Linux Belongs in the Flintstone period
Poppa...@tree.farm
After all it is THE operating system with that "Jurassic Quality"
Make that 9pin DecWriter squeal with delight as you churn out
page after page of ill formatted text using LaTex.
You Linoscrews must be real wacky being into rubber and all that.
Personally I prefer Lotus as it is a lot more civilized to run.
Not requiring a fucking manual to figure out how to use it.
Tired of all those nasty graphics on web pages?
Why not run one of the many text based Linux browsers?
How about DVD? Ooooop's not supported yet...
SoundBlaster Live?
Oh come on now...You don't really NEED that nasty spid/f port now
do you? That's just bloatware!!!
Winmodems?
Ok I'll give you that one as a former RIME BBS operator, they do
indeed suck.
Of course you can run Netcrash, but you better set your upper
memory limit or Netcrash will start to spiral and use it all up
and down you go....
You look like a guy who know's his configuration files down cold!
Good thing cause getting to
/usr/opt/bin/WinDoWmAKeR-.06.03.05.30.-99.tar.gz ain't gonna be
easy.
Want to read news offline and save on the tele' bill?
Better get ready for this one:
How about Leafnode/VI/Pine/Slrn/ispell along with WvDial.
Yep and you get to configure them all yourself!
After all isn't control what Linux is all about?
No wonder it is so popular in one particular country where
"control" is a way of life..
"Your Linux will set you Free"
(Ha! Ha! didn't say it so GoldBlatt doesn't apply!!!)
Networking/Modem Sharing?
Of course says the LinoScrew!!!!
Just fire up Samba/smb/Ipchains and spend the rest of the night
editing the config files / permissions trying to figure out who
can do what.
Of course you can just fire up Win98 se and have it support modem
sharing and P2P networking right out of the box. Total time 10
minutes. Never did get the Linshit "solution" (is that Final
Solution"?) to work..
My sister works as an accountant at a large computer software
chain in the USA. Guess what is the most requested software?
Surprise!!!
LINUX!
Guess what is the most returned software?
No surprise thsi time :(
LINUX!!!
And Linux has won a place in this vendors heart as the only
software that they will accept on return giving a FULL REFUND!
Who the would want to copy a virus like Linsux and then return
the originals anyway?
According to my sister, they had no choice because the users were
threatening to call the FTC and BBB on them. Looks like Linux
seems to upset some people?
Number one reason for return was hardware incompatibility.
Number two reason was destruction of data already on system.
Number three reason was and I quote "This shit fucking sucks!!"
Well that's about all from the Poppa for now.
My boy Bill is gearing up for a biggie release and with his
current offerings to colleges for very cheap software, Linux will
soon be a non-issue. And that's how it should be because even the
Flintstones wouldn't use Linux!!!
PoPPACherry
the...@hot.com
Linux really sucks as far as I am concerned.
It is a huge waste of time and the geeks that go around professing
it's superiority should go out and get laid more often.
Try Windows and see how easy it is to use. Walk into Compusa and see
the thousands of programs that run on Windows, then walk into the
Linux shelve's and see the paltry 5 boxes for sale.
Linux has lost virtually every benchmark out there, excepting some
obscure German publication that nobody outside of Germany has ever
heard of.
Linux needs the systems to be dumbed down (see MindCraft) in order to
even compete. Then they cry foul even though there were rep's from the
Linux side present at the benchmark.
It will continue to lose because it is a kludge of a solution and
nobody running Windows or AOL or any of the complete Windows solutions
that are not usable under Linux would be interested.
Setup.exe and the program is installed, icon is put on desktop and it
works from second one. Under Linux?
Need this lib? that lib? permissions? who the fuck knows...
Linux will forever remain a relic of our past and yet another notch on
the belt of Bill Gates.
It's headed down the cesspool faster than last nights dinner and
Win2000 is simply the laxative needed to purge the body of that feces
called Linshit...
TheMan
David M. Cook
>I really can't argue with you on any of your points.
Hmmm...sock puppet do you think?
Dave Cook
mlw
A troll and a mirror, no doubt.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Matt Soltysiak
> even compete. Then they cry foul even though there were rep's from the
> Linux side present at the benchmark.
I heard about that. That was funny in a way. Not to mention the
community's reaction - "wha, wha, wha. Linux rulez, WIndowz sux." comments.
> It will continue to lose because it is a kludge of a solution and
> nobody running Windows or AOL or any of the complete Windows solutions
> that are not usable under Linux would be interested.
> Setup.exe and the program is installed, icon is put on desktop and it
> works from second one. Under Linux?
