even my competitors would dare put it on the table. CIOs
> consider it a "hackers toy" and I think it's the mentality of places like /.
> that convince them of that. Oh, don't go thinking CIOs don't read newsgroups
Absolutely. If I had ever consciously referenced a
customer to a place like Slashdot.org for information,
I would be incredibly embarrassed.
> and places like /. - they sure do. Lurking... learning. And know what they
> learned today? Linux wins when it's zealots spam polls - not when it's put
> in the harsh light of heavy benchmarking and real world testing. Zillion day
*sigh* I recall when I first stated on COLA that benchmarks
were rubbish (and I still think they are, when used in the
manner that most companies use them). Until PCWeek had
confirmed Mindcraft's findings, I was harshly criticized for
saying so, and I was accused of saying so only because Linux
had beat out WindowsNT in so many of the benchmarks hosted by
little nothing/nobody companies. After the PCWeek testing,
many UNIX and Linux proponents agreed without hesitation that
benchmarks are rubbish.
> uptimes? Who cares when it's Joe's internet gateway with a ISDN line for
> bandwidth. Never been cracked? Who cares when no one would a) find the site
> cause it doesn't have a static IP, b) there is nothing of any value inside
> (i.e., anything on a linux box can be downloaded for free anyway) and c)
> sites where the money is are on Solaris or NT.
Absolutely. There are a lot of small sites that are
hosted with Linux, merely because it's a cheaper route,
but you won't find any Fortune 500 companies using Linux
for anything other than print servers, or telnet hosts.
And when you consider Linux's method of development, and
the availability of credible Linux proponents, how can
they afford to risk deploying Linux in anything critical?
What's really sad, is that Linux is not, and never really
was advocated as "Linux". It's mostly advocated as "not
Microsoft".
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
Stephen S. Edwards II
> How true. As a former Team OS/2 member, we used to stuff the ballot
> boxes all the time. OS/2 even won product of the year from one of the
> major rags.
In light of this, I must ask you, what ever happened to
Team OS/2? Teamos2.org is still up, and there is no apparent
link rot (a sign of a dead site), but there doesn't seem to
be anything new on the site.
Have they disbanded, and abandoned the site, or is there still
a few dedicated people in a quiet core group of some sort?
What's also odd, is this bit of text at the bottom of the page:
---
Last modified: [an error occurred while processing this directive].
---
> The basic reason is that geeks care about operating systems and in
> general the public does not. It's about comparability, look and feel
> and applications base.
>
> Normal everyday people USE Windows or Mac to run applications. They
> have a completely different outlook on things compared to Linux users.
Just the other day, we had some clown (he claimed to be
a lawyer) claiming that Microsoft was ripping people off
because they were charging people for IE, since it came
on the CD they were paying for. Logic and reason were
absolutely no use in conversing with him. :-\
I agree with you wholeheartedly here. For many people,
using Linux is a part of an agenda, and not necessarily
a part of their computing needs.
> Most probably don't even know, or care what an operating system is.
> They buy a pre-load and cram it with every program known to mankind
> and they simply work. They install easily, look good and have decent
> support, meaning chances are your friends are running the same
> programs.
Agreed. Nobody wants to be the only person on the block
who still reads man pages for help.
> Linux GUI looks like crap. Netscape is dying quickly (I just
> downloaded 4.07 and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
> Mozilla is vapor, to the general public, and most likely will be more
> of the same garbage.
I've never had a problem free session with Netscape... ever.
> Aside from cost, especially in the area of server or programmer tools,
> there is absolutely no compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to convert to
> Linux.
> None at all.
> Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
> continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly, less geeky
> and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
> a BSEE to operate.
ROTFLMAO!@# :-D
> Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
Well said. It couldn't have been said better by anyone else.
Brian Homan
On 1/2/00, 1:41:58 AM, "Drestin Black"
<dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote
The Only Way Linux Can Win a Poll:
> So... there is this poll on deja.com about operating systems.
> (http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11997&PCID=11846
> but don't look yet).
<snip>
Troll Score: 0.8
Brian
Joseph
"Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> Drestin Black <dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote in message
> news:s6tss0...@news.supernews.com...
>
> [Slashdot poll faking incident snipped]
>
> > Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is being
> > COMPLETELY ignored by CIOs in every significant company in the world. I
>
> Well what do you expect when you have a product being
> endorsed by a bunch of adolescent punks in combat boots,
> and anti-government T-shirts? Too many of the younger
> members of Linux's user base are making a voice for
> themselves, and they are making the others look totally
> foolish in the process.
Hey, that strategy worked well for Windows.
[..]
> What's really sad, is that Linux is not, and never really
> was advocated as "Linux". It's mostly advocated as "not
> Microsoft".
And MS wasn't IBM.
1) CIOs are not ignoring LINUX but they may choose to not deploy it.
2) NOT relying on a sole source vendor isn't saddening.
Try http://www.freebsd.org It's even LINUX compatible.
Donovan Rebbechi
>Well what do you expect when you have a product being
>endorsed by a bunch of adolescent punks in combat boots,
>and anti-government T-shirts?
Huh ? Most of the linux users I know are CS students and
math professors. And no, they don't fit the above description.
>Well, some of them do have a sincere use for it, because Linux
>does interoperate well with existing UNIX networks, but in most
.... and because it's a zillion times easier to set up than many
other UNIX variants.
>fact, it is far from it. Its development is totally messy and
>disorganized,
There you go with your "creationist" theory again.
Honestly, I just don't buy your opinion that evolutionary
development is a bad thing. Why do you think that linux
has better hardware support than the BSDs ? What platform
are projects like KDE and GNOME taking place on ?
> and despite what OSI proponents will tell you,
>this is NOT a good thing. In fact, it is the very thing that
>will end up killing Linux off, IMHO.
You're entitled to your opinion. You know, there are always
people saying that "linux is dying/dead" and "UNIX is dying/dead",
and their predictions are shown to have as much substance as
a tabloids prediction of "the coming alien invasion".
There is no evidence that linux is dying. And there is a lot of
evidence that linux has the ability to evolve to meet the demands
of the market. Surely, this is the kind of quality that differentiates
the survivors and the dodos.
>about Microsoft. This is why Linux is beginning to flail
>about, from what I can tell.
And how is it "flailing about" ?
>and RedHat, and SGI are pushing Linux, and are speaking
>very positively about it, but none of that means anything
>unless the market begins to accept Linux... very little of
>the market has done just that.
It appears from IDC's research that the market are dipping their
toes in the water, and not making a huge committment at this
stage. They will accept or reject it based on the outcome of
their experimentation.
>So, why aren't any of Linux's shortcomings ever highlighted?
>Why aren't Linux's faults publicly addressed for everyone to
>see? I simply cannot and will not trust a product that exists
>in such a community.
I am not clear about what you are talking about. I have broadcast
linux's shortcomings on this high traffic public forum to the
point that I get accused of being a "windows zealot."
>Absolutely. There are a lot of small sites that are
>hosted with Linux, merely because it's a cheaper route,
>but you won't find any Fortune 500 companies using Linux
>for anything other than print servers, or telnet hosts.
Yes, because linux lacks the features of more "heavy duty"
UNIX flavours, such as Solaris. Why should someone deploy
linux instead of Solaris if they want a huge server ?
Sun have spent years developing the technology that this
kind of application demands, and they've had the resources
to make their OS work with the big iron. Ditto for IBM.
These OSs were incredibly powerful when linux was in its
infancy.
>And when you consider Linux's method of development, and
Linux is as scalable ( in some cases much more so )
as all of the BSDs. So I find it hard to fault the development
model. OpenBSD is less scalable, but they have a very "professional"
development model.
The problem is that until recently, linux hasn't had the kind
of money behind it that you need to port an OS to heavy duty
equipment. And until recently, there hasn't been a push to
make linux more scalable.
>What's really sad, is that Linux is not, and never really
>was advocated as "Linux". It's mostly advocated as "not
>Microsoft".
I usually advocate it to other mathematicians as a superior
environment for writing their papers. This has nothing to
do with Microsoft.
--
Donovan
Donovan Rebbechi
>They buy a pre-load and cram it with every program known to mankind
>and they simply work.
This kind of user is exactly the target market for Win9x. I'd agree
that linux isn't very suitable for these people.
>Linux GUI looks like crap.
KDE looks pretty good to me.
> Netscape is dying quickly (I just
MSIE also appears stagnant. As does HTML for that matter.
>downloaded 4.07
THe newest version is not 4.07
> and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
Yes, NS is a POS. No argument there.
>Mozilla is vapor, to the general public, and most likely will be more
>of the same garbage.
It's hard to tell. I think it will be better when it's released, but
when is anyone's guess.
>IE 5.x is state of the art
Actually, on Windows, I prefer Opera.
>Aside from cost, especially in the area of server or programmer tools,
>there is absolutely no compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to convert to
>Linux.
I also use it for writing documents ( LaTeX ). It's also a good platform
for a web developer. Users who are happy with what they're currently
using are usually best to stick with it.
>Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
Whatever.
>continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly,
It's becoming more user friendly and drawing more users as a result.
> less geeky
>and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
>a BSEE to operate.
A lot of users are interested in what linux currently offers. Personally,
I don't care if it can't be all things to all people.
>Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
I'm a home user, and I'm interested. Maybe you're putting it a little
too strongly. But I'd agree that linux probably isn't ready for the
average home user.
--
Donovan
Donovan Rebbechi
>Linux wont be a viable option until the community comes out with live
>updates that user don't have to fret over.
> I deployed a couple of Linux
>units and both got hacked into within weeks..It is cool stuff, but I would
>consider it a work in progress product..
I deployed linux units and they didn't get hacked at all. Did you
use the default security settings ? ( the default is usually very insecure )
--
Donovan
Michael DuFresne
>
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:28:22 -0700, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
<snip>
> .... and because it's a zillion times easier to set up than many
> other UNIX variants.
Not really. Solaris has a much cleaner install than Linux. I could also
argue that FreeBSD is at least as simple.
--
Mike/TeamNOC
We defeated the enemy with teamwork, and the hammer of not bickering.
The Shoveller
David Goldstein
> Consumers are sick of being bullshitted. They want to be
> able to trust the companies they support. They cannot
> respect companies who continue to hype a product, without
> any tangible or noticeable results to show for it, and
> neither can I.
Then how do you account for the success of MS? Their product is not worth the
money that they charge for it. Win9x is an unstable piece of crap and WinNT out
of the box is not a multimedia gaming station. If it were not for bundling and
the low cost of hardware, MS would not have a tenth of what they have now.
The Amiga was a much superior computer to the IBM PC. What killed it was a
shitty marketing strategy (namely, none at all--great going Commodore). It had a
GUI before MS, the graphics were outstanding and it did not have that 640K problem
inherent to the IBM PC's.
If Apple had allowed people to clone their computers and concentrated on the OS
they would have maintained their domination of the market that they had built up.
It is not so long ago that Apple had put computers in every school and kids were
going home and asking their parent's to buy them an Apple IIG.
Nope, apparently the consumer is not yet tired of being bull-shitted. They have
stuck with an inferior product for a very long time and will continue to do so, as
long as MS is allowed to push their crap on the market and maintain their position
by using bully tactics. The DOJ has declared MS to be a monopoly and many people
agree (even MS drones). Wait and see what happens to MS when the curtain falls.
> Absolutely. There are a lot of small sites that are
> hosted with Linux, merely because it's a cheaper route,
> but you won't find any Fortune 500 companies using Linux
> for anything other than print servers, or telnet hosts.
Nope. These companies feel that it is too expensive to back out of their
expensive MS solutions. They have not really done the research. I currently work
for the Deutsche Bahn (German Railway System). They spend 8,400DM ($4,300US) for a
per workstation maintenance license per year. There are 80,000 of these.
Included in this price is the ability to run MS Office from a server and Lotus
Notes. If you do not think that the same work can be accomplished for a lot less
money running a Linux based system you are simply nuts.
As far as file and print servers go, Linux does the job much better than WinNT,
by the way. It is easier to set up a file server with permissions under Linux and
can be done with much less hardware than is required for a Win solution. Linux,
as MS pointed out on their own website, supports more than 40 different file
systems and runs on many more different hardware platforms than MS. A company
deciding to switch over to Linux does not have to worry about retooling, at all.
What do I do if I decide to run WinNT on my Mac, SGI, Amiga, Alpha, etc...?
Simple, buy new hardware and pay a lot of money to MS for the software. Wow, what
a deal...(yawn)! You Winlusers are getting worse and worse everyday. Come up with
a real argument for a change.
> And when you consider Linux's method of development, and
> the availability of credible Linux proponents, how can
> they afford to risk deploying Linux in anything critical?
Are you referring to OSS here? The Linux development model is far superior to
that of MS. There is a core development team and tens of thousands of other
developers around the world. Some say the cream of the crop is involved in the
devleopment of Linux. I have not heard too many people praise the MS developers
in the same way. Mostly, I hear people complaining because of the lack of
attention to detail in their OS, and other software that people expect to receive,
since they pay so much for the shitty software.
> What's really sad, is that Linux is not, and never really
> was advocated as "Linux". It's mostly advocated as "not
> Microsoft".
That is just bullshit. Linux is Linux. MS is that "other software." Linux
will be improving at a huge rate this year and by the real end of the millenium
will beat the crap out of MS hands down. Take a peak at the latest kernel code
and you'll see what I mean.
| Stephen S. Edwards II
David Goldstein
Robert Moir
Stephen S. Edwards II <tg...@cyclic.aux.net> wrote in message
news:84n4cc$sj$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
[snip]
> What's really sad, is that Linux is not, and never really
> was advocated as "Linux". It's mostly advocated as "not
> Microsoft".
I think this is the Linux "revolution" stopper. I use NT because I like it,
not because it "isn't Novell" or "isn't *nix" - Its one thing to use
products privately because you hate the competition and no other reason, but
shouting that from the roof tops does not help the Linux cause imho
rebel7...@my-deja.com
David Goldstein <sta...@regio-info.de> wrote:
>
I.
>
> Then how do you account for the success of MS? Their product is not worth the
> money that they charge for it. Win9x is an unstable piece of crap and >WinNT out
That's a tough question. One thing that made Microsoft's rise easier is that
customers are inexperienced with computers. Also, the open source movement
took time to develop. Linux will take a huge bite out of Microsoft's future
success. This is a good thing for consumers.
>
> Nope. These companies feel that it is too expensive to back out of their
> expensive MS solutions. They have not really done the research. I currently work
> for the Deutsche Bahn (German Railway System). They spend 8,400DM ($4,300US) for a
> per workstation maintenance license per year. There are 80,000 of these.
> Included in this price is the ability to run MS Office from a server and Lotus
> Notes. If you do not think that the same work can be accomplished for a lot less
> money running a Linux based system you are simply nuts.
You are right. Microsoft tends to grab your data and your mind.(not to
mention your money) I think companies could make money by converting
companies to Linux. If they could show a good cost savings companies would
consider it. Greed is a fundamental motive for companies. It makes no sense
to keep paying for the same old stuff. Anyone who has followed the MS upgrade
path quickily realizes it is a waste of money. Linux for many companies makes
alot of sense, even more than home users. I'm already a big fan of Linux and
value of open source applications. I have already saved a thousand dollars by
tossing software upgrade offers in the trash.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Steve Nospam
>So... there is this poll on deja.com about operating systems.
>(http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11997&PCID=11846 but don't look
>yet).
>
>Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is being
>COMPLETELY ignored by CIOs in every significant company in the world. I
>mean, I can't find a CIO anywhere that will admit to considering Linux. I've
>not had a single RFQ for linux in a year. I've never had to bid against
>Linux cause not even my competitors would dare put it on the table. CIOs
>consider it a "hackers toy" and I think it's the mentality of places like /.
>that convince them of that. Oh, don't go thinking CIOs don't read newsgroups
>and places like /. - they sure do. Lurking... learning. And know what they
>learned today? Linux wins when it's zealots spam polls - not when it's put
>in the harsh light of heavy benchmarking and real world testing. Zillion day
>uptimes? Who cares when it's Joe's internet gateway with a ISDN line for
>bandwidth. Never been cracked? Who cares when no one would a) find the site
>cause it doesn't have a static IP, b) there is nothing of any value inside
>(i.e., anything on a linux box can be downloaded for free anyway) and c)
>sites where the money is are on Solaris or NT.
I don't buy into the last paragraph, but this is a good example of why
self-selecting internet polls are *not* statistically valid. Remember
this example when you are tempted to take any other internet poll
seriously.
-Steve
*The only thing certain about the future is that it hasn't happened yet.*
Rick
> How true. As a former Team OS/2 member, we used to stuff the ballot
> boxes all the time. OS/2 even won product of the year from one of the
> major rags.
>
> The basic reason is that geeks care about operating systems and in
> general the public does not. It's about comparability, look and feel
> and applications base.
>
Your point?
> Normal everyday people USE Windows or Mac to run applications. They
> have a completely different outlook on things compared to Linux users.
> Most probably don't even know, or care what an operating system is.
> They buy a pre-load and cram it with every program known to mankind
> and they simply work. They install easily, look good and have decent
> support, meaning chances are your friends are running the same
> programs.
>
Mandrake Linux and Corel Linux install very easily.
> Linux GUI looks like crap.
It does? THE Linux GUI. Which one. fvwm, Enlightenment, Blackbox, KDE...
with or without themes?
> Netscape is dying quickly (I just
> downloaded 4.07 and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
> Mozilla is vapor, to the general public, and most likely will be more
> of the same garbage.
4.0.7??? 4.6.1 is shipping will all of the Linux distros I know of, and
4.7 is out. Mozilla is in beta. Public beta. People use it every day.
>
>
> IE 5.x is state of the art and despite all the security problems,
> still remains the leader by far. It ain't even close boys.
>
State of the art ???? Bwahahahhaaa....
> Where is Opera BTW? Still singing the blues I suspect. I love the way
> they charge for a second rate browser and expect that people will pay
> for it.
>
> A joke at best.
>
2nd rate?
>
>
> Aside from cost, especially in the area of server or programmer tools,
> there is absolutely no compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to convert to
> Linux.
> None at all.
>
Probably true, for the moment.
> Unless he/she hates Gates or something.
>
... and why isnt that a good enought reason?
> Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
> continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly, less geeky
> and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
> a BSEE to operate.
>
Linux has a little higher marketshare than that. Ask Gates. He has said
so himself.
> Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
>
... true... for the moment.
Rick
> <mcs...@ginmill.bar> wrote in message news:387109f9...@news3.ibm.net...
>
... snip...
>
> I agree with you wholeheartedly here. For many people,
> using Linux is a part of an agenda, and not necessarily
> a part of their computing needs.
>
... and what is the problem with that. Many people wont buy certain
brands of products to protest certain issues. Same thing. Besides, its
not as if the market place ever really had a choice of OS's, now is it?
> > Most probably don't even know, or care what an operating system is.
> > They buy a pre-load and cram it with every program known to mankind
> > and they simply work. They install easily, look good and have decent
> > support, meaning chances are your friends are running the same
> > programs.
>
> Agreed. Nobody wants to be the only person on the block
> who still reads man pages for help.
>
Yeah, tons of online documentation sucks. Tell that to all the vendors
that have replace their paper manuals.
> > Linux GUI looks like crap. Netscape is dying quickly (I just
> > downloaded 4.07 and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
> > Mozilla is vapor, to the general public, and most likely will be more
> > of the same garbage.
>
> I've never had a problem free session with Netscape... ever.
>
Then you must have some configuration problems. I rarely have any
problems with Netscape under Linux.
> > Aside from cost, especially in the area of server or programmer tools,
> > there is absolutely no compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to convert to
> > Linux.