> Need this lib? that lib? permissions? who the fuck knows...
Yep. Luckily, I moved away from Linux because I need to get some damn work
done!! Under nt, work is efficient, as always. Under Linux, work ends
being wasted, usually figuring out how to use programs like VIM and XEmacs.
Thank God for Linux! ;-( sic
> Linux will forever remain a relic of our past and yet another notch on
> the belt of Bill Gates.
> It's headed down the cesspool faster than last nights dinner and
> Win2000 is simply the laxative needed to purge the body of that feces
> called Linshit...
I still believe Unix has its place as a server platform. It's reliable, and
fast. Windows hasn't had luck in that area. Though, my ftp running WinNT 5
was up for 4 months straight, without any problems, so I'm not sure now.
However, when it boils down to everyday computing, Linux is a pain to use.
It's free and open source though; that may be the only REAL atvantage, but
nothing else, in my opinion.
Matt
/
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>Number one reason for return was hardware incompatibility.
>Number two reason was destruction of data already on system.
>Number three reason was and I quote "This shit fucking sucks!!"
Taken out of context, these are the top three reasons (in reverse
order, though) that I am still trying to get MS to even acknowledge
my desire to give them back their software for a refund.
Bernie
--
History is a collection of agreed upon lies
Voltaire
French philosopher, 1694-1778
bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au
>Linux has lost virtually every benchmark out there, excepting some
>obscure German publication that nobody outside of Germany has ever
>heard of.
Oi! I resent that, mate! Lotsa blokes out yonder have seen and even
attempted to read c't and iX. You know, that's because those mags are
actually worth the airmail charge (every 14 days for c't, once a month
for iX) from Germany to Oz.
Can you name a single US magazine that would be worth reading, let alone
shipping halfway around the world?
Bernie
--
Dream as if you'll live forever...live as if you'll die today.
James Dean
James Mohr
> Oi! I resent that, mate! Lotsa blokes out yonder have seen and even
> attempted to read c't and iX. You know, that's because those mags are
> actually worth the airmail charge (every 14 days for c't, once a month
> for iX) from Germany to Oz.
> Can you name a single US magazine that would be worth reading, let alone
> shipping halfway around the world?
I loved to read BYTE before CMP bought it and buried. To top it off, they
never refunded the rest of my subscription. Instead, they offered me a
subscription to Windows Magazine, which I already subscribed to at the time
and is nothing more than an advertising platform for Microsoft.
I also subscribe to iX and c't. When I was in the States I got iX and I
agree with Bernie that it was worth the extra cost. I know of no **fairer**
magazine. Although, iX has a pre-disposition against SCO, neither are an
outline for any single company and therefore can be and are more honest. As
for a US magazine, try Linux Magazine.
As for Linux belonging in the Flintstone period. I agree. Back then you
didn't have a bunch of Zombies who blindly followed the marketing propaganda
of some big company. Instead, their primary interest was survival. Back
then, you needed a tool to help you survive, not increase the bank account
of someone else. Since Linux does that, I guess it does belong in the
Flintstone period.
As a side note, just because my son can ride a bicycle, but not fly a jet,
does not mean that the jet "sucks." Although my son is intelligent, he has
neither the experience nor knowledge to fly. Giving him the choice between a
bicycle and a jet, he would probably choose the bicycle, just like so many
choose Windows.
Yes, it is currently harder for the novice to use than Windows. Just like it
is harder for a novice to prepare a seven-course meal than flip burgers at
McDonalds. In the meantime, I will continue to support the dozens of Linux
machines running on-line e-commerce applications, because Windows can handle
it.
Regards,
jimmo
andrew_...@my-deja.com
few observations about "these two" against it:
1 - Try to seem reasonable. This implies providing the illusion that you
are taking the other person seriously (hence the use of two co-FUDders).
An easy way to do this is to follow up one long post with tons of
arguments (I use the word with extreme trepidation) with another with
tons of additional arguments, and a conclusion that agrees with the
conclusion of the original post. Length appears to be the key here. The
longer it takes to read, the more information it must have, the better
it must be. A reasonable person listens to this, and then responds in
kind.
2 - Use everyday slang-talk. "This shit fucking sucks!!!" can make
supporting arguments sound like they just rolled of your tongue, instead
of preplanned and calculated to achieve a specific outcome. A more
conversational tone allows for a feeling of human connection. Eg: "I
mean, really, when you get right down to it, for the average person,
Linux fucking sucks" is an improvement on the above, with a more
convincing feel to it. Just don't let ever on that your quote may not
have any substance behind it.