> > None at all.
>
> > Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
> > continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly, less geeky
> > and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
> > a BSEE to operate.
>
> ROTFLMAO!@# :-D
>
When was the last time you installed Mandrake or Corel Linux, laughing
boy?
> > Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
>
Rick
> Stephen S. Edwards II <tg...@cyclic.aux.net> wrote in message
> news:84n4cc$sj$1...@nnrp03.primenet.com...
> [snip]
> > What's really sad, is that Linux is not, and never really
> > was advocated as "Linux". It's mostly advocated as "not
> > Microsoft".
>
> I think this is the Linux "revolution" stopper. I use NT because I like it,
> not because it "isn't Novell" or "isn't *nix" - Its one thing to use
> products privately because you hate the competition and no other reason, but
> shouting that from the roof tops does not help the Linux cause imho
Gee, you mean most people dont use Linux becasue its "free" (Open
Software licensing), "free" (much of it doesnt cost anythng), buzz-word
compliant and cross-platform? Or that bugs are quickly reported and
fixed? I didnt know that.
Drestin Black
"Brian Homan" <bho...@jud11.flcourts.org> wrote in message
news:20000102...@solo.bellsouth.net...
On 1/2/00, 1:41:58 AM, "Drestin Black"
<dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote
The Only Way Linux Can Win a Poll:
> So... there is this poll on deja.com about operating systems.
> (http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11997&PCID=11846
> but don't look yet).
><snip>
>Troll Score: 0.8
Oh really? Can you deny what I've written as true?
Drestin Black
"Donovan Rebbechi" <elf...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrn86ue2e....@panix2.panix.com...
known weakness is introduced" mode?
Lance Togar
news:386F3BBE...@raytheon.com...
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 02:28:22 -0700, Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > .... and because it's a zillion times easier to set up than many
> > other UNIX variants.
>
> Not really. Solaris has a much cleaner install than Linux. I could also
> argue that FreeBSD is at least as simple.
Could be really since you didn't mention *which* Linux distribution you're
referring too. I'm assuming that you're installing more than the kernel for
any of these OSs.
..
..
Otto
the inside info.... :).
Otto
"Drestin Black" <dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote in message
news:s6tss0...@news.supernews.com...
Lance Togar
>
> "Brian Homan" <bho...@jud11.flcourts.org> wrote in message
> news:20000102...@solo.bellsouth.net...
>
> On 1/2/00, 1:41:58 AM, "Drestin Black"
> <dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote
> The Only Way Linux Can Win a Poll:
>
> > (http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11997&PCID=11846
> > but don't look yet).
>
>
> >Troll Score: 0.8
>
>
>
> Oh really? Can you deny what I've written as true?
Tip: Anytime you see a *server* OS survey that classes the Mac OS alongside
HU-UX, BSD & Linux, it's time to move on. If you seriously spread this stuff
around, the joke's on you.
..
..
Otto
"Rick" <nospam...@aug.com> wrote in message
news:2000010209...@cvx0-151.aug.com...
>
.
.
> > Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
> > continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly, less geeky
> > and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
> > a BSEE to operate.
> >
>
> so himself.
Isn't anything what comes from Microsoft deemed as FUD :)? However, you're
correct. According to the latest statistics (source: InfoWorld) it is 0.27%.
> > Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
> >
>
> ... true... for the moment.
If the moment is defined as couple of years, then it is correct.
Otto
John Jensen
: "Brian Homan" <bho...@jud11.flcourts.org> wrote in message
: news:20000102...@solo.bellsouth.net...
: On 1/2/00, 1:41:58 AM, "Drestin Black"
: <dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote
: The Only Way Linux Can Win a Poll:
: > So... there is this poll on deja.com about operating systems.
: > (http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11997&PCID=11846
: > but don't look yet).
: ><snip>
: >Troll Score: 0.8
: Oh really? Can you deny what I've written as true?
It might border on "true", but I don't think it can score "honest".
The slashdot article you referred to was a reference to the amusing fact
that someone had aparently rigged the test to score the somewhat obscure
GNU Hurd to win:
"A poll on Deja News of network operating system rates Linux dead last
in all catagories. Funny thing is it rates the same number (1.7) in
all the catagories (Scalability, Reliability, Administration and Cost).
Looks like somebody that doesn't like Linux sure likes to write perl
scripts!" That "somebody" also seems to like GNU Hurd a whole bunch; it
was the top-rated network OS. ;-)"
Hardly a call to a crusade, troll-boy.
John
_LuvLinux
> (http://www.deja.com/rate/list_items.xp?CID=11997&PCID=11846 but don't
look
> yet).
>
votes
> have been coming in at a steady pace and, well, actually... BSD was on
top
> for quite some time with NT just a little behind.
Not true at all. I use deja daily and the NT was ranked at the bottom
the entire time until a winvocate (or possibly a BSDer) decided to stuff
the ballot box. The top OS's listed were BSD, Linux and OS/2 before
this took place. Look at the comments section for Win NT and you will
see where the comments (ya know, the ones filled out by humans instead
of scripts stuffing the ballots) were overwhelmingly negative.
[snip]
> Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is
being
> COMPLETELY ignored by CIOs in every significant company in the world.
I guess you have never heard of Sanyo, that $17 billion dollar comapny
nor their 20,000 Linux desktop rollout..
> I
> mean, I can't find a CIO anywhere that will admit to considering
Linux. I've
> not had a single RFQ for linux in a year.
Not surprising considering the obvious bias you have displayed in the
past (and present). That would make you unsuitable to provide me with
the best computing solution for my needs, and I wouldn't hire you
either.
>I've never had to bid against
> Linux cause not even my competitors would dare put it on the table.
CIOs
> consider it a "hackers toy" and I think it's the mentality of places
like /.
> that convince them of that. Oh, don't go thinking CIOs don't read
newsgroups
> and places like /. - they sure do. Lurking... learning.
Hmm, I suppose some do. The ones I deal with though spend their time
dealing with suppliers and contracts and handling technology and
budgetary IT issues within their organization. When they do read, it is
usually industry research, not sites like slashdot.
>And know what they
> learned today? Linux wins when it's zealots spam polls - not when it's
put
> in the harsh light of heavy benchmarking and real world testing.
Actually, I think they learned not to give credit to anything you say,
as it is slanted, distorted, and basically untrue. You haven't damaged
the credibility of Linux today, you have continued to damage your own.
(IF you had any left, that is).
> Zillion day
> uptimes?
yep, Linux is stable. Much more stable than anything coming from
Redmond.
>Who cares when it's Joe's internet gateway with a ISDN line for
> bandwidth.
Those dedicated lines people have between sites don't matter I guess. I
don't know where you consult or work, but ISDN lines are not the norm,
cept in smaller shops. Dedicated lines are much more prominent in most
organizations of any appreciable size.
Never been cracked? Who cares when no one would a) find the site
> cause it doesn't have a static IP, b) there is nothing of any value
inside
> (i.e., anything on a linux box can be downloaded for free anyway)
You're right. The major concern with a site being cracked is the loss
of the operating system itself, not the content and data stored
therein. How astute.
and c)
> sites where the money is are on Solaris
Yep.
>or NT.
>
Like Toys R Us? I wonder how much money NT has cost them this holiday
season.
Nice trolling. Yawn.
Robert Moir
David Goldstein <sta...@regio-info.de> wrote in message
news:386F3D00...@regio-info.de...
[snip]
> Then how do you account for the success of MS? Their product is not
worth the
> money that they charge for it. Win9x is an unstable piece of crap
Its certainly less stable than it should and could be, but a lot of that is
caused by need to support legacy stuff due to the insistance of customers,
imho.
> and WinNT out
> of the box is not a multimedia gaming station.
But it wasn't meant to be. Do you suggest buying Linux for games? If you
want a games machine go buy a playstation, dreamcast, whatever. If you want
a computer then use Linux, beOS, Win9x or NT as you need. I don't think
you'll ever see a PC ever rival a console as a total games platform.
> If it were not for bundling and
> the low cost of hardware, MS would not have a tenth of what they have now.
Surely you mean if it wasn't for offering product at a time when their
rivals offered a lot of words and little to put on the shelf.
> The Amiga was a much superior computer to the IBM PC. What killed it
was a
> shitty marketing strategy (namely, none at all--great going Commodore).
It had a
> GUI before MS, the graphics were outstanding and it did not have that 640K
problem
> inherent to the IBM PC's.
> If Apple had allowed people to clone their computers and concentrated on
the OS
> they would have maintained their domination of the market that they had
built up.
> It is not so long ago that Apple had put computers in every school and
kids were
> going home and asking their parent's to buy them an Apple IIG.
And the consumers were supposed to stand around weeping over the fact that
apple and commodore could not sell water to someone half dead with thirst?
> Nope, apparently the consumer is not yet tired of being bull-shitted.
They have
> stuck with an inferior product for a very long time and will continue to
do so, as
> long as MS is allowed to push their crap on the market and maintain their
position
> by using bully tactics. The DOJ has declared MS to be a monopoly and many
people
> agree (even MS drones). Wait and see what happens to MS when the curtain
falls.
So you are saying that it's microsoft's fault that other companies could not
compete with them when the fields were more level? That it's microsoft's
fault that netscape had a browser monopoly of their own and threw it away?
That IBM had a viable alternative to NT in OS/2 and piloted it into the
ground as hard as they could?
[snip]
> If you do not think that the same work can be accomplished for a lot less
> money running a Linux based system you are simply nuts.
So if I ask for figures proving this, and by how much, including cost of
admin etc. am i being cautious or nuts?
> As far as file and print servers go, Linux does the job much better than
WinNT,
> by the way. It is easier to set up a file server with permissions under
Linux and
> can be done with much less hardware than is required for a Win solution.
Opinion...
> Linux,
> as MS pointed out on their own website, supports more than 40 different
file
> systems and runs on many more different hardware platforms than MS. A
company
> deciding to switch over to Linux does not have to worry about retooling,
at all.
You don't call reloading operating systems and applications "retooling" - ok
it's not the same as buying new hardware but it's still a disruption to
one's work pattern to have your box formatted and a new os loaded. Oh,
unless you try to lessen the impact by using a destop manager that copies
windows.
> What do I do if I decide to run WinNT on my Mac, SGI, Amiga, Alpha,
etc...?
> Simple, buy new hardware and pay a lot of money to MS for the software.
Wow, what
> a deal...(yawn)! You Winlusers are getting worse and worse everyday. Come
up with
> a real argument for a change.
Excuse me?
> Are you referring to OSS here? The Linux development model is far
superior to
> that of MS. There is a core development team and tens of thousands of
other
> developers around the world. Some say the cream of the crop is involved
in the
> devleopment of Linux.
Some say they have talked to Elvis while getting fast food too..
> I have not heard too many people praise the MS developers
> in the same way. Mostly, I hear people complaining because of the lack of
> attention to detail in their OS, and other software that people expect to
receive,
> since they pay so much for the shitty software.
All I hear here is anti MS whining. You are entitled to your opinon. Feel
free to roll about in your irrational hatred, but remember that hate and
rhetoric are not very good marketing tools.
> That is just bullshit. Linux is Linux. MS is that "other software."
Linux
> will be improving at a huge rate this year and by the real end of the
millenium
> will beat the crap out of MS hands down. Take a peak at the latest kernel
code
> and you'll see what I mean.
Take a peek at W2K and you'll see whu I doubt you...
Otto
> > able to trust the companies they support. They cannot
> > respect companies who continue to hype a product, without
> > any tangible or noticeable results to show for it, and
> > neither can I.
>
worth the
WinNT out
> of the box is not a multimedia gaming station. If it were not for
bundling and
> the low cost of hardware, MS would not have a tenth of what they have now.
What you should remember that MS wouldn't be able to do what they've done,
if J. Doe didn't like their product. One could argue that the success of the
OS isn't based on the quality of the OS. It is based upon if the said OS
satisfies the needs of the vast majority of the people. The success of MS
isn't as much of a marketing, this is arguable, as filling the void which
was left by other companies. Sure there was IBM, Amiga, Apple, etc..., which
might've been a better OS than an MS OS was at that time. What they didn't
realize that the consumers don't care much about that. The consumers have a
"good enough" mentality and do care about pricing. Did MS exploit this to
the full extent or just filled a void? Both sides can make a valid argument
on this subject.
Enter Linux in this picture, after all it is "free" and the price concious
consumers should make the switch from MS in herds. For some reason it isn't
happening, despite the fact that it is free and supposedly it is far
superior when it's compared to Windows. Having an application barrier is one
thing. Making the OS more complicated than it needs to be is another. Yes,
Linux is gaining ground in this area and it is getting easier, but by no
means it is ready for mass consumption. The majority of the people doesn't
want to know what the kernel is, much less how to compile it. They just want
to install their applications, games and click away. Right or wrong this is
the general attitude. You can argue this fact, call them names, or whatever.
The fact remains that until someone comes out with a better system than
Windows, as far as the vast majority is concerned, Microsoft has nothing to
fear.
>
.
.
> That is just bullshit. Linux is Linux. MS is that "other software."
Linux
> will be improving at a huge rate this year and by the real end of the
millenium
> will beat the crap out of MS hands down. Take a peak at the latest kernel
code
> and you'll see what I mean.
>
Exactly my point. The vast majority of the people don't want to take a look
at "latest" kernel code. By the way, did you quote this from R.E. Ballard?
It sure sounds like it....
Otto
Donovan Rebbechi
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> .... and because it's a zillion times easier to set up than many
>> other UNIX variants.
>Not really. Solaris has a much cleaner install than Linux. I could also
Yes, so what do you get after you're done with the Solaris install ?
Under linux, you get a lot of software as well as the base OS.
Setting up a Solaris box with all the same dev tools , servers etc
as the linux box is quite time consuming.
BTW, someone said that Solaris doesn't even install TCP wrappers out
of the box. Is this true ?
--
Donovan
Donovan Rebbechi
>"Michael DuFresne" <xduf...@raytheon.com> wrote in message
>news:386F3BBE...@raytheon.com...
>Could be really since you didn't mention *which* Linux distribution you're
>referring too. I'm assuming that you're installing more than the kernel for
>any of these OSs.
FreeBSD is the only one that comes close.
SUppose I want to get a box running the following in minimum time:
Windows and Mac file serving
LaTeX
Python, TCL, Perl
C and C++ compilers
TCP wrappers, sshd, apache, sendmail
GNU utilies
anything that I've left out thatcomes with a base RH install
My school were setting up a Solaris server and it took them
over a month to do what I could have done in a day with linux.
They had to compile and configure a lot of the software
themselves. They had all sorts of problems. The C++ compiler
didn't work. There were some attrocious security problems
with the system. It took some time to iron the wrinkles out.
The nice thing about linux is that everything's
prepackaged. This is also true for FreeBSD. The time
is takes to iron the wrinkles ( mostly bad security settings )
out is minimal.
--
Donovan
Pascal Haakmat
[snip]
>Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
I just fail to see how this is a problem. For Linux, that is.
From my point of view, enjoying the free software, it's stability and
versatility, plus the congenial nature of the user community, it appears as
if it's the home users who are at a loss.
--
CSMA posting style test
http://awacs.dhs.org/csmatest
Jim Frost
> Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is being
> COMPLETELY ignored by CIOs in every significant company in the world.
This is just typical kiddie behavior. You see the same thing every time
someone poo-poos OS/2 or the Amiga or whatever.
As for whether or not it's being ignored by CIOs, at this point it most
certainly isn't. You read about it all the time in the typical rags CIOs
read. You wouldn't if it wasn't a topic they were interested in.
Linux isn't being officially deployed much yet. That's not surprising; new
technologies usually are adopted unofficially by staff until there are too
many installations for official channels to ignore. We're pretty well along
that curve in my company and are expecting to officially support it -- both
internally and externally -- within 6 months.
Internal support isn't much of a big deal (to date Linux users have been
supporting themselves) but external support is expensive. It means we have to
devote significant resources to testing and supporting the product, and that's
only going forward because customers are asking about it.
If you think about it the adoption of Linux is taking place at an astounding
pace. Internally we had only two or three Linux users at the beginning of
last summer. Today half of our engineering department uses it, even people
who didn't use UNIX prior to Windows, even though IT does not support it. And
that, my friend, is the fastest I've ever seen anything follow the adoption
curve. That's even faster than the Palm.
jim
ZnU
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 08:26:58 GMT, mcs...@ginmill.bar wrote:
>
> >They buy a pre-load and cram it with every program known to mankind
> >and they simply work.
>
> This kind of user is exactly the target market for Win9x. I'd agree
> that linux isn't very suitable for these people.
If Linux ever wants to get serious marketshare, it needs to become
suitable for these people. Of course, there's nothing _wrong_ with
having small marketshare. I'm primarily a Mac user, and as long as I can
get the apps I need, I don't care what the Mac's marketshare is. But
those who want Linux to take over the world need to realize that it
needs to just _work_.
> >Linux GUI looks like crap.
>
> KDE looks pretty good to me.
"Looks" and "works" are rather different. The problem with current Linux
GUIs isn't what they do, it's what they don't do. What Linux needs is
one coherent GUI that allows the user to do things like configuring
Apache, setting up FTP, setting permissions, compiling and installing
apps, the works. You should never need to fall back on the CLI; it
scares people.
> > Netscape is dying quickly (I just
>
> MSIE also appears stagnant. As does HTML for that matter.
MSIE 5 for Windows is a better product than Netscape. I hate MS, and
even I think that. I wish MS would hurry up and release MSIE 5 for Mac.
> >downloaded 4.07
>
> THe newest version is not 4.07
The newest version is almost exactly the same.
> > and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
>
> Yes, NS is a POS. No argument there.
It's a truly impressive example of portable code; it sucks about the
same on every platform.
> >Mozilla is vapor, to the general public, and most likely will be more
> >of the same garbage.
>
> It's hard to tell. I think it will be better when it's released, but
> when is anyone's guess.
The recent Mozilla builds actually aren't bad.
> >IE 5.x is state of the art
>
> Actually, on Windows, I prefer Opera.
Opera is nice, but its use of MDI on Windows is very annoying. I don't
believe the Linux and Mac versions will use MDI though (well, the Mac
version _can't_ unless they write their own windowing system).
> >Aside from cost, especially in the area of server or programmer tools,
> >there is absolutely no compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to convert to
> >Linux.
>
> I also use it for writing documents ( LaTeX ). It's also a good platform
> for a web developer. Users who are happy with what they're currently
> using are usually best to stick with it.
For a web developer? Maybe on the CGI side of things, but not on the
graphics creation/page layout side.
[snip]
--
There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?
ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
Jim Frost
>
> In article <386F3D00...@regio-info.de>,
> David Goldstein <sta...@regio-info.de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Then how do you account for the success of MS? Their product is not worth the
> > money that they charge for it. Win9x is an unstable piece of crap and >WinNT out
>
> customers are inexperienced with computers.
It is not a tough question, it is an easy question. PC-DOS was about
one-third the price of CP/M and provided effectively the same functionality.
Which would you buy?
After MS/PC-DOS was established you didn't even have a choice; you got it when
you bought your PC. Microsoft leveraged that to push Windows, and leveraged
Windows to push Office, and leveraged Windows again to push Windows 95, and
leveraged Windows 95 to push Internet Explorer.
MS is popular today largely because they had a lock on the distribution
channels. Netscape proved that the Internet could be an effective
distribution channel too, but Microsoft has since proved that in the long term
preloading wins -- and they control the preload distribution channel.
jim frost
ji...@frostbytes.com
Jim Frost
> Like Toys R Us? I wonder how much money NT has cost them this holiday
> season.