3 - Don't forget Marketing 101. Associate yourself to a popular trend.
They haven't figured out how to popularly manipulate the grunge period
(I'm forseeing tons of slackeresque "Just give me something that works,
you know? I'm tired of learning shit I don't need."), so go one step
back and latch onto Hip Hop -- hence: "poppacherry" and "theman". And go
extreme. If they don't empathize, then let them be amused by you. Jump
around and have a fit. Pump your fists and wave your finger-signs in the
air. Humour, even if they're laughing at you, is always an effective way
of getting a point across.
I don't know. It all seems kind of silly, doesn't it?
-a
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
jb...@transarc.com
>
> the...@hot.com writes:
>
> >Linux has lost virtually every benchmark out there, excepting some
> >obscure German publication that nobody outside of Germany has ever
> >heard of.
the US isn't the only market in the world for computer magazines.
>
> Oi! I resent that, mate! Lotsa blokes out yonder have seen and even
> attempted to read c't and iX. You know, that's because those mags are
> actually worth the airmail charge (every 14 days for c't, once a month
> for iX) from Germany to Oz.
> Can you name a single US magazine that would be worth reading, let alone
> shipping halfway around the world?
there are no US computer magazines that are worth buying. they are all
trash, even the so-called "unix" magazines. hell, dr dobbs seems to be
nothing but windows these days. many years ago byte used to have good
technical articles but it was destroyed by the dumbed down 'point and
click' magazines that are are nothing but page after page of windows
software reviews. there doesn't seem to be much of a market in the US for a
good magazine like c't.
Matthias Warkus
..and the...@hot.com <the...@hot.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:23:18 GMT, Poppa...@tree.farm wrote:
Looks like a troll replying to himself. How ingenious <yawn>.
mawa
--
"If you want an application to be portable, you don't necessarily create an
abstraction layer like a microkernel so much as you program intelligently."
-- Linus Torvalds on Microkernels (Open Sources, 1999 O'Reilly and Associates)
Marada C. Shradrakaii
/usr/opt/bin/Win<tab>
/usr/opt/bin/Win* (in a command)
>SoundBlaster Live?
>Oh come on now...You don't really NEED that nasty spid/f port now
>do you? That's just bloatware!!!
If you're not using it, you don't. Much like a video card with a 32Mb
framebuffer, ran in 1024x768x16bpp, doesn't need most of that extra RAM.
>Of course you can just fire up Win98 se and have it support modem
>sharing and P2P networking right out of the box
And if it doesn't work, you're stuck.
>My boy Bill is gearing up for a biggie release and with his
>current offerings to colleges for very cheap software,
Let's see-- taken from the leaflet offered by the local college's computer
store, NT4WS was about 140USD, 98SE about 190. I can get an OEM disc of 98SE
at a local store (with hardware purchase) for 100. And Linux is 0<x<80.
Doesn't seem "cheap" to me.
>Number one reason for return was hardware incompatibility.
Every O/S has a set of incompatible hardware. Would anyone with a K6-2/400+
like to talk about how well Windows 95 (original or A version) supports it?
>Number two reason was destruction of data already on system.
a/k/a people not knowing what the concept of repartitioning entails.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"I believe in the Holy Trinity-- Tannenbaum, Torvalds, and Stallman (the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Terror)"
The Hedge Fox
>bme...@bruce.cs.monash.edu.au schrieb:
>
>> Oi! I resent that, mate! Lotsa blokes out yonder have seen and even
>> attempted to read c't and iX. You know, that's because those mags are
>> actually worth the airmail charge (every 14 days for c't, once a month
>> for iX) from Germany to Oz.
>> Can you name a single US magazine that would be worth reading, let alone
>> shipping halfway around the world?
>
>never refunded the rest of my subscription. Instead, they offered me a
>subscription to Windows Magazine, which I already subscribed to at the time
>and is nothing more than an advertising platform for Microsoft.
>
Am I the only one who got Component Development Strategies as a
replacement for Byte? It certainly was a lot more cross platform
than Windows Magazine.
--
C. Chan < c-c...@uchicago.edu >
PGP Public Key: finger cc...@surya.bsd.uchicago.edu
Pieter Wenk
James Mohr <j.m...@gisma.de> writes:
>
> As for Linux belonging in the Flintstone period. I agree. Back then you
> didn't have a bunch of Zombies who blindly followed the marketing propaganda
> of some big company. Instead, their primary interest was survival. Back
> then, you needed a tool to help you survive, not increase the bank account
> of someone else. Since Linux does that, I guess it does belong in the
> Flintstone period.
Hm, no. I guess Linux remained for XX reasons somewhat in the Flintstone era.
But should not belong in this era. Up to all the Linux developers, distributors
to make it a nice, reliable, "EASY" to configurate desktop and server OS.
Today, this is absolute not as yet the case. Reliable yes, easy to configrate,
sorry, no.
I am running a SuSE 6.1 box, use knews as NR and just in order to set up my
internet connection (on cable), I was granted with a "day job".
Setting-up the printer, another day job.....
I do not believe, that the average peoples will be much interested in fideling
constantly around, just in order to get on work fundamental things, such as
printers, modems, internet-connection, sound-cards etc.
Or having to learn a butch of commands, just in order to use emacs, vim etc.
But I still like by SuSE box.
Regards.
--
/ / (_)____ __ ____ __
Pieter Wenk / /__/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / Vevey/Switzerland
/____/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\
Marada C. Shradrakaii
It can be made easy. Slackware's apsfilter is simple to setup-- run the
setupscript, it asks some questions, and offers to print a test page.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"Offering most people spirituality is like going into an American store and
paying with a 5-pound note: it may be worth more, but nobody will take it."
Donovan Rebbechi
>Today, this is absolute not as yet the case. Reliable yes, easy to configrate,
>sorry, no.
Sorry, yes it is.
Get hardware that's well supported, and installing linux and configuring
your hardware is a snap. Try getting started with a preloaded linux PC.
It's pretty easy.
A colleague ( in my math dept ) first tried installing linux on a windoze
laptop. It was a very frustrating exercise, and with a lot of my help,
we had something that was almost running. He's not really an expert, so
I need to help out with any nontrivial config tasks.
Anyway, he got lucky and the insured
laptop was stolen. He used the insurance money to buy a linux laptop, and
has since needed very little help from me. He's since realised that the
key is to buy from someone who is prepared to support your preferred OS.
>I do not believe, that the average peoples will be much interested in fideling
>constantly around, just in order to get on work fundamental things, such as
>printers, modems, internet-connection, sound-cards etc.
That's why they get their computers with their choice of OS preloaded.
>Or having to learn a butch of commands,
they don't really need to learn many commands if it's alreay installed
and working.
> just in order to use emacs, vim etc.
Just because they are there doesn't mean you need to use them.
--
Donovan
Donn Miller
Poppa...@tree.farm wrote:
>
> If you wish to return to the Flintstone era, why not run Linux?
It's "Da Sponge" again, under a different name.
--Donn
James Mohr
than you can with Windows NT, plus you can configure it so that different user are
only allowed to configure specific things, which is only available in a limited for
with Windows NT. Sounds more to me like you don't know enough about Linux.
Sorry, but in my IMHO, an ethernet card is much more fundamental than a sound card.
Configuring mine (a 3Com, not too uncommon) took me more than a day. The problem is
that NT decided that it had an "unknown" PCI ethernet adapter that was conflicting
with my 3Com PCI card (turns out that they were the same card). Well, I dug through
the Microsoft site and found nothing. Finally, the 3Com site told me what to do.
The list of stupid things that NT does to make more work for me goes on and on.
Maybe as a simple user, I might think otherwise, but as an administrator Linux is
much easier and **quicker** to configure once you know the basics. Plus, it is
easier to troubleshoot than NT. NT is not a good OS for your typical user. Most
have Win95/98. However, in business, where NT is targeted, you have professionals
who do understand the basics and IMHO, Linux is easier to configure than NT.
Regards,
jimmo
Pieter Wenk schrieb:
> In article <37E73CFD...@gisma.de>,
> James Mohr <j.m...@gisma.de> writes:
> >
> > As for Linux belonging in the Flintstone period. I agree. Back then you
> > didn't have a bunch of Zombies who blindly followed the marketing propaganda
> > of some big company. Instead, their primary interest was survival. Back
> > then, you needed a tool to help you survive, not increase the bank account
> > of someone else. Since Linux does that, I guess it does belong in the
> > Flintstone period.
>
> Hm, no. I guess Linux remained for XX reasons somewhat in the Flintstone era.
> But should not belong in this era. Up to all the Linux developers, distributors
> to make it a nice, reliable, "EASY" to configurate desktop and server OS.
>
> Today, this is absolute not as yet the case. Reliable yes, easy to configrate,
> sorry, no.
>
> I am running a SuSE 6.1 box, use knews as NR and just in order to set up my
> internet connection (on cable), I was granted with a "day job".