Not that I recommend in any way shape or form running NT on a high-load site,
but NT wasn't the root cause of Toys R Us's problems. Rather, they used an
application framework that does not scale well and they didn't use adequate
hardware for their real-world load.
That means that they made a number of bad management decisions all along the
way. First, they picked software that wasn't capable at high loads. Second,
they failed to adequately test it to determine this fact, or even to determine
how much hardware they'd really need.
The end result was they got swamped. Hey, it happens a lot in that kind of
business, just not usually so visibly. And it happens regardless of what OS
you're using (I know of more than a few Solaris sites that have had the same
problem, eg American Airlines).
They managed the problem the way you usually do when this kind of thing
happens: they bought a lot more hardware.
And then they found out that shipping was even more important than their web
application. Who would have thought? :-)
jim
Donovan Rebbechi
>
>> I deployed linux units and they didn't get hacked at all. Did you
>> use the default security settings ? ( the default is usually very
>insecure )
>>
>I thought linuxppc.org was a default factory setting - "invulnerable until
>known weakness is introduced" mode?
We've already discussed this.
* The admin knowingly deployed an exploitable service.
* The default install had a published exploit at the time.
* The default security settings aren't very good. It's the
first thing I tweak when I install a linux machine.
--
Donovan
Steve
>On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 08:26:58 GMT, mcs...@ginmill.bar wrote:
>
>>They buy a pre-load and cram it with every program known to mankind
>>and they simply work.
>
>This kind of user is exactly the target market for Win9x. I'd agree
>that linux isn't very suitable for these people.
I agree with this also. Not that Linux cannot capture that type of market,
I believe it can do it, but Linux has to offer a better mousetrap so to
speak to give home users a reason to switch.
>>Linux GUI looks like crap.
>
>KDE looks pretty good to me.
I prefer the look of Gnome myself even to the Windows 98 look. I don't like
the fonts in Linux though and even using ttfonts, I still prefer Windows in
that respect.
The Linux desktop is also less cluttered and more professional looking to
me.
>> Netscape is dying quickly (I just
>
>MSIE also appears stagnant. As does HTML for that matter.
It certainly seems that way. MSIR isn't stagnant though....just the
security patches alone will keep you on your toes :)
Still I prefer MSIE to Netscape and I prefer Opera over Netscape but not
over MSIE.
>>downloaded 4.07
>
>THe newest version is not 4.07
I'm assuming 4.7 was what was meant. I have it on my system also and it
looks like the same old stuff to me.
>> and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
>
>Yes, NS is a POS. No argument there.
Agreed.
>>Mozilla is vapor, to the general public, and most likely will be more
>>of the same garbage.
>
>It's hard to tell. I think it will be better when it's released, but
>when is anyone's guess.
I don't really know anything about it.
>>IE 5.x is state of the art
>
>Actually, on Windows, I prefer Opera.
>
>>Aside from cost, especially in the area of server or programmer tools,
>>there is absolutely no compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to convert to
>>Linux.
>
>I also use it for writing documents ( LaTeX ). It's also a good platform
>for a web developer. Users who are happy with what they're currently
>using are usually best to stick with it.
If I were writing that type of document I would use LaTex also. I generally
turn off all the automatic features of word processors anyway.
WordPerfect 5.1 was the last of the great ones IMHO.
>>Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
>
>Whatever.
I couldn't even say. One thing I do know is that a year and a half ago
Linux wasn't even in the press. Now it is everywhere.
>>continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly,
>
>It's becoming more user friendly and drawing more users as a result.
I agree mostly.
>> less geeky
>>and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
>>a BSEE to operate.
A programmer would differ, but I think the average, home user needs Wordpad
and that's about it.
>A lot of users are interested in what linux currently offers. Personally,
>I don't care if it can't be all things to all people.
No system can be everything to everyone.
Choice is a good thing.
>>Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
>
>I'm a home user, and I'm interested. Maybe you're putting it a little
>too strongly. But I'd agree that linux probably isn't ready for the
>average home user.
I agree with this statement.
Steve
>
>> Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
>> continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly, less geeky
>> and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
>> a BSEE to operate.
>>
>
>Linux has a little higher marketshare than that. Ask Gates. He has said
>so himself.
Dec 27th 1999/Jan 3, 2000 Infoworld page 16.
Linux .27 percent.
steve
Rich Cloutier
"Drestin Black" <dresti...@home.com.nospam> wrote in message
>
> Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is being
> mean, I can't find a CIO anywhere that will admit to considering Linux.
I've
> Linux cause not even my competitors would dare put it on the table. CIOs
> consider it a "hackers toy" and I think it's the mentality of places like
/.
> that convince them of that. Oh, don't go thinking CIOs don't read
newsgroups
> learned today? Linux wins when it's zealots spam polls - not when it's put
day
> uptimes? Who cares when it's Joe's internet gateway with a ISDN line for
> bandwidth. Never been cracked? Who cares when no one would a) find the
site
> cause it doesn't have a static IP, b) there is nothing of any value inside
> sites where the money is are on Solaris or NT.
Sooooooo, you believed the ORIGINAL numbers??? Since on-line polls can be
stuffed so easily, how do you know it wasn't stuffed in favor of NT before
the /. guys got to it? Did you check all the pro NT sites for "suggestions"?
Did you look at the numbers to see if there were an inordinate number of
hosts from the microsoft.com domain?
The only thing we've learned from this is that you can't believe ANY poll
where the source of the votes can't be controlled or verified.
--
Rich C.
"Have you supported a new Linux user today?"
To reply by email, remove the "abc_" from my address.
Rich Cloutier
"ZnU" <z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
news:znu-C7DA64.1...@news5.bellatlantic.net...
> > This kind of user is exactly the target market for Win9x. I'd agree
> > that linux isn't very suitable for these people.
>
> If Linux ever wants to get serious marketshare, it needs to become
> suitable for these people. Of course, there's nothing _wrong_ with
> having small marketshare. I'm primarily a Mac user, and as long as I can
> get the apps I need, I don't care what the Mac's marketshare is. But
> those who want Linux to take over the world need to realize that it
> needs to just _work_.
Progress is being made. I understand that some Linux distros now come with
disk partitioning tools that run under Windows and allow you to set up your
hard drive easily. More and more hardware is being supported, and the X
configuration is now pretty much automatic. Remember Windows 3.1? By today's
standards, it was a POS and looked really primitive. Well, I think Linux is
at that stage now, but moving forward much faster than Windows did. We may
be a lap down, but we've got 22 gal and we're on fresh tires!
>
> > >Linux GUI looks like crap.
> >
> > KDE looks pretty good to me.
>
> "Looks" and "works" are rather different. The problem with current Linux
> GUIs isn't what they do, it's what they don't do. What Linux needs is
> one coherent GUI that allows the user to do things like configuring
> Apache, setting up FTP, setting permissions, compiling and installing
> apps, the works. You should never need to fall back on the CLI; it
> scares people.
I can use KFM to change file permissions, rename and relocate files; I can
even view files in thumbnail format (ALL of them, not just one at a time
like Explorer does it) or use KFM as a web browser.
The problem with GUI configuration tools is that you are limited by what the
front-end designer feels the options should be. The fact is that text-based
configuration files are the at the heart of the Linux OS, and you just have
to learn to deal.
The only time a CLI scares me is when I can't remember a command I typed a
month ago cause I'm getting old and losing my memory.
>
> > > Netscape is dying quickly (I just
> >
> > MSIE also appears stagnant. As does HTML for that matter.
>
> MSIE 5 for Windows is a better product than Netscape. I hate MS, and
> even I think that. I wish MS would hurry up and release MSIE 5 for Mac.
>
> > >downloaded 4.07
> >
> > THe newest version is not 4.07
>
> The newest version is almost exactly the same.
>
> > > and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
> >
> > Yes, NS is a POS. No argument there.
>
> It's a truly impressive example of portable code; it sucks about the
> same on every platform.
For me, Netscape sucks MUCH worse on Windows. My girlfriend's computer is
now Windows, with IE5 and all the latest security patches. Netscape 4.7
won't even install on that machine. Good job Microsoft!
On Linux, I've never had Netscape crash. It used to "lock up" for a while
when I'd start it on a machine with no internet connection, but that was
just because it would be looking for its beloved "home.netscape.com" I
killed it a few times in ignorance, but once I learned to be patient, it
would eventually come around and start working. I've never had 4.7 crash at
all. (Use it with RedHat 6.1.)
Donovan Rebbechi
>If Linux ever wants to get serious marketshare, it needs to become
>suitable for these people. Of course, there's nothing _wrong_ with
>having small marketshare. I'm primarily a Mac user, and as long as I can
>get the apps I need, I don't care what the Mac's marketshare is. But
I'd consider the level of third party support that the mac already
has to be more than adequate.
>those who want Linux to take over the world
Besides a few slashdot kiddies, no one wants linux to "take over the
world".
>one coherent GUI that allows the user to do things like configuring
>Apache, setting up FTP, setting permissions, compiling and installing
>apps, the works.
(*) That's not a GUI, it's a centralised configurator. And I agree
that linux needs one
(*) You can already install software and change perms from GNOME/KDE
(*) Trust me, you really don't want end users compiling software.
>MSIE 5 for Windows is a better product than Netscape. I hate MS, and
So it's a good thing Opera's here. If the linux version is anywhere
near as nice as the windows version, it will be a good thing for linux.
>> I also use it for writing documents ( LaTeX ). It's also a good platform
>> for a web developer. Users who are happy with what they're currently
>> using are usually best to stick with it.
>
>For a web developer? Maybe on the CGI side of things,
Exactly. You cannot do serious web development without a webserver
nowadays. There are several things that absolutely have to be done
on the server.
> but not on the
>graphics creation/page layout side.
For "graphics creation" and "page layout", there are a number of tools
that get the job done. For example, Applixware, Star Office, Netscape
and GIMP.
IMO, excessive effort expended on "page layout"
of a html page is wasted, because HTML is not designed to handle
precise physical formatting. If you really do want to put something
printable on the web, you are better off with PDF.
--
Donovan
David Goldstein
ZnU wrote:
> > KDE looks pretty good to me.
>
> "Looks" and "works" are rather different. The problem with current Linux
> GUIs isn't what they do, it's what they don't do. What Linux needs is
> one coherent GUI that allows the user to do things like configuring
> Apache, setting up FTP, setting permissions, compiling and installing
> apps, the works. You should never need to fall back on the CLI; it
> scares people.
There are already programs that you can use for these tasks. I suggest that
you do a little research before you spout. KDE works really well, too, btw.
It is a much nicer GUI than Win, by a long shot. When I get bored with it, I
switch to other GUI's. When I get bored with Win, I stayed bored.
> > > Netscape is dying quickly (I just
> >
> > MSIE also appears stagnant. As does HTML for that matter.
>
> MSIE 5 for Windows is a better product than Netscape. I hate MS, and
> even I think that. I wish MS would hurry up and release MSIE 5 for Mac.
A magazine article from a few months ago rated Mozilla 5 the best browser
that exists--and it was still in Alpha. The magazine in question is not an
anti-MS mag, by a long shot. Mozilla 5 scored the highest in correctly
rendering CSS2 pages. It seems to me that IE should have won that one ;-)
<snipped>
The rest of your post was the same old tired MS dribble that we have come to
expect here in COLA.
David Goldstein
David Goldstein
Otto wrote:
> What you should remember that MS wouldn't be able to do what they've done,
> if J. Doe didn't like their product. One could argue that the success of the
> OS isn't based on the quality of the OS. It is based upon if the said OS
> satisfies the needs of the vast majority of the people. The success of MS
> isn't as much of a marketing, this is arguable, as filling the void which
> was left by other companies. Sure there was IBM, Amiga, Apple, etc..., which
> might've been a better OS than an MS OS was at that time. What they didn't
> realize that the consumers don't care much about that. The consumers have a
> "good enough" mentality and do care about pricing. Did MS exploit this to
> the full extent or just filled a void? Both sides can make a valid argument
> on this subject.
The consumers were not given a choice to like, or dislike MS products. MS
made some very accute business deals that allowed them to bundle their software
exclusively. Commodore had the best PC on the market in the mid-80's and
dropped the ball. Apple could not compete anymore after failing to see the
light and lost their stronghold on the school systems. Netscape could not have
been saved, since MS dumped their inferior browser (you can claim whatever you
like, but surely you must agree that the early IE sucked when compared to
Netscape) on J Q Public.
> Enter Linux in this picture, after all it is "free" and the price concious
> consumers should make the switch from MS in herds. For some reason it isn't
> happening, despite the fact that it is free and supposedly it is far
> superior when it's compared to Windows. Having an application barrier is one
> thing. Making the OS more complicated than it needs to be is another. Yes,
> Linux is gaining ground in this area and it is getting easier, but by no
> means it is ready for mass consumption. The majority of the people doesn't
> want to know what the kernel is, much less how to compile it. They just want
> to install their applications, games and click away. Right or wrong this is
> the general attitude. You can argue this fact, call them names, or whatever.
> The fact remains that until someone comes out with a better system than
> Windows, as far as the vast majority is concerned, Microsoft has nothing to
> fear.
The majority of home users use their computer for two things--internet
services (email, surfing, etc...) and playing games. If there were four, or
five killer games written for Linux that were not available under Winxx, people
would snatch Linux up in a hurry, since the internet side of the house is
already taken care of. If you have seen the installation of StarOffice, or Word
Perfect, you would realize that the install can go just as easily and mindlessly
as the install of any package for Win--that goes for CivIII and MythII, also,
btw. The one mistake that the MS advocates keep on making is that they maintain
Linux is not capable of such things. Linux is an OS that serves apps. There is
absolutely no reason that Linux cannot be made easier to install (I think that
Linux is much easier in many respects), or that software cannot be installed by
simply clicking on a tab that says, "yes." The only thing that has been holding
Linux back (if I may speak of Linux in metamorphically) is cash. Now that some
of the big Linux players have cash, Linux development will continue by leaps and
bounds.
> > That is just bullshit. Linux is Linux. MS is that "other software."
> Linux
> > will be improving at a huge rate this year and by the real end of the
> millenium
> > will beat the crap out of MS hands down. Take a peak at the latest kernel
> code
> > and you'll see what I mean.
> >
>
> Exactly my point. The vast majority of the people don't want to take a look
> at "latest" kernel code. By the way, did you quote this from R.E. Ballard?
> It sure sounds like it....
Nope, I installed the latest kernel (actually it was 2.3.24 and the latest is
2.3.25, I believe). I was amazed at some of the things that came up during the
boot procedure. I also find it amusing that you claim that the vast majority of
people do not want to see the latest kernel code. MS sells their beta OS's to
millions of people, and millions more burn copies of it. That seems like a lot
of people that are actually interested in seeing how the latest kernels are
progressing--even in your world, so why should it be different for the Linux
world?
Nope, I do not quote anyone. I develop my own opinions over a joint and a
double Drambui :-) I do not need to have someone else tell me what is good for
me and how it will improve my life. I am happy learning new things and enjoying
new experiences and then deciding for myself what is, or is not good for me.
Happy and Healthy New Year to everyone in the NG :)
> Otto
David Goldstein
David M. Cook
>Linux wont be a viable option until the community comes out with live
>updates that user don't have to fret over.
You can use something like autorpm or rpmwatch (look for them on
freshmeat.net). I imagine most sysadmins prefer to do this manually,
though, and it can't really replace keeping an eye on the security mailing
lists.
Dave Cook
David Goldstein
Robert Moir wrote:
> > and WinNT out
> > of the box is not a multimedia gaming station.
>
> But it wasn't meant to be. Do you suggest buying Linux for games? If you
> want a games machine go buy a playstation, dreamcast, whatever. If you want
> a computer then use Linux, beOS, Win9x or NT as you need. I don't think
> you'll ever see a PC ever rival a console as a total games platform.
I suggest buying, or downloading Linux for a lot of different reasons. The
fact is that if more games existed for Linux, many people would make the
switch. Of course, consoles are better gaming machines, but I prefer doing
things on computers, since I do not play games too often. When I do play, they
are usually games that do not require heavy-duty graphics cards and PIII 700
computers--chess, backgammon, etc....
> > If it were not for bundling and
> > the low cost of hardware, MS would not have a tenth of what they have now.
>
> Surely you mean if it wasn't for offering product at a time when their
> rivals offered a lot of words and little to put on the shelf.
Nope, I mean that if they were not able to gather the contracts with major
hardware distributors allowing them to easily sell their software, they would
not have been able to sell it as easily. The other companies put much more than
words up on the table, the problem was that not enough words were offered.
If hardware costs today were the same as the costs of twenty years ago in
relative dollars, everyone that felt it worthwhile to shell out the money would
be going to ballgames, grill parties, etc....
> > The Amiga was a much superior computer to the IBM PC. What killed it
> was a
> > shitty marketing strategy (namely, none at all--great going Commodore).
> It had a
> > GUI before MS, the graphics were outstanding and it did not have that 640K
> problem
> > inherent to the IBM PC's.
> > If Apple had allowed people to clone their computers and concentrated on
> the OS
> > they would have maintained their domination of the market that they had
> built up.
> > It is not so long ago that Apple had put computers in every school and
> kids were
> > going home and asking their parent's to buy them an Apple IIG.
>
> And the consumers were supposed to stand around weeping over the fact that
> apple and commodore could not sell water to someone half dead with thirst?
I never claimed that. I just stated some simple facts ;-)
> > Nope, apparently the consumer is not yet tired of being bull-shitted.
> They have
> > stuck with an inferior product for a very long time and will continue to
> do so, as
> > long as MS is allowed to push their crap on the market and maintain their
> position
> > by using bully tactics. The DOJ has declared MS to be a monopoly and many
> people
> > agree (even MS drones). Wait and see what happens to MS when the curtain
> falls.
>
> So you are saying that it's microsoft's fault that other companies could not
> compete with them when the fields were more level? That it's microsoft's
> fault that netscape had a browser monopoly of their own and threw it away?
> That IBM had a viable alternative to NT in OS/2 and piloted it into the
> ground as hard as they could?
I did not say that it was MS fault. I claim that they are using their current
position in the market to get people to buy software that should be given away
for free and then have the audacity to charge people for support. IBM got
screwed by MS, as soon as MS learned enough from IBM software engineers on how
to write an OS. I have a magazine from 1983, I believe. In this magazine,
Gates claims that OS2 is the OS of the future. Some time later, Gates took the
work that was already done and dropped all ties with IBM. What came out of that
was NT.
Netscape never had a monopoly on browsers, by the way. The only thing that MS
was able to do to stop Netscape was to dump IE. They had the perfect,
monopolistic opportunity to do so, Winxx. MS was getting very scared, since
Netscape was making inroads in the internet server market and MS had dropped the
ball with Gates claiming (as late as 1995) that the internet was going nowhere.
After he realized his mistake, he dropped a bomb on Netscape and gave away IE
for free. Netscape was making most of it's money off of the browser and the
browser was tailored to the Netscape Servers. Of course, when MS does this, the
winvocates claim that it is fair, yet, in the same breath they claim that
Netscape was a monopoly--can you say double standard?
> > If you do not think that the same work can be accomplished for a lot less
> > money running a Linux based system you are simply nuts.
>
> So if I ask for figures proving this, and by how much, including cost of
> admin etc. am i being cautious or nuts?
How shall I prove this to you? I can get affidavits from everyone that I work
with at the Deutsche Bahn, if you like. I am not sure that it is on public
record anywhere--probably is not. The fact is, I can install the OS completely
free if I go with Linux. The $4,300 per annum is for service and support. I
guarantee you that I can offer a contract for half of that amount and be a rich
man, since Linux is much easier to maintain, once it is installed. With a disk
image copied to a CD, I can install Linux in about 15 minutes, by the way. We
do the same thing with the Win boxes, except it does not always work properly
(thank plug-n-pray) and stupid things like graphics cards become nightmares.
The cost of hiring admins are the same in the Linux and MS world, by the way.
It is not true that a 'nix admin makes soo much money. In this newsgroup alone,
there are many, many NT Admins making 6 figures (that is the claim, anyway). I
find it very amusing that you need to pay people so much money for a task that
is supposed to be so easy in the MS world, by the way.
The biggest problem, imho, in getting corp's to change is the FUD momentum.
At work, I hear people say that they would like to change, but they are already
locked in to MS because of the proprietary data file systems that are used
(Word, Excel, etc...). The fact is, there are already industry standard file
systems that exist that are recognized in many OS's. RTF is one example.
Applixware runs on both Win and Linux--probably Mac's also, but I do not keep up
with the Apple world. Applixware is a full-blown office suite that offers
everything that Office(xx) offers, by the way. The problem the winvocates have
with it is that it "does not look as polished." That leads to other points,
though.
> > As far as file and print servers go, Linux does the job much better than
> WinNT,
> > by the way. It is easier to set up a file server with permissions under
> Linux and
> > can be done with much less hardware than is required for a Win solution.
>
> Opinion...
Nope, try it sometime and you'll see that it is not just an opinion.
> > Linux,
> > as MS pointed out on their own website, supports more than 40 different
> file
> > systems and runs on many more different hardware platforms than MS. A
> company
> > deciding to switch over to Linux does not have to worry about retooling,
> at all.
>
> You don't call reloading operating systems and applications "retooling" - ok
> it's not the same as buying new hardware but it's still a disruption to
> one's work pattern to have your box formatted and a new os loaded. Oh,
> unless you try to lessen the impact by using a destop manager that copies
> windows.
Somewhere along the way, someone's terminal was removed from their desk at
work and it was replaced with a PC. The software was completely different, file
formats were converted, etc..., and everyone survived. It can be done again,
right? Many people used computers in the business world well before something
called windows appeared on the market. You are simply one of millions that have
fallen for the MS ploy that people are too stupid to learn how to use
computers. Of course, the hours that I spend helping friends keep install and
maintain their Winxx boes probably justifies this sentiment.
> > What do I do if I decide to run WinNT on my Mac, SGI, Amiga, Alpha,
> etc...?
> > Simple, buy new hardware and pay a lot of money to MS for the software.
> Wow, what
> > a deal...(yawn)! You Winlusers are getting worse and worse everyday. Come
> up with
> > a real argument for a change.
>
> Excuse me?
What did you not get?
> > Are you referring to OSS here? The Linux development model is far
> superior to
> > that of MS. There is a core development team and tens of thousands of
> other
> > developers around the world. Some say the cream of the crop is involved
> in the
> > devleopment of Linux.
>
> Some say they have talked to Elvis while getting fast food too..
Oh, the MS programmers are so good that WinNT 4.0 jsut had SP6 released, Win95
really sucks, Win98 is even worse. In the gaming industry, MS lags was behind
other companies, and in the application world they lack attention to detail. Do
not confuse bloatware with paying attention to the details, by the way.
> > I have not heard too many people praise the MS developers
> > in the same way. Mostly, I hear people complaining because of the lack of
> > attention to detail in their OS, and other software that people expect to
> receive,
> > since they pay so much for the shitty software.
>
> All I hear here is anti MS whining. You are entitled to your opinon. Feel
> free to roll about in your irrational hatred, but remember that hate and
> rhetoric are not very good marketing tools.
Nope, I am not whining. I am in COLA--a Linux ng. It seems to me that the
winvocates are the real whiners, since they feel the need to spend so much time
in here trying to convince Linux users to come back to the fold. You all remind
me of the Jehovah's Witnesses that are continually harassing people by ringing
their doorbells and trying to get in to a debate about god--yes, it happens here
in Germany, too :(
> > That is just bullshit. Linux is Linux. MS is that "other software."
> Linux
> > will be improving at a huge rate this year and by the real end of the
> millenium
> > will beat the crap out of MS hands down. Take a peak at the latest kernel
> code
> > and you'll see what I mean.
>
> Take a peek at W2K and you'll see whu I doubt you...
Whatever. Have you looked at the latest Linux kernel? I have installed
Win2000 Beta 3 and if it is an indication then I am not worried in the
slightest. I really liked the part where Win2000 took over my NT4.0 partition
and rendered it useless. NTFS 5 is incomptabile with NTFS and Win2000 swallows
any NTFS partitions that it sees. This is typical MS and you guys just keep
sucking it up. Good Luck!! :)
David Goldstein
DC
<sta...@regio-info.de> wrote:
> > Take a peek at W2K and you'll see whu I doubt you...
>
> Whatever. Have you looked at the latest Linux kernel? I have
> installed
> Win2000 Beta 3 and if it is an indication then I am not worried in the
> slightest. I really liked the part where Win2000 took over my NT4.0
> partition
> and rendered it useless. NTFS 5 is incomptabile with NTFS and Win2000
> swallows
> any NTFS partitions that it sees. This is typical MS and you guys just
> keep
> sucking it up. Good Luck!! :)
David,
That isn't correct. I have NT4 and Win2k (final release, Pro) happily
running side by side on a Pentium 266 with 96MB.
--
DC
Rich Cloutier
"Robert Moir" <mara...@force9.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MDLb4.7859$L4.92440@wards...
>
> David Goldstein <sta...@regio-info.de> wrote in message
> news:386F3D00...@regio-info.de...
> [snip]
> > Then how do you account for the success of MS? Their product is not
> worth the
> > money that they charge for it. Win9x is an unstable piece of crap
>
> Its certainly less stable than it should and could be, but a lot of that
is
> caused by need to support legacy stuff due to the insistance of customers,
> imho.
>
> > and WinNT out
> > of the box is not a multimedia gaming station.
>
> But it wasn't meant to be. Do you suggest buying Linux for games? If you
> want a games machine go buy a playstation, dreamcast, whatever. If you
want
> a computer then use Linux, beOS, Win9x or NT as you need. I don't think
> you'll ever see a PC ever rival a console as a total games platform.
You obviously only play games with people that are in the room with you.
Show me a console that can get you on the internet to shoot 'em up with the
big boys. Or show me a console that can be networked so six or eight of my
friends can all play the same game.
IMO consoles SUCK for games compared to PCs. Besides, why buy a piece of
hardware that can ONLY play games when you can buy one that will also play
your CDs or balance your checkbook?
> So you are saying that it's microsoft's fault that other companies could
not
> compete with them when the fields were more level? That it's microsoft's
> fault that netscape had a browser monopoly of their own and threw it away?
> That IBM had a viable alternative to NT in OS/2 and piloted it into the
> ground as hard as they could?
This has been discussed many times in this ng. Microsoft integrated IE with
the operating system to give it an advantage over Netscape. They came out
with channels and active desktops and such, and made sure that Netscape
wouldn't run properly (it still doesn't.) In a PERCEIVED developmental
slump, Netscape lost market share. (The MS deal with AOL didn't help
either.)
> > I have not heard too many people praise the MS developers
> > in the same way. Mostly, I hear people complaining because of the lack
of
> > attention to detail in their OS, and other software that people expect
to
> receive,
> > since they pay so much for the shitty software.
>
> All I hear here is anti MS whining. You are entitled to your opinon. Feel
> free to roll about in your irrational hatred, but remember that hate and
> rhetoric are not very good marketing tools.
How about a basic flaw that has been around since day one of Windows 95.
It's something simple, yet it has been totally IGNORED by MS?
I keep my task bar on the left of my screen, not on the bottom like most
people. There are several advantages to this for me. First, I can see many
more running apps, and see more of their title bars. I can also have my
Quick Launch folder visible so I can get to my commonly used programs while
my desktop is cluttered with windows. Finally, I get to use the full height
of my screen, which is helpful in doing word processing and even email and
ng stuff.
OK, here's the problem. MOST apps (including Microsoft Word, ACT, ICQ, and
many others, can't find the right hand edge of my task bar. They start half
buried underneath it. I start them up then have to drag them to the right so
I can see the entire window. This is a stupid, niggling little problem that
has been driving me up the wall ever since the "taskbar" first appeared in
Win95. This is something simple and logical that should have been fixed in
the beginning, yet it persists. And if it is the applications' fault and not
the API's, why do MS applications do the same thing?
As far as MS coming up with something REALLY neat, like the KDE "snap zone"
I'm not holding my breath.
Rich Cloutier
>
>
> Robert Moir wrote:
>
> > > and WinNT out
> > > of the box is not a multimedia gaming station.
> >
> > But it wasn't meant to be. Do you suggest buying Linux for games? If you
> > want a games machine go buy a playstation, dreamcast, whatever. If you
want
> > a computer then use Linux, beOS, Win9x or NT as you need. I don't think
> > you'll ever see a PC ever rival a console as a total games platform.
>
> I suggest buying, or downloading Linux for a lot of different reasons.
The
> fact is that if more games existed for Linux, many people would make the
> switch. Of course, consoles are better gaming machines, but I prefer
doing
> things on computers, since I do not play games too often. When I do play,
they
> are usually games that do not require heavy-duty graphics cards and PIII
700
> computers--chess, backgammon, etc....
Anyone who thinks consoles make better gaming machines...
a) has never played games on line where the AI is NOT "A",
b) has never played on a LAN where you can be racing or fighting 5 or 6 of
your friends at once, or,
b) has never played on a PC tweaked for gaming.
Consoles may be great graphically, and fast, but that is all they are. Get
yourself a good fast PII or P!!! with a BX motherboard, 128 meg of RAM, and
a good graphics card like the GeForce or even the TNT2 Ultra, and you can
compete with any console out there. Especially now that you can have a bunch
of USB input devices like gamepads, joysticks, and wheels (do any of the new
consoles support force feedback???) Add a LAN card or an internet
connection, and you open up a whole new world that console players can only
dream about (at least for now.)
Craig Kelley
You're right Drestin, it was all fair until those evil Linux zealots
skewed it. Mindcraft was completely fair as well. All web-based
surveys are scientifically correct and accurate.
What's next? The disturbing truth about Santa Claus?
*yawn*
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Craig Kelley
> > I agree with you wholeheartedly here. For many people,
> > using Linux is a part of an agenda, and not necessarily
> > a part of their computing needs.
>
> ... and what is the problem with that. Many people wont buy certain
> brands of products to protest certain issues. Same thing. Besides, its
> not as if the market place ever really had a choice of OS's, now is it?
Didn't you know?
People use Windows because it works.
People use Linux/UNIX because of the hype.
Am I in an alternate reality here, folks? This is getting a wee bit
ridiculous. We may as well line the very few, poor, trampled-upon
Windows users up on a hill and crucify them for all the martyrdom
we've seen lately. The typical Windows user *I* know, doesn't even
know what Linux is or what it does.
"I was in a computer store and some Linux user told me I suck because
I don't use Linux and that NT is horrible."
Boo-hoo. Ignore the person would be my inclination, not jump on
usenet and write treatise after treatise of how the "punk wannabe
Linux users [of which, I've never seen...] are making a bad name for
Linux and forcing poor CIOs into choosing it (which will be the
downfall of Linux -- no really! I hate Linux because it has no apps,
especially the high-end 3-D apps that are used in Star Trek: The Next
Generation, but making apps for it will kill it)"
The logic is astounding.
Oh well, he'll probably post it another dozen times before the year is
out. Get used to ignoring it.
And he says *we* have an axe to grind...
[snip]
Donovan Rebbechi
>> I'd consider the level of third party support that the mac already
>> has to be more than adequate.
>
>I agree. Except perhaps with games, but the Mac is getting better there.
EVen NT is struggling in terms of games. Games are going to be the most
difficult issue.
>> (*) Trust me, you really don't want end users compiling software.
>
>Well, because of Linux's cross platform nature it might be necessary.
I'd hope not.
>There shouldn't be any problems if you can hide it all from the user as
>part of the install process.
You can already hide it partially if you have a src.rpm. But the
fact that you have a src.rpm implies that someone's made a binary.
As for software that hasn't been packaged, I ask you to take my
word for it that there's no algorithm to compile something.
> Unless something goes wrong of course.
And it is very easy for something to "go wrong" when you're compiling,
especially if you don't know what you're doing.
>> For "graphics creation" and "page layout", there are a number of tools
>> that get the job done. For example, Applixware, Star Office, Netscape
>> and GIMP.
>
>You can't produce professional output
I am not clear as to what you mean by "professional output".
Recall that we're talking about html and web graphics. There is
no restriction on what kind of html you can and can't generate.
> with those tools quite a bit of
>the time; I've tried.
Have you played with Script FU ?
You can do a hell of a lot with it.
>> IMO, excessive effort expended on "page layout"
>> of a html page is wasted, because HTML is not designed to handle
>> precise physical formatting. If you really do want to put something
>> printable on the web, you are better off with PDF.
>
>Well, you have to take HTML's dynamicism into account when designing a
>web page, but it can be done, and it's very important.
The best way to take advantage of it is by steering clear of excessive
physical markup. This in itself makes "WYSIWYG" tools less useful.
> Much of the
>success of sites like Yahoo comes from that fact they they're fast
>loading, easy to navigate, and reasonably pleasing to look at.
Yes, because Yahoo keep their site relatively simple. Sites that go
overboard inevitably end up looking attrocious.
Another point is this: a busy site usually changes content more often
than presentation.
> You only
>have a few seconds to get and hold a surfer's attention the first time
>he or she hits your site,
So the priority is to make the page load reasonably quickly. And to
make navigation easy.
> and well written CGI or even good content
If you don't take advantage of the dynamic features of webservers,
such as server side includes, you will not even be able to maintain
a large site, let alone make it "look nice"
>isnšt as likely to do that as a page that looks interesting.
The last thing that attracts me is a page that "looks interesting".
The first thing I want is for the page to be easy to navigate. The
second thing is for the content to be readable. Once we're at that
stage, the content is important.
--
Donovan
Joseph
Rich Cloutier wrote:
> "David Goldstein" <sta...@regio-info.de> wrote in message
> news:386FCC07...@regio-info.de...
> >
> >
> > Robert Moir wrote:
> >
> > > > and WinNT out
> > > > of the box is not a multimedia gaming station.
> > >
> > > But it wasn't meant to be. Do you suggest buying Linux for games? If you
> > > want a games machine go buy a playstation, dreamcast, whatever. If you
> want
> > > a computer then use Linux, beOS, Win9x or NT as you need. I don't think
> > > you'll ever see a PC ever rival a console as a total games platform.
> >
> > I suggest buying, or downloading Linux for a lot of different reasons.
> The
> > fact is that if more games existed for Linux, many people would make the
> > switch. Of course, consoles are better gaming machines, but I prefer
> doing
> > things on computers, since I do not play games too often. When I do play,
> they
> > are usually games that do not require heavy-duty graphics cards and PIII
> 700
> > computers--chess, backgammon, etc....
>
> Anyone who thinks consoles make better gaming machines...
>
> a) has never played games on line where the AI is NOT "A",
> b) has never played on a LAN where you can be racing or fighting 5 or 6 of
> your friends at once, or,
> b) has never played on a PC tweaked for gaming.
Consoles make better games machines by virtue of the fact more software revenue
is generated by consoles than for PCs. 2:1 and the ratio is increasingly
shifting to the consoles.
Hey - send me $2,000 and I set up a PC game machine. Send me another $2,000 in
2 years. So I can run the newest titles. That's a reasonable amount of money
for a game system.
> Consoles may be great graphically, and fast, but that is all they are. Get
> yourself a good fast PII or P!!! with a BX motherboard, 128 meg of RAM, and
> a good graphics card like the GeForce or even the TNT2 Ultra, and you can
> compete with any console out there. Especially now that you can have a bunch
> of USB input devices like gamepads, joysticks, and wheels (do any of the new
> consoles support force feedback???) Add a LAN card or an internet
> connection, and you open up a whole new world that console players can only
> dream about (at least for now.)
Cha-ching.
I think Nintendo64 came out with forced feedback controls *prior* to the PC.
It was copied.
The Dreamcast has a 56kb modem in the $200 base unit. I've been to the Sony
meteron in SF where Sony has a large PSX display store and people play games
there for free. For a 1994 system it sure is popular even if it being retired
this year for the PSX II. The PSX II's Emotion Engine is more complex than the
P III. PSX II comes out in Spring in Japan and Fall in the US. Ironically
Sony's PSX II development kit requires LINUX, and does not support Windows!
For real killer machines I recommend MIPS and IRIX. I've been to SGI's
MountanView HQ. They have some amazing 3D rendering on the multi-processor ONYX
systems. 160 degree view, on the fly. fantastic and quite expensive but far
superior to the PC. It boils down to economics. Consoles are affordable,
easy, reliable, and standardized for optimal development. PCs cannot match them
except for the hobbiest with a wallet.
One can always build a better mousetrap with a PC but the economics and system
complexity are the rub. Consoles have won and now are being built with features
to steal more functionality and users from the PC. Rumor is MS will put out a
x86 based game console system. WinCE runs on the Dereamcast but from what is
said, it is slow and designed not for "intense games".
Rich Cloutier
"Joseph" <jo...@ibm.net> wrote in message news:386FE9B3...@ibm.net...
>
>
> Rich Cloutier wrote:
>
> > "David Goldstein" <sta...@regio-info.de> wrote in message
> > news:386FCC07...@regio-info.de...
> > >
> > >
> >
> > a) has never played games on line where the AI is NOT "A",
> > b) has never played on a LAN where you can be racing or fighting 5 or 6
of
> > your friends at once, or,
> > b) has never played on a PC tweaked for gaming.
>
revenue
> is generated by consoles than for PCs. 2:1 and the ratio is increasingly
> shifting to the consoles.
>
> Hey - send me $2,000 and I set up a PC game machine. Send me another
$2,000 in
> 2 years. So I can run the newest titles. That's a reasonable amount of
money
> for a game system.
>
No, give me $500.00 to add to any system you are planning to build, and I
can make a decent game machine out of it.
I built my PII/450 a little over a year ago for around $1700 (just the box,
been using the same monitor/keyboard/mouse for years.) For the money I got a
really good PC *AND* a game machine *AND* a DVD player (going for 4-600
bucks a pop at the time) *AND* a CD-burner.
Here it is a year and a half later and the only thing I plan to add is a new
video card ($200.00) The rest is still performing just fine, thank you (when
Windows stays up, that is.)
>
> > Consoles may be great graphically, and fast, but that is all they are.
Get
> > yourself a good fast PII or P!!! with a BX motherboard, 128 meg of RAM,
and
> > a good graphics card like the GeForce or even the TNT2 Ultra, and you
can
> > compete with any console out there. Especially now that you can have a
bunch
> > of USB input devices like gamepads, joysticks, and wheels (do any of the
new
> > consoles support force feedback???) Add a LAN card or an internet
> > connection, and you open up a whole new world that console players can
only
> > dream about (at least for now.)
>
> For real killer machines I recommend MIPS and IRIX. I've been to SGI's
> MountanView HQ. They have some amazing 3D rendering on the
multi-processor ONYX
> systems. 160 degree view, on the fly. fantastic and quite expensive but
far
> superior to the PC. It boils down to economics. Consoles are
affordable,
> easy, reliable, and standardized for optimal development. PCs cannot
match them
> except for the hobbiest with a wallet.
So how many hobbyists out there have 3 or 4 $200.00 consoles sitting in
their closet because they came out with a newer and better version? If you
want to stay on the cutting edge with consoles, that's what you have to do.