>
> Setting-up the printer, another day job.....
>
> I do not believe, that the average peoples will be much interested in fideling
> constantly around, just in order to get on work fundamental things, such as
> printers, modems, internet-connection, sound-cards etc.
>
Pieter Wenk
James Mohr <j.m...@gisma.de> writes:
> Well, webmin (www.webmin.com) allows you to configure much more on a Linux machine
> than you can with Windows NT, plus you can configure it so that different user are
> only allowed to configure specific things, which is only available in a limited for
> with Windows NT. Sounds more to me like you don't know enough about Linux.
Hello James,
I installed my SuSE 6.1 allone, without help, approx. 2 months ago. I agree, I first
took me the time to read the SuSE 6.1 handbook and later on, some ofter, sorry top say,
badly written HOWTO's. Nor badly written with regards the technical aspects, but
many of these things are obviously not written for newbee's coming from the M$-world,
but for UNIX/Linux freaks.
BTW: What is webmin ? I will pay a visit on that page. Thanks.
>
> Sorry, but in my IMHO, an ethernet card is much more fundamental than a sound card.
> Configuring mine (a 3Com, not too uncommon) took me more than a day. The problem is
> that NT decided that it had an "unknown" PCI ethernet adapter that was conflicting
> with my 3Com PCI card (turns out that they were the same card). Well, I dug through
> the Microsoft site and found nothing. Finally, the 3Com site told me what to do.
> The list of stupid things that NT does to make more work for me goes on and on.
You absolutly right. The internet-connection was the absolute very first thing I
configurated on my machine. I have a cable connection (net) and has as you, first to
get set with my 3Com Ethnernet-Card. This took me quite some time...well as newbee,
had to look somewhat around. (rc.config etc).
Once I was clear with all the settings, it works, without problems....
> Maybe as a simple user, I might think otherwise, but as an administrator Linux is
> much easier and **quicker** to configure once you know the basics. Plus, it is
> easier to troubleshoot than NT. NT is not a good OS for your typical user. Most
> have Win95/98. However, in business, where NT is targeted, you have professionals
> who do understand the basics and IMHO, Linux is easier to configure than NT.
Approx. 4 years ago, I installed and run during quite some time an NT on a 486 machine.
At that moment, I had to shift quite some disquettes around....But I agree with you,
once you get the feeling with Linux, it's likely easier to find the way around.
Now I only hope, that the future will bring the required performing and absolute easy
to handle apps. I switched to Linux (SuSE), in order to run apps. with this OS, such as
wordprocessor/spread-scheets etc. For this I have installed StarOffice 5.0 which was
on the CD of SuSE. Sorry to say, but something like this version, can by no means
seriously be considered as an alternative to M$ Office. First of all, it's a OEM-Version,
which can not be upgraded...Printing out of StarSchedule is NOT possible with this
version.
The above only as example....Linux is a nice, stable OS...but will now require
execellent apps. which can be easely used...for peoples coming out from the M$-
World....
Donovan Rebbechi
>Now I only hope, that the future will bring the required performing and
>absolute easy to handle apps. I switched to Linux (SuSE), in order to run
>apps. with this OS, such as wordprocessor/spread-scheets etc. For this I have
>installed StarOffice 5.0 which was on the CD of SuSE. Sorry to say, but
>something like this version, can by no means seriously be considered as an
>alternative to M$ Office.
Have you tried an eval copy of Applixware ? It's commercial but it's much
nicer than Star ( which is just a weak immitation of MS Office )
--
Donovan
K. Bjarnason
says...
Applixware? This is for Linux? Haven't seen it. Where's the freely
available, open source code for it?
Bob Tennent
>> Have you tried an eval copy of Applixware ? It's commercial but it's much
>> nicer than Star ( which is just a weak immitation of MS Office )
>
>Applixware? This is for Linux? Haven't seen it. Where's the freely
>available, open source code for it?
>
It doesn't have to be open source to be for Linux. It's commercial.
If you like that sort of thing, it will be just the sort of thing
you like.
Bob T.
Donovan Rebbechi
>> Have you tried an eval copy of Applixware ? It's commercial but it's much
>> nicer than Star ( which is just a weak immitation of MS Office )
>
>Applixware? This is for Linux?
> Haven't seen it. Where's the freely >available, open source code for it?
Huh ? It's a proprietary application. You can get a free evaluation version
though I think.
--
Donovan
Gary Hallock
Redhat 6.0 comes with the Applix demo as well as many other commercial demos.