And don't forget about all the software you can't use any more. All my PC
games but one (Red Baron--dos-based, requires more memory than Windows will
give it in a session) I can still play on my system. And forget about
sticking with older consoles, too, because the new titles aren't available
on the older hardware. My system may get slower with time, but I will always
be able to play the latest stuff. When it gets TOO slow, I'll just upgrade
some parts of my PC and be back on the bleeding edge again.
>
> One can always build a better mousetrap with a PC but the economics and
system
> complexity are the rub. Consoles have won and now are being built with
features
> to steal more functionality and users from the PC. Rumor is MS will put
out a
> x86 based game console system. WinCE runs on the Dereamcast but from what
is
> said, it is slow and designed not for "intense games".
Oh, God!!! One of the few virtues I could attribute to game consoles was
that there was NO WINDOWS. Oh, well, there goes that one! LOL.
P.S. I also have an emulator, which will allow me to play some of the
ORIGINAL Atari games, like asteroids, galaga, frogger, and more. Not much
good except maybe for a trip down memory lane, but I bet you can't do that
with your dreamcast POS.
Marty
>
> WinCE runs on the Dereamcast but from what is
> said, it is slow and designed not for "intense games".
Do you have a reference for that? I was under the impression that the "CE"
version used was stripped down to be "lean and mean".
Marty
>
> P.S. I also have an emulator, which will allow me to play some of the
> ORIGINAL Atari games, like asteroids, galaga, frogger, and more. Not much
> good except maybe for a trip down memory lane, but I bet you can't do that
> with your dreamcast POS.
The Playstation has several commercially available emulators for it which play
original arcade games. I imagine other game consoles do as well. In
addition, some classic games are "hidden" inside of "secret levels" of some of
their modern counterparts, such as the new Donkey Kong game for N64.
Rick
>
> nospam...@aug.com (Rick) writes:
>
> > > I agree with you wholeheartedly here. For many people,
> > > using Linux is a part of an agenda, and not necessarily
> > > a part of their computing needs.
> >
> > ... and what is the problem with that. Many people wont buy certain
> > brands of products to protest certain issues. Same thing. Besides, its
> > not as if the market place ever really had a choice of OS's, now is it?
>
> Didn't you know?
>
> People use Windows because it works.
>
People use Windows becasue M$ wrangled a non-exclucive license for DOS
from IBM, and then bullied the vmdors into bundling nothing but M$ OS's.
Read about the first DOJ consent decree.
> People use Linux/UNIX because of the hype.
>
The hype gets people to try Linux. They stay with it for various
reasons.
> Am I in an alternate reality here, folks? This is getting a wee bit
> ridiculous. We may as well line the very few, poor, trampled-upon
> Windows users up on a hill and crucify them for all the martyrdom
> we've seen lately. The typical Windows user *I* know, doesn't even
> know what Linux is or what it does.
>
... whats your point here?
> "I was in a computer store and some Linux user told me I suck because
> I don't use Linux and that NT is horrible."
>
Yeah, well, Windoze people tell methe same thing all the time. Big deal.
> Boo-hoo. Ignore the person would be my inclination, not jump on
> usenet and write treatise after treatise of how the "punk wannabe
> Linux users [of which, I've never seen...] are making a bad name for
> Linux and forcing poor CIOs into choosing it (which will be the
> downfall of Linux -- no really! I hate Linux because it has no apps,
> especially the high-end 3-D apps that are used in Star Trek: The Next
> Generation, but making apps for it will kill it)"
>
Linux (and by extension Unix) has no apps. Bwhahahahahahaha.
> The logic is astounding.
>
> Oh well, he'll probably post it another dozen times before the year is
> out. Get used to ignoring it.
>
> And he says *we* have an axe to grind...
>
Yup.
--
To reply by email remove NOSPAM from my address.
Rick
>
> David Goldstein <sta...@regio-info.de> wrote in message
> news:386FCC07...@regio-info.de...
> > I suggest buying, or downloading Linux for a lot of different reasons.
> The
> > fact is that if more games existed for Linux, many people would make the
> > switch. Of course, consoles are better gaming machines, but I prefer
> doing
> > things on computers, since I do not play games too often. When I do play,
> they
> > are usually games that do not require heavy-duty graphics cards and PIII
> 700
> > computers--chess, backgammon, etc....
>
> O/S. Like Linux it's for serious work.
>
.... serious.... work? No games? Ever? No surfing? No IRC ? Damn.
> [snip]
> > Nope, I mean that if they were not able to gather the contracts with
> major
> > hardware distributors allowing them to easily sell their software, they
> would
> > not have been able to sell it as easily. The other companies put much
> more than
> > words up on the table, the problem was that not enough words were offered.
>
> But they had the same chances as MS at the start anyway.
>
Not after IBM came out with the PC. M$ had a strangle hold from that
point on.
> [snip]
> > > And the consumers were supposed to stand around weeping over the fact
> that
> > > apple and commodore could not sell water to someone half dead with
> thirst?
> >
> > I never claimed that. I just stated some simple facts ;-)
>
> Quite so, and so did I. In a lot of cases, while MS have been very sharp
> about keeping a lead, their original taking of it was a lot to do with the
> fact that their competitors back then seemed determined to throw it away.
>
M$'s market lead has to do with its "licensing" and "bundling" deals
that have landed it in public hot water with the DOJ twice.
> [snip]
> > > So you are saying that it's microsoft's fault that other companies could
> not
> > > compete with them when the fields were more level? That it's microsoft's
> > > fault that netscape had a browser monopoly of their own and threw it
> away?
> > > That IBM had a viable alternative to NT in OS/2 and piloted it into the
> > > ground as hard as they could?
> >
> > I did not say that it was MS fault. I claim that they are using their
> current
> > position in the market to get people to buy software that should be given
> away
> > for free and then have the audacity to charge people for support.
>
> Software such as?
>
> > IBM got
> > screwed by MS, as soon as MS learned enough from IBM software engineers on
> how
> > to write an OS. I have a magazine from 1983, I believe. In this
> magazine,
> > Gates claims that OS2 is the OS of the future. Some time later, Gates
> took the
> > work that was already done and dropped all ties with IBM. What came out
> of that
> > was NT.
>
> Of course, (and I know two wrongs don't make a right) even if you accept
> this, the fact of the matter is that IBM are no strangers to screwing
> partners.. Personally I'm sure the worse thing MS can be accused of is
> getting in their punch first.
>
Microsoft can be, and in fact is now, accused of illegaly manipulating
the marketplace.
> > Netscape was making most of it's money off of the browser and the
> > browser was tailored to the Netscape Servers. Of course, when MS does
> this, the
> > winvocates claim that it is fair, yet, in the same breath they claim that
> > Netscape was a monopoly--can you say double standard?
>
> I don't claim this is fair as such, I do claim that MS's marketing is as
> fair now as Netscape's was. At the time IE 3 (the first IE worth using) came
> out, I remember we were deciding at the university where i worked what
> version of the browser to use. IE behaved well in our tests. Navigator
> trashed some system registrys on install. Netscape could not make up their
> minds whether or not to charge us, if so how to pay, whom to pay.. We went
> with IE3 because it was easier to understand where we stood with that. And
> this was before it was included with the O/S. While I prefer IE5 now both
> are free, I think its great that we have a choice.
>
The Netscape browser was always free for educational use. It was in the
license. And why do you think Netscape did some bad things to the
registry. Might it have been coding M$ inserted? Stranger things have
come out of Redmond.
> [snip]
> > How shall I prove this to you? I can get affidavits from everyone that
> I work
> > with at the Deutsche Bahn, if you like. I am not sure that it is on
> public
> > record anywhere--probably is not. The fact is, I can install the OS
> completely
> > free if I go with Linux. The $4,300 per annum is for service and support.
> I
> > guarantee you that I can offer a contract for half of that amount and be a
> rich
> > man, since Linux is much easier to maintain, once it is installed. With a
> disk
> > image copied to a CD, I can install Linux in about 15 minutes, by the way.
> We
> > do the same thing with the Win boxes, except it does not always work
> properly
> > (thank plug-n-pray) and stupid things like graphics cards become
> nightmares.
>
> Not that I think this is a competition, but I can install around 30 machines
> at once across our network in 20-30 mins, all configured how we want, all
> good to go, including customisation per machine. I can also introduce you to
> several people who prefer NT to *nixes. That don't make NT "better" more
> than your affidavits make Linux "better"
>
... and these installations cost how much??
> > The cost of hiring admins are the same in the Linux and MS world, by the
> way.
> > It is not true that a 'nix admin makes soo much money. In this newsgroup
> alone,
> > there are many, many NT Admins making 6 figures (that is the claim,
> anyway). I
> > find it very amusing that you need to pay people so much money for a task
> that
> > is supposed to be so easy in the MS world, by the way.
>
> I don't make that much! I think it's connected with supply and demand more
> than how easy or difficult the job is.
>
> > The biggest problem, imho, in getting corp's to change is the FUD
> momentum.
> > At work, I hear people say that they would like to change, but they are
> already
> > locked in to MS because of the proprietary data file systems that are used
> > (Word, Excel, etc...). The fact is, there are already industry standard
> file
> > systems that exist that are recognized in many OS's. RTF is one example.
> > Applixware runs on both Win and Linux--probably Mac's also, but I do not
> keep up
> > with the Apple world. Applixware is a full-blown office suite that offers
> > everything that Office(xx) offers, by the way. The problem the winvocates
> have
> > with it is that it "does not look as polished." That leads to other
> points,
> > though.
>
> Never tried Applixware.. hmmm, tried StarOffice and thought it was
> unusable.. I'll keep an eye out for a chance to try applixware.
>
You dontn have to look too far. And it does run under LinuxPPC.
> >
> > > > As far as file and print servers go, Linux does the job much better
> than
> > > WinNT,
> > > > by the way. It is easier to set up a file server with permissions
> under
> > > Linux and
> > > > can be done with much less hardware than is required for a Win
> solution.
> > >
> > > Opinion...
> >
> > Nope, try it sometime and you'll see that it is not just an opinion.
>
> 6 years experience with various *nix dialects here. Tried it. Of course, my
> preference for NT's methods of working is an opinion also.
>
> [...]
> > Somewhere along the way, someone's terminal was removed from their desk
> at
> > work and it was replaced with a PC. The software was completely
> different, file
> > formats were converted, etc..., and everyone survived. It can be done
> again,
> > right? Many people used computers in the business world well before
> something
> > called windows appeared on the market.
>
> And I was one of them
>
> > You are simply one of millions that have
> > fallen for the MS ploy that people are too stupid to learn how to use
> > computers. Of course, the hours that I spend helping friends keep install
> and
> > maintain their Winxx boes probably justifies this sentiment.
>
> I've got experience with IBM's MVS, OS/2, OS/400 and AIX. Digital OpenVMS
> and Unix, various other *nixes, and of course DOS, Windows 3.x, 9x, NT and
> W2K. Can you accept that even if your opinion and mine do not converge that
> with that experience behind me I am capable of making an informed decison as
> to my preferred platform? Can I suggest to you that I have not "fallen" for
> anything? Can I expect an apology for being called a "Winluser" and the
> implication that myself and the people I support (who are either holding at
> least a degree or are students to people holding degrees or better) are
> stupid?
>
> [snip]
> > > Excuse me?
> >
> > What did you not get?
>
> "Winlusers" and real arguement. Ignoring the un-needed insult, I still miss
> the leap you made there.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Oh, the MS programmers are so good that WinNT 4.0 jsut had SP6 released,
> Win95
> > really sucks, Win98 is even worse. In the gaming industry, MS lags was
> behind
> > other companies, and in the application world they lack attention to
> detail. Do
> > not confuse bloatware with paying attention to the details, by the way.
>
> SP6. Ok what version of the Kernal is Linux up to now? I don't get this.. If
> MS don't release bugfixes they are slammed for not supporting people. If
> they do they are slammed for needing service packs. Make your mind up.
>
Linux is at 2.2.13 (or so) for the "stable" kernel. 2.4 is due in
weeks-months. And M$ ships with way too many bugs, at least inmany
people's minds.
> Also, and this is opinion, you had it the wrong with the Win9x too. Win95
> sucks a little, win98 is better.
>
hmmmm... so W98 sucks less than 95??
> [snip]
> > Nope, I am not whining. I am in COLA--a Linux ng. It seems to me that
> the
> > winvocates are the real whiners, since they feel the need to spend so much
> time
> > in here trying to convince Linux users to come back to the fold. You all
> remind
> > me of the Jehovah's Witnesses that are continually harassing people by
> ringing
> > their doorbells and trying to get in to a debate about god--yes, it
> happens here
> > in Germany, too :(
>
> hmmmm well I'm posting from NT.advocacy so I could be short-sighted and
> claim it's the other way round. But I wont. My personal and oft stated
> opinion is that Linux and NT server are reasonable server platforms. I
> personally think NT is a lot better for my needs, but I know my needs !=
> everyone's needs (something that some advocates on both sides don't seem to
> notice) and I also know that my belief that NT = good does not mean Linux =
> bad
>
> [snip]
> > Whatever. Have you looked at the latest Linux kernel?
>
> Nope. I will when I fix my "spare" computer. I think the network card is
> broken :o( and it's a good one too.
>
> > I have installed
> > Win2000 Beta 3 and if it is an indication then I am not worried in the
> > slightest. I really liked the part where Win2000 took over my NT4.0
> partition
> > and rendered it useless. NTFS 5 is incomptabile with NTFS and Win2000
> swallows
> > any NTFS partitions that it sees. This is typical MS and you guys just
> keep
> > sucking it up. Good Luck!! :)
>
> This is noted quite prominently in the installation notes. Do you mean to
> tell me you installed beta software without reading the release notes? Or
> that you read it, installed anyway and are now bitching about something you
> knew was going to happen?
>
> and good luck to you too ;-)
> Rob Moir
Rich Cloutier
"Marty" <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38702188...@stny.rr.com...
> Rich Cloutier wrote:
> >
> > P.S. I also have an emulator, which will allow me to play some of the
> > ORIGINAL Atari games, like asteroids, galaga, frogger, and more. Not
much
> > good except maybe for a trip down memory lane, but I bet you can't do
that
> > with your dreamcast POS.
>
play
> original arcade games. I imagine other game consoles do as well. In
> addition, some classic games are "hidden" inside of "secret levels" of
some of
> their modern counterparts, such as the new Donkey Kong game for N64.
Oh goodie, I can pay for the game all over again, and I get to play the
original again for free! I'm there. But I forgot, you console guys can just
drag out and dust off your original nintendos if you want to get nostalgic.
Stephen S. Edwards II
Rich Cloutier <rcloutier@abc_sysupport.com> wrote in message news:38702061@news...
> > Hey - send me $2,000 and I set up a PC game machine. Send me another
> $2,000 in
> > 2 years. So I can run the newest titles. That's a reasonable amount of
> money
> > for a game system.
>
> No, give me $500.00 to add to any system you are planning to build, and I
> can make a decent game machine out of it.
Ah. So, you're contending that in another 2 years, you'll
be able to make your PC play the same caliber of games that
the SONY PlayStation 2? Sorry, but I'm afraid this is bullshit.
Right now, the SEGA Dreamcast can process up to 4 million polygons
a second. The SONY PlayStation 2 can process 75 million polygons
per second. Don't even begin to believe that a PC from today can
process anywhere near that, because most PC's can hardly keep up
with the Dreamcast specs. 128-bit processors simply perform faster
than 32-bit processors.
[SNIP baloney]
> > One can always build a better mousetrap with a PC but the economics and
> system
> > complexity are the rub. Consoles have won and now are being built with
> features
> > to steal more functionality and users from the PC. Rumor is MS will put
> out a
> > x86 based game console system. WinCE runs on the Dereamcast but from what
> is
> > said, it is slow and designed not for "intense games".
This is also untrue. WindowsCE run on the Dreamcast just fine.
Yes, it does create more overhead than SEGA's proprietary OS, but
SEGA Rally 2, one of the first titles to use WindowsCE, runs just
fine. However, because of the complexity of the graphics, the
framerate does vary from 30fps to 60fps (no, this has NOTHING to
do with WindowsCE, as plenty of other games experience a bit of
slowdown due to complex textures and graphics w/ SEGA's OS in
place).
> P.S. I also have an emulator, which will allow me to play some of the
> ORIGINAL Atari games, like asteroids, galaga, frogger, and more. Not much
> good except maybe for a trip down memory lane, but I bet you can't do that
> with your dreamcast POS.
Again, you have no clue about the Dreamcast. SEGA is going to
place downloadable versions of TuborGrafX 16 and Genesis games
on their gaming network. Also, the only thing necessary for
an emulator is emulation code you dummy, so this whole
contention of yours is pure bullshit.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
Jason McNorton
> > $2,000 in
> > > 2 years. So I can run the newest titles. That's a reasonable amount of
> > money
> > > for a game system.
> >
> > No, give me $500.00 to add to any system you are planning to build, and I
> > can make a decent game machine out of it.
>
> be able to make your PC play the same caliber of games that
> the SONY PlayStation 2? Sorry, but I'm afraid this is bullshit.
>
> Right now, the SEGA Dreamcast can process up to 4 million polygons
> a second. The SONY PlayStation 2 can process 75 million polygons
> per second. Don't even begin to believe that a PC from today can
> process anywhere near that, because most PC's can hardly keep up
> with the Dreamcast specs. 128-bit processors simply perform faster
> than 32-bit processors.
And you don't think the Voodoo5 6000 won't be able to match that? With
onboard 128 megs of RAM, and 1.33 gigapixels minimum, I'd say it'll
easily outmatch a Dreamcast, and get awfully close to PSX2. Not sure how
many polygons per second though.
The consoles tend to leapfrog for a few months, but the PC stuff catches
up real fast. Already the Geforce is close in power to the Dreamcast.
That, of course, doesn't mean the games use the full potential of the PC
hardware. That usually takes another 6 months or more.
I have a Dreamcast myself. It's very nice. I'll probably get a PSX2 as
well. PC's do some things well (Q3A, UT, RTS games) and consoles do
others (sports games, fighting games)..
John Hughes
"Rick" <nospam...@aug.com> wrote in message
news:2000010209...@cvx0-151.aug.com...
> <mcs...@ginmill.bar> wrote:
>
> 4.0.7??? 4.6.1 is shipping will all of the Linux distros I know of, and
> 4.7 is out. Mozilla is in beta. Public beta. People use it every day.
>
Mozilla is in pre-alpha stage at the moment. ie. build 12
>
> Linux has a little higher marketshare than that. Ask Gates. He has said
> so himself.
>
Check the stats.
_LuvLinux
Jim Frost <ji...@frostbytes.com> wrote:
> _LuvLinux wrote:
> > Like Toys R Us? I wonder how much money NT has cost them this
holiday
> > season.
>
> Not that I recommend in any way shape or form running NT on a
high-load site,
> but NT wasn't the root cause of Toys R Us's problems. Rather, they
used an
> application framework that does not scale well and they didn't use
adequate
> hardware for their real-world load.
>
> That means that they made a number of bad management decisions all
along the
> way. First, they picked software that wasn't capable at high loads.
Second,
> they failed to adequately test it to determine this fact, or even to
determine
> how much hardware they'd really need.
>
> The end result was they got swamped. Hey, it happens a lot in that
kind of
> business, just not usually so visibly. And it happens regardless of
what OS
> you're using (I know of more than a few Solaris sites that have had
the same
> problem, eg American Airlines).
>
> They managed the problem the way you usually do when this kind of
thing
> happens: they bought a lot more hardware.