Gary
Matthias Warkus
..and Bob Tennent <Bo...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> If you like that sort of thing, it will be just the sort of thing
> you like.
Snarfed for my signature randomiser :)
mawa
--
Some people pray for more than they are willing to work for.
Brian Homan
elf...@panix.com
> says...
> > On 2 Oct 1999 11:54:45 GMT, Pieter Wenk wrote:
> >
> > >Now I only hope, that the future will bring the required performing
and
> > >absolute easy to handle apps. I switched to Linux (SuSE), in order to
run
> > >apps. with this OS, such as wordprocessor/spread-scheets etc. For
this I have
> > >installed StarOffice 5.0 which was on the CD of SuSE. Sorry to say,
but
> > >something like this version, can by no means seriously be considered
as an
> > >alternative to M$ Office.
> >
much
> > nicer than Star ( which is just a weak immitation of MS Office )
Latest version of StarOffice is 5.1, which is an improvement over 5.0
(Hey, I've used it since around 3.1..)
http://www.sun.com/staroffice/
Brian
Donovan Rebbechi
>> In article <slrn7vc9j1....@panix6.panix.com>,
>elf...@panix.com
>Latest version of StarOffice is 5.1, which is an improvement over 5.0
Don't think it could have done much besides improve.
It's more the mentality than anything else -- rather than doing anything
new or exciting, they are just trying to push a weak imitation of
MS Office. Looks like a real "Monkey-see Monkey do" exercise. They've
point blank cloned a lot of MS Office ( for example, the spreadsheet
format styles are copied straight from MS Office ).
Meanwhile, Applix are producing something half interesting ( even if it's
a little ugly ) and Koffice have something exciting in the works.
--
Donovan
Donn Miller
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Sat, 09 Oct 1999 08:34:23 GMT, Brian Homan wrote:
> >> In article <slrn7vc9j1....@panix6.panix.com>,
> >elf...@panix.com
>
> >Latest version of StarOffice is 5.1, which is an improvement over 5.0
>
> Don't think it could have done much besides improve.
>
> It's more the mentality than anything else -- rather than doing anything
> new or exciting, they are just trying to push a weak imitation of
> MS Office. Looks like a real "Monkey-see Monkey do" exercise. They've
> point blank cloned a lot of MS Office ( for example, the spreadsheet
> format styles are copied straight from MS Office ).
Yeah -- that thing seemed bloated and sluggish. On top of that,
it used up too much disk space. It sort of looked like it was
"ported" straight from Win API to X11 with a toolkit, such as
libwine. It didn't look like it was truly "ported" to X11, but
had an intermediate layer between GDI and Xlib. Internet
Explorer for UNIX is such a beast (so I've heard anyway).
--Donn
[radiant matrix]
Donovan Rebbechi <elf...@panix.com> wrote:
:On Sat, 09 Oct 1999 08:34:23 GMT, Brian Homan wrote:
:>> In article <slrn7vc9j1....@panix6.panix.com>,
:>elf...@panix.com
:
:>Latest version of StarOffice is 5.1, which is an improvement over 5.0
:
:Don't think it could have done much besides improve.
:
:It's more the mentality than anything else -- rather than doing anything
:new or exciting, they are just trying to push a weak imitation of
:MS Office. Looks like a real "Monkey-see Monkey do" exercise. They've
:point blank cloned a lot of MS Office ( for example, the spreadsheet
:format styles are copied straight from MS Office ).
It's a good point, but a moot one. I'm glad that _someone_ offers a
near-clone of Office, because Office users migrate to StarOffice quite
easily. I should know, we did it here.
Plus, the big advantage is that we can exchange native file formats
internally across OSen.
:Meanwhile, Applix are producing something half interesting ( even if it's
:a little ugly ) and Koffice have something exciting in the works.
Yes, I've seen -- quite nice. But still, if what you're looking for is to
replace Office 97 in a "hot" environment, StarOffice is as close to seamless
as I've seen for the end users.
= [radiant matrix] =
Donn Miller
>
> test
Linux and UNIX in general are very high-tech internally. It's
just that the interface is old (CLI). RUDI was running MULTIX in
the early episodes.
Donn
tekn...@hotmail.com
Am I the only one who finds the Simpsons theme song to sound wuite a
bit like the Jetson's theme song?
tek
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:35:28 +0000, Donn Miller <dmmi...@cvzoom.net>
wrote:
R.E.Ballard
Donn Miller <dmmi...@cvzoom.net> wrote:
> Psyl...@Xavier.com wrote:
> >
> > test
>
> Linux and UNIX in general are very high-tech internally.
> It's just that the interface is old (CLI).
Actually, UNIX had a fully functional GUI Windows Interface
as early as 1984 (The Sun 1), Sun had a SmallTalk inspired
interface even before the release of the Mac. The X11 interface
was in it's THIRD release (1 per year up to that point) when
Windows 3.0 came out. Windows 3.1 inherited technology originally
implemented in MOTIF.
Since 1990, Windows has produced 2 "desktops" and 6 operating
systems "Windows 3.0, 3.1(1), NT 3.5(1), 95, NT 4.0, 98.
Backward compatibility was a bit of a problem.
Since 1990, UNIX GUI has evolved through:
6 server releases (X11R1-6),
8 window managers (twm, mwm, olwm, olvwm, fvwm, fvwm95, gnome, kde),
7 toolkits (Athena, Xview, olit, Motif, Athena3d, AUIS, QT, GTK)
5 component technologies (rpc, dce, corba1, corba2, mqseries)
32 Major Linux releases (4 CD releases/year since Nov 1991)
Then we can go into the office automation suites, the CAD/CAM
systems, the Financial Analysis systems, the Network monitoring
systems, and real-time analysis of telemetry from thousands of
sample points.
and backward compatible too!
> RUDI was running MULTIX in the early episodes.
Yes, Multix and UNIX did start out about the same time, about 1968.
But since AT&T was not in the business of selling computers at
the time, they donated the source code to colleges like MIT,
Berkely, Carnagie Mellon, and dozens of others. As a result,
the user community quickly grew to over 10,000 programmers, and
has been growing ever since. At $100/hour and a growth rate
of 10%/year, for 20 years, at 40 hours/week is about $13 billion
in development.
Of course, in the last 5 years, consultants go for $200 an hour,
Linux grows at 10%/MONTH, and programmers work about 60 hours/week.
Today, if you assume there were only 20,000 active Linux/UNIX
programmers (FTEs) in 1995, that's still nearly $2 billion/YEAR in
equivalent of R&D this year.
That's not too shabby for an 8-year-old.
And Linux has only been "Desktop focused" for less than 6 MONTHS.
Does that mean linux is "Cooked"? Nope.
I have little doubt that the clever folks in GNOME and KDE have
some nifty tricks up their sleeves. The Kluster Kids (Beowulf)
have a few more tricks up their sleeves. And now you have the
"Big Guns" (IBM, Oracle, Sybase, Dell, Compaq, CA, et. al.)
coming in with "Tier-1" support (their best apps - for Linux).
I just saw an ad for Linux/Alpha boxes $3000. That's the first
volley in a whole new war folks. IBM has a RS/6000 in the same
range.
I can see it now. Next year, my son will want a Linux/G5 cluster
that can crack 48 bit DES in 15 minutes :-)
> Donn
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million and growing at 3%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ed Allen
R.E.Ballard (Rex Ballard) <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>And Linux has only been "Desktop focused" for less than 6 MONTHS.
>
>Does that mean linux is "Cooked"? Nope.
>I have little doubt that the clever folks in GNOME and KDE have
>some nifty tricks up their sleeves. The Kluster Kids (Beowulf)
They call themselves the "Linux Cluster Cabal". First goal
is a 1024 node cluster. Maybe major Web sites won't require
a mainframe, though that is being addressed too.
>have a few more tricks up their sleeves. And now you have the
>"Big Guns" (IBM, Oracle, Sybase, Dell, Compaq, CA, et. al.)
>coming in with "Tier-1" support (their best apps - for Linux).
>
>I just saw an ad for Linux/Alpha boxes $3000. That's the first
>volley in a whole new war folks. IBM has a RS/6000 in the same
>range.
Next year will also see HP-PA and IBM is working on an S/390.
>
>I can see it now. Next year, my son will want a Linux/G5 cluster
>that can crack 48 bit DES in 15 minutes :-)
>
Steve Balmer started backing off on the 'Win2000 scales to
enterprise level" last week.
How many more "Win2000 has it" features are going to be spun
down between now and next February ?
It reminds me of the "Wait till Chicago is released" hype. Win95
has never impressed me much. I find Win95.7 (98) tolerable, at
least the third party telnet client does not seize up so that
Ctl-Alt-Del does not work like the Microsoft one does NT.
R.E.Ballard
e...@allenhome.sky.net (Ed Allen) wrote:
> In article <7uk87f$vfq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> R.E.Ballard (Rex Ballard) <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote:
> >
> >And Linux has only been "Desktop focused" for less than 6 MONTHS.