>
> And then they found out that shipping was even more important than
their web
> application. Who would have thought? :-)
>
> jim
Yes, you are correct. It was an oversimplification of things on my
part. My apologies. :)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Darren Winsper
> 4.0.7??? 4.6.1 is shipping will all of the Linux distros I know of, and
> 4.7 is out. Mozilla is in beta. Public beta. People use it every day.
Mozilla is currently in alpha. Granted, it's more stable than some
betas I've used, but it's still alpha.
--
Darren Winsper - ICQ 8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
"Microsoft stated that they had very little Monopoly power," stated
Jackson in his findings of fact, "However, upon closer investigation,
we found that not only did they own all the properties on two entire
sides of the board, they also had three houses on Boardwalk and Park Place!"
--http://www.segfault.org/story.phtml?mode=2&id=3825b6d8-019cd640
Darren Winsper
> MSIE 5 for Windows is a better product than Netscape. I hate MS, and
> even I think that. I wish MS would hurry up and release MSIE 5 for Mac.
Wasn't it due out last summer? Heh.
> The recent Mozilla builds actually aren't bad.
Using a self-made build from a CVS pull on 31-12-1999 (They had Y2K
problems so I've delayed pulling anything newer for a couple of days),
crashes are very few and far between.
Robert Moir
The
> fact is that if more games existed for Linux, many people would make the
> switch. Of course, consoles are better gaming machines, but I prefer
doing
> things on computers, since I do not play games too often. When I do play,
they
> are usually games that do not require heavy-duty graphics cards and PIII
700
> computers--chess, backgammon, etc....
so they would be ok on NT as well as Linux. Like Linux, NT isn't a gaming
O/S. Like Linux it's for serious work.
[snip]
> Nope, I mean that if they were not able to gather the contracts with
major
> hardware distributors allowing them to easily sell their software, they
would
> not have been able to sell it as easily. The other companies put much
more than
> words up on the table, the problem was that not enough words were offered.
But they had the same chances as MS at the start anyway.
[snip]
> > And the consumers were supposed to stand around weeping over the fact
that
> > apple and commodore could not sell water to someone half dead with
thirst?
>
> I never claimed that. I just stated some simple facts ;-)
Quite so, and so did I. In a lot of cases, while MS have been very sharp
about keeping a lead, their original taking of it was a lot to do with the
fact that their competitors back then seemed determined to throw it away.
[snip]
> > So you are saying that it's microsoft's fault that other companies could
not
> > compete with them when the fields were more level? That it's microsoft's
> > fault that netscape had a browser monopoly of their own and threw it
away?
> > That IBM had a viable alternative to NT in OS/2 and piloted it into the
> > ground as hard as they could?
>
> I did not say that it was MS fault. I claim that they are using their
current
> position in the market to get people to buy software that should be given
away
> for free and then have the audacity to charge people for support.
Software such as?
> IBM got
> screwed by MS, as soon as MS learned enough from IBM software engineers on
how
> to write an OS. I have a magazine from 1983, I believe. In this
magazine,
> Gates claims that OS2 is the OS of the future. Some time later, Gates
took the
> work that was already done and dropped all ties with IBM. What came out
of that
> was NT.
Of course, (and I know two wrongs don't make a right) even if you accept
this, the fact of the matter is that IBM are no strangers to screwing
partners.. Personally I'm sure the worse thing MS can be accused of is
getting in their punch first.
> Netscape was making most of it's money off of the browser and the
> browser was tailored to the Netscape Servers. Of course, when MS does
this, the
> winvocates claim that it is fair, yet, in the same breath they claim that
> Netscape was a monopoly--can you say double standard?
I don't claim this is fair as such, I do claim that MS's marketing is as
fair now as Netscape's was. At the time IE 3 (the first IE worth using) came
out, I remember we were deciding at the university where i worked what
version of the browser to use. IE behaved well in our tests. Navigator
trashed some system registrys on install. Netscape could not make up their
minds whether or not to charge us, if so how to pay, whom to pay.. We went
with IE3 because it was easier to understand where we stood with that. And
this was before it was included with the O/S. While I prefer IE5 now both
are free, I think its great that we have a choice.
[snip]
> How shall I prove this to you? I can get affidavits from everyone that
I work
> with at the Deutsche Bahn, if you like. I am not sure that it is on
public
> record anywhere--probably is not. The fact is, I can install the OS
completely
> free if I go with Linux. The $4,300 per annum is for service and support.
I
> guarantee you that I can offer a contract for half of that amount and be a
rich
> man, since Linux is much easier to maintain, once it is installed. With a
disk
> image copied to a CD, I can install Linux in about 15 minutes, by the way.
We
> do the same thing with the Win boxes, except it does not always work
properly
> (thank plug-n-pray) and stupid things like graphics cards become
nightmares.
Not that I think this is a competition, but I can install around 30 machines
at once across our network in 20-30 mins, all configured how we want, all
good to go, including customisation per machine. I can also introduce you to
several people who prefer NT to *nixes. That don't make NT "better" more
than your affidavits make Linux "better"
> The cost of hiring admins are the same in the Linux and MS world, by the
way.
> It is not true that a 'nix admin makes soo much money. In this newsgroup
alone,
> there are many, many NT Admins making 6 figures (that is the claim,
anyway). I
> find it very amusing that you need to pay people so much money for a task
that
> is supposed to be so easy in the MS world, by the way.
I don't make that much! I think it's connected with supply and demand more
than how easy or difficult the job is.
> The biggest problem, imho, in getting corp's to change is the FUD
momentum.
> At work, I hear people say that they would like to change, but they are
already
> locked in to MS because of the proprietary data file systems that are used
> (Word, Excel, etc...). The fact is, there are already industry standard
file
> systems that exist that are recognized in many OS's. RTF is one example.
> Applixware runs on both Win and Linux--probably Mac's also, but I do not
keep up
> with the Apple world. Applixware is a full-blown office suite that offers
> everything that Office(xx) offers, by the way. The problem the winvocates
have
> with it is that it "does not look as polished." That leads to other
points,
> though.
Never tried Applixware.. hmmm, tried StarOffice and thought it was
unusable.. I'll keep an eye out for a chance to try applixware.
>
> > > As far as file and print servers go, Linux does the job much better
than
> > WinNT,
> > > by the way. It is easier to set up a file server with permissions
under
> > Linux and
> > > can be done with much less hardware than is required for a Win
solution.
> >
> > Opinion...
>
> Nope, try it sometime and you'll see that it is not just an opinion.
6 years experience with various *nix dialects here. Tried it. Of course, my
preference for NT's methods of working is an opinion also.
[...]
> Somewhere along the way, someone's terminal was removed from their desk
at
> work and it was replaced with a PC. The software was completely
different, file
> formats were converted, etc..., and everyone survived. It can be done
again,
> right? Many people used computers in the business world well before
something
> called windows appeared on the market.
And I was one of them
> You are simply one of millions that have
> fallen for the MS ploy that people are too stupid to learn how to use
> computers. Of course, the hours that I spend helping friends keep install
and
> maintain their Winxx boes probably justifies this sentiment.
I've got experience with IBM's MVS, OS/2, OS/400 and AIX. Digital OpenVMS
and Unix, various other *nixes, and of course DOS, Windows 3.x, 9x, NT and
W2K. Can you accept that even if your opinion and mine do not converge that
with that experience behind me I am capable of making an informed decison as
to my preferred platform? Can I suggest to you that I have not "fallen" for
anything? Can I expect an apology for being called a "Winluser" and the
implication that myself and the people I support (who are either holding at
least a degree or are students to people holding degrees or better) are
stupid?
[snip]
> > Excuse me?
>
> What did you not get?
"Winlusers" and real arguement. Ignoring the un-needed insult, I still miss
the leap you made there.
[snip]
> Oh, the MS programmers are so good that WinNT 4.0 jsut had SP6 released,
Win95
> really sucks, Win98 is even worse. In the gaming industry, MS lags was
behind
> other companies, and in the application world they lack attention to
detail. Do
> not confuse bloatware with paying attention to the details, by the way.
SP6. Ok what version of the Kernal is Linux up to now? I don't get this.. If
MS don't release bugfixes they are slammed for not supporting people. If
they do they are slammed for needing service packs. Make your mind up.
Also, and this is opinion, you had it the wrong with the Win9x too. Win95
sucks a little, win98 is better.
[snip]
> Nope, I am not whining. I am in COLA--a Linux ng. It seems to me that
the
> winvocates are the real whiners, since they feel the need to spend so much
time
> in here trying to convince Linux users to come back to the fold. You all
remind
> me of the Jehovah's Witnesses that are continually harassing people by
ringing
> their doorbells and trying to get in to a debate about god--yes, it
happens here
> in Germany, too :(
hmmmm well I'm posting from NT.advocacy so I could be short-sighted and
claim it's the other way round. But I wont. My personal and oft stated
opinion is that Linux and NT server are reasonable server platforms. I
personally think NT is a lot better for my needs, but I know my needs !=
everyone's needs (something that some advocates on both sides don't seem to
notice) and I also know that my belief that NT = good does not mean Linux =
bad
[snip]
> Whatever. Have you looked at the latest Linux kernel?
Nope. I will when I fix my "spare" computer. I think the network card is
broken :o( and it's a good one too.
> I have installed
> Win2000 Beta 3 and if it is an indication then I am not worried in the
> slightest. I really liked the part where Win2000 took over my NT4.0
partition
> and rendered it useless. NTFS 5 is incomptabile with NTFS and Win2000
swallows
> any NTFS partitions that it sees. This is typical MS and you guys just
keep
> sucking it up. Good Luck!! :)
This is noted quite prominently in the installation notes. Do you mean to
Robert Moir
DC <d...@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:DEF61E9A13F2303B.0EF8EF5F...@lp.airnews.net...
[snip]
>
> David,
>
> That isn't correct. I have NT4 and Win2k (final release, Pro) happily
> running side by side on a Pentium 266 with 96MB.
>
yup, you need the ntfs.sys file from SP4 or higher in your NT install for
this to work.
Robert Moir
[snip]
> The consumers were not given a choice to like, or dislike MS products.
MS
> made some very accute business deals that allowed them to bundle their
software
> exclusively. Commodore had the best PC on the market in the mid-80's and
> dropped the ball. Apple could not compete anymore after failing to see
the
> light and lost their stronghold on the school systems.
So when these companies threw away monopolies or vast market share leads as
you prefer or their own then were Microsoft supposed to refuse to sell to
their former customers?
> Netscape could not have
> been saved, since MS dumped their inferior browser (you can claim whatever
you
> like, but surely you must agree that the early IE sucked when compared to
> Netscape) on J Q Public.
IE 3 was the first version of IE that was equal / better in places to
Navigator. It was also the first version that got "pushed" at customers in
any way. It was available on download from MS for quite some time before it
was bundled with the OS, but people used it anyway.
[snip]
> The majority of home users use their computer for two things--internet
> services (email, surfing, etc...) and playing games. If there were four,
or
> five killer games written for Linux that were not available under Winxx,
people
> would snatch Linux up in a hurry, since the internet side of the house is
> already taken care of.
Except that you would then be forced to use Netscape Navigator. Oh no, AOL
have a monoply on web surfing on Linux. Be afraid, be very afraid. AOL are
the last people I'd want to be beholden to.
> If you have seen the installation of StarOffice, or Word
> Perfect, you would realize that the install can go just as easily and
mindlessly
> as the install of any package for Win--that goes for CivIII and MythII,
also,
> btw. The one mistake that the MS advocates keep on making is that they
maintain
> Linux is not capable of such things. Linux is an OS that serves apps.
There is
> absolutely no reason that Linux cannot be made easier to install (I think
that
> Linux is much easier in many respects), or that software cannot be
installed by
> simply clicking on a tab that says, "yes." The only thing that has been
holding
> Linux back (if I may speak of Linux in metamorphically) is cash. Now that
some
> of the big Linux players have cash, Linux development will continue by
leaps and
> bounds.
Yes and this is a good thing. As someone who prefers NT but believes both
OSen have a place in the market, I am keen to see some competition for NT in
order to promote NT improving to compete.
ZnU
(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 19:00:11 GMT, ZnU wrote:
>
> >If Linux ever wants to get serious marketshare, it needs to become
> >suitable for these people. Of course, there's nothing _wrong_ with
> >having small marketshare. I'm primarily a Mac user, and as long as I can
> >get the apps I need, I don't care what the Mac's marketshare is. But
>
> I'd consider the level of third party support that the mac already
> has to be more than adequate.
I agree. Except perhaps with games, but the Mac is getting better there.
> >those who want Linux to take over the world
>
> Besides a few slashdot kiddies, no one wants linux to "take over the
> world".
Well, there are quite a few who would like to see a free (in both senses
of the word) product replace Windows, and rightly so.
> >one coherent GUI that allows the user to do things like configuring
> >Apache, setting up FTP, setting permissions, compiling and installing
> >apps, the works.
>
> (*) That's not a GUI, it's a centralised configurator. And I agree
> that linux needs one
I guess it depends on how you define "GUI". I consider it to be more
than just a windowing system.
> (*) You can already install software and change perms from GNOME/KDE
> (*) Trust me, you really don't want end users compiling software.
Well, because of Linux's cross platform nature it might be necessary.
There shouldn't be any problems if you can hide it all from the user as
part of the install process. Unless something goes wrong of course.
> >MSIE 5 for Windows is a better product than Netscape. I hate MS, and
>
> So it's a good thing Opera's here. If the linux version is anywhere
> near as nice as the windows version, it will be a good thing for linux.
Yup, Opera is nice, but I question how many people are willing to pay
for a browser. Some members of the open source community won't pay for
anything, and even folks coming from Windows or Mac have gotten used to
free browsers.
> >> I also use it for writing documents ( LaTeX ). It's also a good
> >> platform
> >> for a web developer. Users who are happy with what they're currently
> >> using are usually best to stick with it.
> >
> >For a web developer? Maybe on the CGI side of things,
>
> Exactly. You cannot do serious web development without a webserver
> nowadays. There are several things that absolutely have to be done
> on the server.
>
> > but not on the
> >graphics creation/page layout side.
>
> For "graphics creation" and "page layout", there are a number of tools
> that get the job done. For example, Applixware, Star Office, Netscape
> and GIMP.
You can't produce professional output with those tools quite a bit of
the time; I've tried.
> IMO, excessive effort expended on "page layout"
> of a html page is wasted, because HTML is not designed to handle
> precise physical formatting. If you really do want to put something
> printable on the web, you are better off with PDF.
Well, you have to take HTML's dynamicism into account when designing a
web page, but it can be done, and it's very important. Much of the
success of sites like Yahoo comes from that fact they they're fast
loading, easy to navigate, and reasonably pleasing to look at. You only
have a few seconds to get and hold a surfer's attention the first time
he or she hits your site, and well written CGI or even good content
isnšt as likely to do that as a page that looks interesting.
--
There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?
ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
ZnU
<sta...@regio-info.de> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
>
> > > KDE looks pretty good to me.
> >
> > "Looks" and "works" are rather different. The problem with current
> > Linux
> > GUIs isn't what they do, it's what they don't do. What Linux needs is
> > one coherent GUI that allows the user to do things like configuring
> > Apache, setting up FTP, setting permissions, compiling and installing
> > apps, the works. You should never need to fall back on the CLI; it
> > scares people.
>
> There are already programs that you can use for these tasks. I suggest
> that
> you do a little research before you spout.
I'm not "spouting". You think the typical user is going to download and
compile a configuration tool? The typical user wants to go to "Control
Panel[s]" and be able to configure anything he might every want to
configure by clicking icons and checking check boxes.
> KDE works really well, too,
> btw.
> It is a much nicer GUI than Win, by a long shot. When I get bored with
> it, I
> switch to other GUI's. When I get bored with Win, I stayed bored.
KDE's GUI looks better than Windows, but it just isn't as complete.
There's tons you can't do from KDE that you can do from the Windows GUI.
"Better than Windows" doesn't impress me much either. Just about
everything is "better than Windows".
> > > > Netscape is dying quickly (I just
> > >
> > > MSIE also appears stagnant. As does HTML for that matter.
> >
> > MSIE 5 for Windows is a better product than Netscape. I hate MS, and
> > even I think that. I wish MS would hurry up and release MSIE 5 for Mac.
>
> A magazine article from a few months ago rated Mozilla 5 the best
> browser
> that exists--and it was still in Alpha. The magazine in question is not
> an
> anti-MS mag, by a long shot. Mozilla 5 scored the highest in correctly
> rendering CSS2 pages. It seems to me that IE should have won that one
> ;-)
The latest Mozilla builds still aren't really usable. I have high hopes
for Mozilla, but it sure isn't there yet.
> <snipped>
>
> The rest of your post was the same old tired MS dribble that we have
> come to
> expect here in COLA.
MS? You might want to check my headers.
Ferdinand V. Mendoza
Cool.
Ferdinand
>
>
> >Linux wont be a viable option until the community comes out with live
> >updates that user don't have to fret over.
>
> You can use something like autorpm or rpmwatch (look for them on
> freshmeat.net). I imagine most sysadmins prefer to do this manually,
> though, and it can't really replace keeping an eye on the security mailing
> lists.
>
> Dave Cook
Marty
>
> "Marty" <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:38702188...@stny.rr.com...
> > Rich Cloutier wrote:
> > >
> > > ORIGINAL Atari games, like asteroids, galaga, frogger, and more. Not
> > > much good except maybe for a trip down memory lane, but I bet you can't
> > > do that with your dreamcast POS.
> >
> > play original arcade games. I imagine other game consoles do as well. In
> > addition, some classic games are "hidden" inside of "secret levels" of
> > some of their modern counterparts, such as the new Donkey Kong game for
> > N64.
>
> Oh goodie, I can pay for the game all over again, and I get to play the
> original again for free!
Legally, you should be paying for a license for those games, whether on a PC
or a console.
> I'm there. But I forgot, you console guys can just drag out and dust off
> your original nintendos if you want to get nostalgic.
Funny how you should deem me as a "console guy" seeing as how I'm on MAME's
development team, making console and arcade games play on PCs.
I was simply showing how one console system can and does have the ability to
play emulated classic games, contrary to your "bet" above.
Lance Togar
news:slrn86v50o....@panix2.panix.com...
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:54:26 -0500, Lance Togar wrote:
> >"Michael DuFresne" <xduf...@raytheon.com> wrote in message
> >news:386F3BBE...@raytheon.com...
>
> >Could be really since you didn't mention *which* Linux distribution
you're
> >referring too. I'm assuming that you're installing more than the kernel
for
> >any of these OSs.
>
> FreeBSD is the only one that comes close.
..
Last I checked - a few days ago, FreeBSD wasn't using a Linux kernel. If you
were talking about Linux, the Mandrake distribution installed here without a
hitch, including a nice KDE desktop.
..
>
> SUppose I want to get a box running the following in minimum time:
>
> Windows and Mac file serving
> LaTeX
> Python, TCL, Perl
> C and C++ compilers
> TCP wrappers, sshd, apache, sendmail
> GNU utilies
> anything that I've left out thatcomes with a base RH install
..
You keep talking about FreeBSD but then go on about a RH install. RedHat,
I'll assume. FreeBSD != RedHat Linux.
..
> My school were setting up a Solaris server and it took them
> over a month to do what I could have done in a day with linux.
..
Agreeded. Same with SCO, AIX, etc.
..
> They had to compile and configure a lot of the software
> themselves. They had all sorts of problems. The C++ compiler
> didn't work. There were some attrocious security problems
> with the system. It took some time to iron the wrinkles out.
>
> The nice thing about linux is that everything's
> prepackaged. This is also true for FreeBSD. The time
> is takes to iron the wrinkles ( mostly bad security settings )
> out is minimal.
..
Yup.
..
..
Lance Togar
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2000 05:51:26 -0600, Michael DuFresne wrote:
> >Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> >> .... and because it's a zillion times easier to set up than many
> >> other UNIX variants.
>
> >Not really. Solaris has a much cleaner install than Linux. I could also
>
> Yes, so what do you get after you're done with the Solaris install ?
>
> Under linux, you get a lot of software as well as the base OS.
>
> Setting up a Solaris box with all the same dev tools , servers etc
> as the linux box is quite time consuming.
>
> BTW, someone said that Solaris doesn't even install TCP wrappers out
> of the box. Is this true ?
..
Yup.
..
..
Rich Cloutier
> Rich Cloutier wrote:
> >
> > "Marty" <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:38702188...@stny.rr.com...
> > > Rich Cloutier wrote:
> > > >
the
> > > > ORIGINAL Atari games, like asteroids, galaga, frogger, and more. Not
> > > > much good except maybe for a trip down memory lane, but I bet you
can't
> > > > do that with your dreamcast POS.
> > >
which
> > > play original arcade games. I imagine other game consoles do as well.
In
> > > addition, some classic games are "hidden" inside of "secret levels" of
> > > some of their modern counterparts, such as the new Donkey Kong game
for
> > > N64.
> >
> > Oh goodie, I can pay for the game all over again, and I get to play the
> > original again for free!
>
> Legally, you should be paying for a license for those games, whether on a
PC
> or a console.
But I pay ONCE, not twice.
>
> > I'm there. But I forgot, you console guys can just drag out and dust off
> > your original nintendos if you want to get nostalgic.
>
> Funny how you should deem me as a "console guy" seeing as how I'm on
MAME's
> development team, making console and arcade games play on PCs.
I deemed you a console guy because you knew so much about the emulators and
cookie games....which is more than I (a PC guy) knew.
BTW, Mame is what I have on the PC. I had forgotten the emulator name until
you refreshed my memory.
>
> I was simply showing how one console system can and does have the ability
to
> play emulated classic games, contrary to your "bet" above.
And I didn't dispute that. However, earlier you or someone posted (allright,
I'll go back and look......hang on.)
Sorry, it was Joseph....posted that console software revenue was 2:1 over PC
game revenue. This is because game cartridges are NOT upward compatible with
newer systems. I know Nintendo is this way. You have to go out and buy the
new software when you get a new console. A lot of times you just get the
same old thing with better graphics or a few new levels. When I buy a new
PC, I can still run original Nascar Racing, or Quake, or even C&C or DOOM. I
can also run the new stuff too. But the old stuff runs much faster, or I can
use resolutions that I couldn't run before. I don't HAVE to upgrade. In
general, aside from the few exceptions you mentioned, you can't run the old
stuff on the newer hardware.
Marty
>
> "Marty" <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:38703003...@stny.rr.com...
> > Rich Cloutier wrote:
> > >
> > > "Marty" <mam...@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:38702188...@stny.rr.com...
> > > > Rich Cloutier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > the ORIGINAL Atari games, like asteroids, galaga, frogger, and more.
> > > > > Not much good except maybe for a trip down memory lane, but I bet
> > > > > you can't do that with your dreamcast POS.
> > > >
> > > > which play original arcade games. I imagine other game consoles do
> > > > as well. In addition, some classic games are "hidden" inside of
> > > > "secret levels" of some of their modern counterparts, such as the
> > > > new Donkey Kong game for N64.
> > >
> > > Oh goodie, I can pay for the game all over again, and I get to play the
> > > original again for free!
> >
> > Legally, you should be paying for a license for those games, whether on a
> > PC or a console.
>
> But I pay ONCE, not twice.
I see what you mean now.
> > > I'm there. But I forgot, you console guys can just drag out and dust off
> > > your original nintendos if you want to get nostalgic.
> >
> > Funny how you should deem me as a "console guy" seeing as how I'm on
> > MAME's development team, making console and arcade games play on PCs.
>
> I deemed you a console guy because you knew so much about the emulators and
> cookie games....which is more than I (a PC guy) knew.
Understood.
> BTW, Mame is what I have on the PC. I had forgotten the emulator name until
> you refreshed my memory.
>
> >
> > I was simply showing how one console system can and does have the ability
> > to play emulated classic games, contrary to your "bet" above.
>
> And I didn't dispute that. However, earlier you or someone posted (allright,
> I'll go back and look......hang on.)
>
> Sorry, it was Joseph....posted that console software revenue was 2:1 over PC
> game revenue. This is because game cartridges are NOT upward compatible with
> newer systems. I know Nintendo is this way. You have to go out and buy the
> new software when you get a new console. A lot of times you just get the
> same old thing with better graphics or a few new levels.
It really depends. Super Nintendo in Japan could play 8 bit Nintendo
cartridges with a funky adapter (it was more than just a straight "adapter",
but there was a reasonable amount of backward compatibility). Also, the
Playstation 2 is going to run all original Playstation games as well as new
games.
> When I buy a new PC, I can still run original Nascar Racing, or Quake, or
> even C&C or DOOM. I can also run the new stuff too. But the old stuff runs
> much faster, or I can use resolutions that I couldn't run before. I don't
> HAVE to upgrade. In general, aside from the few exceptions you mentioned,
> you can't run the old stuff on the newer hardware.
A few more exceptions noted above, but by and large more legacy stuff runs on
PCs than on consoles, I agree. If you look at the overall expense of gaming
on consoles versus gaming on PCs, even taking this cost of re-purchasing
software into account, consoles are still more cost-effective. Both PCs and
consoles obviously have their places for different gaming "needs".
Rich Cloutier
"Stephen S. Edwards II" <tg...@cyclic.aux.net> wrote in message
news:84pbml$bup$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com...
> > $2,000 in
> > > 2 years. So I can run the newest titles. That's a reasonable
amount of
> > money
> > > for a game system.
> >
> > No, give me $500.00 to add to any system you are planning to build, and
I
> > can make a decent game machine out of it.
>
> be able to make your PC play the same caliber of games that
> the SONY PlayStation 2? Sorry, but I'm afraid this is bullshit.
Why would you think that technologies that are applied to game consoles
aren't also being applied to PC video cards?
Here are some specs on the NVIDIA GeForce Chip (from Creative's website:)
256-bit graphics architecture
32MB high-performance SDRAM (Annihilator) or DDRRAM (Annihilator Pro)
350 MHz Palette-DAC
AGP 4X with Fast Writes
Peak fill rate of 480 million bilinear filtered, multi-textured pixels and
more than 3.8 gigatexels per second
Up to 15 million triangles per second at peak rates
Integrated transform, lighting, setup and rendering engines
Four 32-bit 3D rendering pipeline
4 texture mapped, lit pixels per clock cycle
Single pass multi-texturing support (DirectX®6.X and OpenGL® ICD)
3D Features
Transform and Lighting (T&L) Engine
Graphics performance scale with Graphics Processor Unit (GPU) not CPU
Render with geometry instead of texture
Four rendering pipelines capable of delivering four pixels per clock
Cube environment mapping in hardware, fully supported by DX7 and OpenGL
Complete DirectX 7 support
100% hardware triangle setup
Texture Blend support:
Multi-texture
Bump map
Light maps
Reflection maps
Detail textures
Backend blend
32-bit ARGB rendering with destination alpha
Point sampled, Bilinear, Trilinear and 8-tap
Anisotropic filtering
Per pixel perspective correct texture mapping
Fog
Light
Mip mapping
Per pixel perspective correct texture mapping
Full scene, order independent anti-aliasing
32-bit Z and stencil buffer
>
> Right now, the SEGA Dreamcast can process up to 4 million polygons
> a second. The SONY PlayStation 2 can process 75 million polygons
> per second. Don't even begin to believe that a PC from today can
> process anywhere near that, because most PC's can hardly keep up
> with the Dreamcast specs.
PCs you buy at Circuit City maybe.
>128-bit processors simply perform faster
> than 32-bit processors.
Your logic is irrefutable! ;o)
>
> [SNIP baloney]
>
> > > One can always build a better mousetrap with a PC but the economics
and
> > system
> > > complexity are the rub. Consoles have won and now are being built
with
> > features
> > > to steal more functionality and users from the PC. Rumor is MS will
put
> > out a
> > > x86 based game console system. WinCE runs on the Dereamcast but from
what
> > is
> > > said, it is slow and designed not for "intense games".
>
> This is also untrue. WindowsCE run on the Dreamcast just fine.
> Yes, it does create more overhead than SEGA's proprietary OS, but
> SEGA Rally 2, one of the first titles to use WindowsCE, runs just
> fine. However, because of the complexity of the graphics, the
> framerate does vary from 30fps to 60fps (no, this has NOTHING to
> do with WindowsCE, as plenty of other games experience a bit of
> slowdown due to complex textures and graphics w/ SEGA's OS in
> place).
Hmmm....I can run Q-3 Arena in 1024x768x16 at 68 fps....no competition with
consoles there.
>
> > P.S. I also have an emulator, which will allow me to play some of the
> > ORIGINAL Atari games, like asteroids, galaga, frogger, and more. Not
much
> > good except maybe for a trip down memory lane, but I bet you can't do
that
> > with your dreamcast POS.
>
> Again, you have no clue about the Dreamcast. SEGA is going to
> place downloadable versions of TuborGrafX 16 and Genesis games
> on their gaming network. Also, the only thing necessary for
> an emulator is emulation code you dummy, so this whole
> contention of yours is pure bullshit.
I'm not contending that it can't be done, simply that it typically ISN'T
done. Backward compatibility just doesn't exist, because the game makers
want you to go out and buy the games over and over again with each new
console that comes out. It adds to the whole "TCO" model of console games
vs. PC games.
Rich Cloutier
> A few more exceptions noted above, but by and large more legacy stuff runs
on
> PCs than on consoles, I agree. If you look at the overall expense of
gaming
> on consoles versus gaming on PCs, even taking this cost of re-purchasing
> software into account, consoles are still more cost-effective. Both PCs
and
> consoles obviously have their places for different gaming "needs".
Exceptions noted. I guess if I WERE to buy a console for my grandkids, it
would be a Sony.
But I still like my PC better, for the more advanced multi-player features
and the fact that I already have the PC. ;o)
P.S. We're WAAAAY off-topic here.
Marty
> > > $2,000 in
> > > > 2 years. So I can run the newest titles. That's a reasonable amount of
> > > money
> > > > for a game system.
> > >
> > > No, give me $500.00 to add to any system you are planning to build, and I
> > > can make a decent game machine out of it.
> >
> > be able to make your PC play the same caliber of games that
> > the SONY PlayStation 2? Sorry, but I'm afraid this is bullshit.
> >
> > a second. The SONY PlayStation 2 can process 75 million polygons
> > per second. Don't even begin to believe that a PC from today can
> > process anywhere near that, because most PC's can hardly keep up
> > than 32-bit processors.
>
> onboard 128 megs of RAM, and 1.33 gigapixels minimum, I'd say it'll
> easily outmatch a Dreamcast, and get awfully close to PSX2. Not sure how
> many polygons per second though.
>
> The consoles tend to leapfrog for a few months, but the PC stuff catches
> up real fast. Already the Geforce is close in power to the Dreamcast.
>
> That, of course, doesn't mean the games use the full potential of the PC
> hardware. That usually takes another 6 months or more.
The thing is, new consoles, such as the Playstation 2 are introducing
different kinds of hardware acceleration. PCs, so far, have just employed 3D
rendering acceleration. The Playstation 2 is introducing hardware to
accelerate the solving of differential equations to more accurately simulate
physics in the games.
> I have a Dreamcast myself. It's very nice. I'll probably get a PSX2 as
> well. PC's do some things well (Q3A, UT, RTS games) and consoles do
> others (sports games, fighting games)..
In my experience, there are many console system games that just aren't
available for PCs, whereas most or many PC games have ported console
equivalents. In fact, I don't believe I own a single console game that is
available for PCs. It remains to be seen how well the new breed of consoles
handle multiplayer action, but one advantage will be a "level playing field".
Everyone with a Playstation 2 has the same hardware, so nobody can hide behind
that as an excuse for their poor performance in a game. ;-)
Donovan Rebbechi
>> FreeBSD is the only one that comes close.
>..
>Last I checked - a few days ago, FreeBSD wasn't using a Linux kernel. If you
Read the thread. FreeBSD is the only OS *besides* linux that
does what I was talking about. I am conceding someone else's
point that a FreeBSD box is easy to get up and running. However,
the other UNIX's don't come close.
>You keep talking about FreeBSD but then go on about a RH install. RedHat,
>I'll assume. FreeBSD != RedHat Linux.
I am well and truly aware that FreeBSD has very little to do with linux
--
Donovan
Jim Frost
> On Linux, I've never had Netscape crash. It used to "lock up" for a while
> when I'd start it on a machine with no internet connection, but that was
> just because it would be looking for its beloved "home.netscape.com" I
> killed it a few times in ignorance, but once I learned to be patient, it
> would eventually come around and start working. I've never had 4.7 crash at
> all. (Use it with RedHat 6.1.)
More power to you. Personally, though, I found NetScape on Linux terrifically
unstable right up until I disabled Java support. After that it has been
pretty good, although you have to be careful not to write too long a diatribe
in a forms textarea or it will crash, and its IMAP mail reader has some really
irritating quirks.
I can generally live without Java support, but it does kind of screw up a few
sites.
I'd like to see something better. As much as I'm not a fan of Microsoft IE5
is a nice piece of work, as is Outlook Express. They're both featureful and
reliable -- enough so that when I'm using Windows I now prefer them. I wish
the same were true of Netscape on any platform.
But that's ok, Linux now has Opera (not such a great UI, but FAST and stable);
Konqueror on the way (and even kfm is not so bad in a pinch); and Mozilla
finally starting to look interesting. It won't be much longer before we have
a whole lot of viable choices on Linux.
jim
Jim Frost
> Consoles make better games machines by virtue of the fact more software revenue
> is generated by consoles than for PCs. 2:1 and the ratio is increasingly
> shifting to the consoles.
This is due to the fact that the consoles are cheaper than PCs, so volume is
higher.
> Hey - send me $2,000 and I set up a PC game machine. Send me another $2,000 in
> 2 years. So I can run the newest titles. That's a reasonable amount of money
> for a game system.
Pfft. My age-old Pentium 200 ran Half-life very nicely last year, in full
high-resolution glory. The only necessary investment was a new $100 video
card. That's the wonder of the open architecture of the PC: peripheral
processors like video cards can drastically affect the effective performance
of the machine.
Now, that machine was really pushing the low end of what was workable with new
games -- but I could put it right back on track with a $250 investment in a
new motherboard. Hell, I could replace the whole shebang for $500. You no
longer need to spend thousands of bucks for really fast PC hardware!
> I think Nintendo64 came out with forced feedback controls *prior* to the PC.
> It was copied.
Nope. The first forced feedback PC controls were out in the late 1980s as I
recall (not long after Hard Drive, the first arcade console with forced
feedback). It was definitely before 1990. Granted it wasn't in your
mass-produced joysticks until something like 1997, but that's not the same
thing as first availability.
> The Dreamcast has a 56kb modem in the $200 base unit.
Yea, and my home PC has been talking on a cable modem for three years, and my
desktop machines have been doing it since I went to college in 1985.
Broadband is not even an OPTION on the Dreamcast. That's not to say that it
isn't a great idea to put a modem in the console, but it's not exactly
cutting-edge technology; at this point that's just basic functionality.
> The PSX II's Emotion Engine is more complex than the
> P III. PSX II comes out in Spring in Japan and Fall in the US.
The Emotion Engine is interesting all right, but the only reason it is going
to be cheap for consumers is because it's being subsidized by the games. And
there's no particular reason to believe that by this spring we won't have PC
video cards that match or exceed the Emotion Engine; look at the huge leap in
performance offered by the GeForce! More importantly, another whole
generation of PC video accelerators will be out by next Christmas....
> For real killer machines I recommend MIPS and IRIX.
Yea, they're nice, been using them for a long time, but they're kind of on the
endangered list at this point. There's so very little that you can't do with
a run-of-the-mill PC nowadays....
jim
Stephen S. Edwards II
Rich Cloutier <rcloutier@abc_sysupport.com> wrote in message news:38703ff7@news...
[SNIP]
The specs you've displayed are rather common among
PC gaming hardware, but they don't particularly
impress me, to be honest. I've been doing 3D animation
for about 10 years now, and I've seen machines that
can blow even the PS2's specs out of the water. Game
cards and consoles alike are just starting to dip into
what high-end 3D workstations have been doing for years.
I just wanted to note that, so that you understand that
I am not trying to start a DSW here, or anything.
My point was, that just assuming consoles are crap,
just because companies like 3dfx (whom SEGA rejected,
because of their "inferior" technology) has an ad
campaign that likens console owners to "people who
have never seen breasts", or "people who want their
blankie" is unfounded, and silly.
Sorry for my rather snide response, but I tend to get
annoyed when people seem to automatically have comtempt
for a product, simply because it has anything to do
with Microsoft. SEGA Rally 2 is one of the first titles
to use WindowsCE underneath, and it is nothing short of
amazing. It doesn't have a steady 60fps gameplay, that
I would prefer, but it doesn't experience any slowdown
whatsoever. Considering that it is graphically more
intense than any other racer on the market for any
platform, I'm rather impressed with it.
The fact that the Dreamcast runs WindowsCE means only that
the highly-coveted titles that only PC owners were able
to play will now have a platform where everyone with
an extra $200.00 lying around can enjoy them.
I used to use my PC for gaming, but I have found that it
is indeed much more expensive to keep my hardware up with
the PC gaming trends, so I started buying consoles again.
In fact, I no longer play any games on my PC. I use it only
for 3-D animation and digital video. Even if I wanted to,
my Oxygen GVX1, nor my dual proc's, nor does WindowsNT play
games very well anyway. It's geared for work, and not for play.
It was a very expensive workstation to put together, but
it does the job better than any PC/gaming card could ever dream
of, and hardware that stays relativley current longer than 3
years is something that you won't find in the PC gaming arena,
because the PC game hardware manufacturers limit what their
products can do on purpose, in order to force you to upgrade
later when a "killer app" game comes out.
A good console can stay current for 6 to 7 years easily
(ala SEGA Genesis, SNK NeoGeo, SONY PS, etc.) but PC gaming
hardware rarely stays current longer than a maximum of 4.
> done. Backward compatibility just doesn't exist, because the game makers
> want you to go out and buy the games over and over again with each new
> console that comes out. It adds to the whole "TCO" model of console games
> vs. PC games.
If backward compatibility is what you really like, then you'll
be happy to find out that the PlayStation 2 will not only play
all of the original PlayStation games, but it will also use
all of the original PlayStation's peripherals.
Tack onto that, the fact that the PlayStation2 has a PCMCIA
slot, two USB ports, an IEEE 1394 (FireWire) port, and some
righteous specs, and you got one hell of a reason to get
a game console.
Also, SONY is planning on releasing 3D workstations based on
the PS2's chipset (called Emotion Engine), which will be used
primarily for digital effects for film, and games.
And, on top of that, the PlayStation 3 is currently in the
planning stages.
While I genuinely prefer SEGA's games, I must admit, SONY really
has their stuff together.
A console that stays current for anywhere from 6 to 7 years, vs. a
PC display adapter, that stays current for a max of 4 years wins
every time, because the console is about the same price, and the
purchases are less frequent.
BTW, if you want a sample of what the Dreamcast can do, drop on
by to http://www.videogames.com/, and have a look at Soul Calibur,
or Resident Evil: Code Veronica.
Paul 'Z' Ewande©
"David Goldstein" <sta...@regio-info.de> a écrit dans le message news: >
> ZnU wrote:
>
> > > KDE looks pretty good to me.
> >
> > "Looks" and "works" are rather different. The problem with current Linux
> > GUIs isn't what they do, it's what they don't do. What Linux needs is
> > one coherent GUI that allows the user to do things like configuring
> > Apache, setting up FTP, setting permissions, compiling and installing
> > apps, the works. You should never need to fall back on the CLI; it
> > scares people.
>
> There are already programs that you can use for these tasks. I suggest
that
btw.
> It is a much nicer GUI than Win, by a long shot. When I get bored with
it, I
That's a question of tastes and colors. The problem, to the best of my
knowledge, is that for an app, to look KDEish, it would have to be
developped for it, and many apps are not, which breaks, IMO, the
consistency.
And though I like KDE [which to my eyes looks a lot like the Windows GUI],
on UNIX, I'm partial to Window Maker.
> switch to other GUI's. When I get bored with Win, I stayed bored.
Then allow me to alleviate your boredom.
http://shellcity.net/
http://www.msoe.edu/~rookd/wm/
http://www.litestep.net/
http://www.cybersnot.com/geosh/
http://floach.pimpin.net/openview.shtml
http://www.demonews.com/hosted/europa/
http://www.snow.icestorm.net/sharpos/index.htm
http://www.kjofol.org/e/
http://www.windowblinds.net
> David Goldstein
Paul 'Z' Ewande
Darren Winsper
<ma...@easynet.co.uk.nospam> wrote:
> Mozilla is in pre-alpha stage at the moment. ie. build 12
Mozilla was declared alpha around mid-December. The announcement was
made in their public newsgroups, so feel free to look it up.
Craig Kelley
> > Am I in an alternate reality here, folks? This is getting a wee bit
> > ridiculous. We may as well line the very few, poor, trampled-upon
> > Windows users up on a hill and crucify them for all the martyrdom
> > we've seen lately. The typical Windows user *I* know, doesn't even
> > know what Linux is or what it does.
>
> ... whats your point here?
The Linux "hype" is only going on in the IT/CS circle. Your average
user has no idea what it is. I don't know why certain NT advocates
feel so threatened by it.
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
ne...
>Rick <NOSPAM...@aug.com> writes:
>
>> > Am I in an alternate reality here, folks? This is getting a wee bit
>> > ridiculous. We may as well line the very few, poor, trampled-upon
>> > Windows users up on a hill and crucify them for all the martyrdom
>> > we've seen lately. The typical Windows user *I* know, doesn't even
>> > know what Linux is or what it does.
>>
>> ... whats your point here?
>
>The Linux "hype" is only going on in the IT/CS circle. Your average
>user has no idea what it is. I don't know why certain NT advocates
>feel so threatened by it.
Ah, but if the dinosaurs had known that a big comet/metorite/whatever-
hit-the-earth was heading their way, would they have stood around and
done nothing about it? I guess this is their way of fighting back, not
that I care about that.......
--
Asking a working writer what he thinks about critics is like asking a
lamp-post how it feels about dogs.
-- Christopher Hampton
10:41am up 57 days, 10:07, 2 users, load average: 1.17, 0.96, 0.65
Rich Cloutier
>
> [SNIP]
>
> The specs you've displayed are rather common among
> PC gaming hardware, but they don't particularly
> impress me, to be honest. I've been doing 3D animation
> for about 10 years now, and I've seen machines that
> can blow even the PS2's specs out of the water. Game
> cards and consoles alike are just starting to dip into
> what high-end 3D workstations have been doing for years.
Of course. I would LOVE to play games on one of those beasts. Unfortunately,
there is no OS for them that would allow it, and no games for the OS they DO
run.
>
> I just wanted to note that, so that you understand that
> I am not trying to start a DSW here, or anything.
>
> My point was, that just assuming consoles are crap,
> just because companies like 3dfx (whom SEGA rejected,
> because of their "inferior" technology) has an ad
> campaign that likens console owners to "people who
> have never seen breasts", or "people who want their
> blankie" is unfounded, and silly.
No, I don't assume consoles are crap. They have very good speed and
graphics. My point is that consoles [currently] do not support multiplay
gaming very well. Sure, you can have 2 or more joystics on a console, and
you can network 2 gameboys together, but you can't set up a true multiplayer
game on multiple consoles, either locally, or on the internet, like you can
with a PC. Also, my PC CAN be used for work or other leisure activities,
like web browsing, or chatting, or balancing my checkbook, or designing my
web site--all things a console can't do. So I feel that, for these reasons,
consoles are a waste of money. For the 200 bucks you spend for the newest
game console, I can get the latest 3d card for my PC, and STILL play all the
titles I did before, while you have to buy all new software. (Except for
Playstation, I'm told, which apparently IS backward compatible.)
>
> Sorry for my rather snide response, but I tend to get
> annoyed when people seem to automatically have comtempt
> for a product, simply because it has anything to do
> with Microsoft. SEGA Rally 2 is one of the first titles
> to use WindowsCE underneath, and it is nothing short of
> amazing. It doesn't have a steady 60fps gameplay, that
> I would prefer, but it doesn't experience any slowdown
> whatsoever. Considering that it is graphically more
> intense than any other racer on the market for any
> platform, I'm rather impressed with it.
That was merely a joke, because we ARE in a Linux advocacy group after all!
;o)
>
> The fact that the Dreamcast runs WindowsCE means only that
> the highly-coveted titles that only PC owners were able
> to play will now have a platform where everyone with
> an extra $200.00 lying around can enjoy them.
>
> I used to use my PC for gaming, but I have found that it
> is indeed much more expensive to keep my hardware up with
> the PC gaming trends, so I started buying consoles again.
What you have listed (below) is much more than you would need for gaming. It
seems more likely that you have chosen to go beyond what is required for
gameplay, and your choices of OS and hardware are not compatible with PC
game titles. In this case, you would need a separate PC just to play games,
and you figure "why do that when I can just buy a console?" That is valid
reasoning, but it is not the situation most people are in.
>
> In fact, I no longer play any games on my PC. I use it only
> for 3-D animation and digital video. Even if I wanted to,
> my Oxygen GVX1, nor my dual proc's, nor does WindowsNT play
> games very well anyway. It's geared for work, and not for play.
> It was a very expensive workstation to put together, but
> it does the job better than any PC/gaming card could ever dream
> of, and hardware that stays relativley current longer than 3
> years is something that you won't find in the PC gaming arena,
> because the PC game hardware manufacturers limit what their
> products can do on purpose, in order to force you to upgrade
> later when a "killer app" game comes out.
>
> A good console can stay current for 6 to 7 years easily
> (ala SEGA Genesis, SNK NeoGeo, SONY PS, etc.) but PC gaming
> hardware rarely stays current longer than a maximum of 4.
That says something about advances in each field, doesn't it?
What defines "current" for a console? Newer ones are coming out before that
time. Is that how long it takes before the software makers no longer support
them?
>
> > done. Backward compatibility just doesn't exist, because the game makers
> > want you to go out and buy the games over and over again with each new
> > console that comes out. It adds to the whole "TCO" model of console
games
> > vs. PC games.
>
> If backward compatibility is what you really like, then you'll
> be happy to find out that the PlayStation 2 will not only play
> all of the original PlayStation games, but it will also use
> all of the original PlayStation's peripherals.
>
> Tack onto that, the fact that the PlayStation2 has a PCMCIA
> slot, two USB ports, an IEEE 1394 (FireWire) port, and some
> righteous specs, and you got one hell of a reason to get
> a game console.
>
> Also, SONY is planning on releasing 3D workstations based on
> the PS2's chipset (called Emotion Engine), which will be used
> primarily for digital effects for film, and games.
>
> And, on top of that, the PlayStation 3 is currently in the
> planning stages.
>
> While I genuinely prefer SEGA's games, I must admit, SONY really
> has their stuff together.
>
> A console that stays current for anywhere from 6 to 7 years, vs. a
> PC display adapter, that stays current for a max of 4 years wins
> every time, because the console is about the same price, and the
> purchases are less frequent.
I'd really like to know where this 6-7 year figure comes from, if new
consoles are coming out as fast or faster than new PC display hardware.
Joseph T. Adams
: Linux GUI looks like crap.
Please see the c.o.l.a. FRT.
: Netscape is dying quickly (I just
: downloaded 4.07 and it is the same crap, slow and clunky).
: Mozilla is vapor, to the general public, and most likely will be more
: of the same garbage.
Netscape is indeed garbage, but Mozilla != Metscape. They have very
little in common.
Having a good free browser is important enough that there is another
free browser project, Konqueror (part of KDE), in case Mozilla for
whatever reason proves unacceptable. It is not *as* free (it has the
same licensing issues as does KDE) and it probably won't be as
featureful, as it will rely on the KDE infrastructure for Java and
Javascript support rather than rolling its own. But even KFM works
fine for most of my needs. Web "authors" whose sites require
Javascript or Java to navigate and which don't provide alternatives
for browsers that don't support either one simply don't get my
business anymore, and occasionally I will write to let them know why.
Unlike earlier versions of IE or any version of Netscape, all the
browsers currently under development support Web standards (HTML, CSS,
DOM, XML, XSL, Javascript, and Java). IE5 does also. Hence, barring
any stupid moves on the part of MS or any other major player, we will
soon have the situation where Web developers can code to the standard,
rather than to the individual quirks of specific browser version /
operating system permutations.
: IE 5.x is state of the art and despite all the security problems,
: still remains the leader by far. It ain't even close boys.
It is admittedly nice in many respects. However, it also is a
sufficiently bad security hole that I can't use it, at all, without
compromising the integrity of my entire network. My firewall machine
doesn't allow incoming connection attempts, but if a "browser" opens a
socket to the outside world, and encrypts the data coming across that
socket so I can't see it, I have no way to ensure that it won't be
used to tamper with machines inside the firewall. I have no way to
even detect that such tampering has occurred. Hence, I no longer
consider any closed-source browser, *including* Netscape and Opera, to
be safe to use on a secured network.
: Where is Opera BTW? Still singing the blues I suspect. I love the way
: they charge for a second rate browser and expect that people will pay
: for it.
: A joke at best.
We'll see. I won't buy or support Opera unless it adds value that
free browsers don't offer, without compromising security. I can't see
how it possibly could, if it's closed source. My intention is to move
away from closed source wherever possible, even if it means having to
temporarily lose functionality (or code it myself).
: Aside from cost, especially in the area of server or programmer tools,
: there is absolutely no compelling reason for Joe-Sixpack to convert to
: Linux.
: None at all.
You don't think "Joe-Sixpack" would like a system that doesn't crash?
Admittedly that isn't a high priority for most home users, or else, at
the very least, they'd be using NT rather than 95/98.
But it is for many. And it certainly is a very significant priority
for businesses.
: Linux is still something like .2% of the market place and will
: continue along those lines until it becomes user friendly, less geeky
: and offers what users really want, not a bunch of editors that require
: a BSEE to operate.
You think KEdit requires a BSEE?
: Home users are simply NOT interested in Linux as a whole.
I sure am.
Enough other folks are interested as well, that I sometimes have to
talk them *out* of switching before they've gained a fuller
understanding of the commitment that it will take to learn and use
their new OS productively.
Joe
Leon Hanson
wrote:
>
>(*) That's not a GUI, it's a centralised configurator. And I agree
>that linux needs one
>(*) You can already install software and change perms from GNOME/KDE
>(*) Trust me, you really don't want end users compiling software.
Uhm....
*I* am an end user (of Linux) and I often *must* compile sources to
install something I'm interested in.
>> but not on the
>>graphics creation/page layout side.
>
>For "graphics creation" and "page layout", there are a number of tools
>that get the job done. For example, Applixware, Star Office, Netscape
>and GIMP.
Netscape as a page editing tool? C'mon....
Applixware is goddamned hideous. Star office is a little better, but
tries too hard to be the entire Windows UI. Ugly.
>IMO, excessive effort expended on "page layout"
>of a html page is wasted, because HTML is not designed to handle
>precise physical formatting. If you really do want to put something
>printable on the web, you are better off with PDF.
Agreed.
I think what really good web developers need is mod_perl :-)
Leon Hanson
>From my point of view, enjoying the free software, it's stability and
>versatility, plus the congenial nature of the user community...
CONGENIAL?
Okay, I have had some help from Linux users. But I have also come
across some of the most incredibly condescending bullshit - makes
Macintosh zealots look like sweetie pies.
Steve Hix
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <tg...@cyclic.aux.net> wrote in message
> >128-bit processors simply perform faster
> > than 32-bit processors.
>
> Your logic is irrefutable! ;o)
Wrong, though.
IIRC, the old CDC 7600 was a 128-bit machine. There are
any number of 32-bit machines now that would be much
faster than the old dinosaur.
Keith Peterson
Actually, the mistake most people make is coming to COLA and asking a support
question. Then congeniality is often lacking.
If you go over to the other COL* groups you get better results. Unfortunately,
you often get six or seven replies from people who really don't know the
answer with "helpful suggestions" that waste large amounts of time.
After following them for a while, you find out which users are likely to offer
useful advice. But the widely-touted support of the linux community is, in
truth, slow, error-prone, and unreliable.
John Jensen
: If you go over to the other COL* groups you get better results.
: Unfortunately, you often get six or seven replies from people who really
: don't know the answer with "helpful suggestions" that waste large
: amounts of time.
: After following them for a while, you find out which users are likely to
: offer useful advice. But the widely-touted support of the linux
: community is, in truth, slow, error-prone, and unreliable.
I think it is a much more effective strategy, for broad catagories of
technichial and non-technical issues, to do a www.deja.com search first,
and then post only if something has not already been well-answered.
I've been able to answer my recent questions using the deja-news advanced
search, with the added bonus that I can see the "thanks, that worked"
messages which identify the best advice.
FWIW, the questions and answers I see in comp.os.linux.* are no less
cordial than those I see in rec.aquaria.marine.*, and often moreso.
John
Keith Peterson
>I think it is a much more effective strategy, for broad catagories of
>technichial and non-technical issues, to do a www.deja.com search first,
>and then post only if something has not already been well-answered.
You are absolutely correct. Deja is a godsend for linux support.
Donovan Rebbechi
>On 2 Jan 2000 15:05:03 -0500, elf...@panix.com (Donovan Rebbechi)
>wrote:
>
>
>Uhm....
>
>*I* am an end user (of Linux) and I often *must* compile sources to
>install something I'm interested in.
Follow the thread. I am talking about the kind of user
that is afraid of the command line. Now, tell me how you compile without
using the command line.
>>For "graphics creation" and "page layout", there are a number of tools
>>that get the job done. For example, Applixware, Star Office, Netscape
>>and GIMP.
>
>Netscape as a page editing tool? C'mon....
The only place where a page editing tool is useful is for
designing tables, and Netscape can do this.
>I think what really good web developers need is mod_perl :-)
Yep. I also find mod_include awfully handy for propogating a template
throughout a website.
--
Donovan
Leon Hanson
wrote:
>On Mon, 03 Jan 2000 20:13:48 GMT, Leon Hanson wrote:
>>On 2 Jan 2000 15:05:03 -0500, elf...@panix.com (Donovan Rebbechi)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>(*) Trust me, you really don't want end users compiling software.
>>
>>Uhm....
>>
>>*I* am an end user (of Linux) and I often *must* compile sources to
>>install something I'm interested in.
>
>Follow the thread. I am talking about the kind of user
>that is afraid of the command line. Now, tell me how you compile without
>using the command line.
I was following the thread. Znu complained that there just isn't a
good 'nuf, cohesive, solid graphical user interface for Linux;
something he could use to configure the system, install software, set
file permissions, config Apache, etc.
You said:
>(*) That's not a GUI, it's a centralised configurator. And I agree
>that linux needs one
>(*) You can already install software and change perms from GNOME/KDE
>(*) Trust me, you really don't want end users compiling software.
I would suggest that, for much software on Linux, you MUST compile the
source in order to install it. You don't always have (or want!)
binaries.
Also, I think you two have different definitions of a GUI.
>>Netscape as a page editing tool? C'mon....
>
>The only place where a page editing tool is useful is for
>designing tables, and Netscape can do this.
In your opinion. The thing of it is....it is SUCH a pile of SHIT.
And there are many different kinds of web "designers." Some of them
(like, I gather, yourself and myself) would like to use a real
programming language (perl) and do all the HTML dynamically (which
makes a lot of sense). Many others, however, are going to use a
WYSIWYG editor to do more than layout tables. Now, you and I might
consider that silly, but for many it's not; many of these designers
aren't going to learn perl (and probably shouldn't).
>>I think what really good web developers need is mod_perl :-)
>
>Yep. I also find mod_include awfully handy for propogating a template
>throughout a website.
I prefer to have as little actual HTML as possible, and let the entire
website exist in MySQL (or another DB) and use mod_perl to generate
all the HTML the user sees. But that's just me....
Leon Hanson
wrote:
>In article <84r2jb$ldi$1...@nnrp02.primenet.com>, John Jensen <jj...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>I think it is a much more effective strategy, for broad catagories of
>>technichial and non-technical issues, to do a www.deja.com search first,
>>and then post only if something has not already been well-answered.
>
>You are absolutely correct. Deja is a godsend for linux support.
I absolutely agree. And, believe me, I have learned not to post a
question until I've searched for the answer (I also find just pluggin
in an error message into AltaVista or MetaCrawler to be a fabulous way
to get on the trail).
However, even after doing proper searches and research, I do find that
usenet support is less than congenial sometimes. There is an
incredible arrogance amongst some Linux users as though if you don't
read (or can't understand) the source code to the driver in question,
you have no right complaining that it doesn't work and should go back
to Windows. :-\
Drestin Black
"Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
news:m1aemnf...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> Rick <NOSPAM...@aug.com> writes:
>
> > > Am I in an alternate reality here, folks? This is getting a wee bit
> > > ridiculous. We may as well line the very few, poor, trampled-upon
> > > Windows users up on a hill and crucify them for all the martyrdom
> > > we've seen lately. The typical Windows user *I* know, doesn't even
> > > know what Linux is or what it does.
> >
> > ... whats your point here?
>
> The Linux "hype" is only going on in the IT/CS circle. Your average
> user has no idea what it is. I don't know why certain NT advocates
> feel so threatened by it.
Threatened? Now THAT is funny.
Donovan Rebbechi
Let me interject ...
>I was following the thread. Znu complained that there just isn't a
>good 'nuf, cohesive, solid graphical user interface for Linux;
>something he could use to configure the system, install software, set
no, that's install *and* compile software. People who need a GUI to install
an RPM should not be trying to compile software.
>>(*) Trust me, you really don't want end users compiling software.
>
>I would suggest that, for much software on Linux, you MUST compile the
>source in order to install it.
I could dispute this, but it is orthogonal to my point.
My point is that users who are
afraid of command lines shouldn't be compiling software. Someone who
needs a GUI to change file permissions and install binaries should
not even think of trying to compile software.
>And there are many different kinds of web "designers." Some of them
No no no ... I said web *developers*. Someone who can't get away
from point and click and drool is not any kind of developer.
>WYSIWYG editor to do more than layout tables. Now, you and I might
>consider that silly, but for many it's not; many of these designers
>aren't going to learn perl (and probably shouldn't).
I agree, but again, you use the word "designers". In the thread, we
were talking about web *developers*
--
Donovan
Tim Kelley
> Ya know - this is the kind of behaviour that is exactly why Linux is being
> COMPLETELY ignored by CIOs in every significant company in the world.
you fail to realize the linux is ignoring every CIO in the world.
No one has ever needed them anyway, so what's your point?
--
Tim Kelley
tpke...@winkinc.com
kel...@mindspring.com