> More like a year with working code
> for at least nine of those months.
True. But the first "desktop user oriented" retail releases featuring
fully configured KDE and GNOME/Enlightenment implementations WITHOUT
putting a shell on the first screen came out in early April. This
would include Red Hat 6.0 (previous versions offered limited GNOME
capability, but mostly as an administrator interface). SuSE 6.2
(previous versions were friendly, but 6.2 and above were better
configured). And Caldera (Caldera has catered to the SOHO market,
including support for MLMs and consulting, but the recent releases
have been MUCH friendlier out-of-the-box.
> >Does that mean linux is "Cooked"? Nope.
> >I have little doubt that the clever folks in GNOME and KDE have
> >some nifty tricks up their sleeves. The Kluster Kids (Beowulf)
>
> They call themselves the "Linux Cluster Cabal". First goal
> is a 1024 node cluster. Maybe major Web sites won't require
> a mainframe, though that is being addressed too.
Given what they've done with Avalon and IBM's Netfinity cluster,
I can't wait to see the numbers on the 1024 node job.
> >have a few more tricks up their sleeves. And now you have the
> >"Big Guns" (IBM, Oracle, Sybase, Dell, Compaq, CA, et. al.)
> >coming in with "Tier-1" support (their best apps - for Linux).
> >
> >I just saw an ad for Linux/Alpha boxes $3000. That's the first
> >volley in a whole new war folks. IBM has a RS/6000 in the same
> >range.
>
> Next year will also see HP-PA and IBM is working on an S/390.
SHHH - you're not supposed to tell :-)
> >I can see it now. Next year, my son will want a Linux/G5 cluster
> >that can crack 48 bit DES in 15 minutes :-)
> >
> Steve Balmer started backing off on the 'Win2000 scales to
> enterprise level" last week.
If your "enterprise" is 10-50 people, they might be telling the
truth :-). I'd like to see the numbers in organizations of 1000
to 10,000 users (direct, web, e-commerce, e-business, & ERP).
> How many more "Win2000 has it" features are going to be spun
> down between now and next February ?
Microsoft has been turning out some interesting terminology that
could be a bit embarassing as the release date arrives. For example:
MTS (Microsoft Transaction Services) could lead people to believe
that it is a transaction monitor such as Tuxedo, Encina, or CICS.
It isn't. MTS makes programming servers less complicated. It's
*almost* like the UNIX fork().
MSMQ (Microsoft Message Queue) would appear to be the same as, or
compatible with, MQSeries. But MSMQ is incompatible with MQSeries
(requires a bridge from Level 9 which adversely impacts performance),
and behaves more like MQ Client than MQ Manager (which provides
fault tolerance, clustering, and transaction management features).
Appearantly we STILL can't read Fat32 files (so much for the virtual
filesystem interface). And 98 still can't read NTFS. This should
make "upgrades" from Windows 9x to W2K very "interesting".
> It reminds me of the "Wait till Chicago is released" hype. Win95
> has never impressed me much. I find Win95.7 (98) tolerable, at
> least the third party telnet client does not seize up so that
> Ctl-Alt-Del does not work like the Microsoft one does NT.
My two favorite demos of Linux vs NT is to take any of the text
editors and compare it to Notepad. Even Xedit or Xemacs is more
featureful than Notepad. Then I take Xterm and telnet to a UNIX
host in another room. Then I resize the screen and run vi before
and after the resize. I run a command that dumps gobs of stuff
onto the screen and scroll-up. Crippled versions of these features
are available on NT, but comparing Microsoft's implementation of
two incredibly simple applications can be very informative.
It's also fun to compare X11 to Citrix (especially when they don't
have Citrix included on their system). There was a big push to
announce "Application Service Providers" of Microsoft applications
through remote terminals such as Windows 95 or Windows CE, but
it hasn't worked out very well.
What's really fun is to telnet to a host using Xterm and then
start an X11 application remotely. The X application, running
on a server 1000 miles away, pops up on the Linux machine as if
it were running on the local workstation.
Ironically, the driving force behind this ASP initiative was probably
to compete with Linux. When an Office Suite for Linux can be purchased
for 1/4 the price of MS-Office, and Site Licenses can reduce the price
even further, Microsoft decided to offer ASP.
X11 uses font servers, which means that I only need to put the fonts
on one machine. NT stores all fonts locally. X11 uses message
streams, which means that the console an be on the same machine as
the application, or 1000 miles away. NT uses internal OLE event
queues. 3rd party vendors offer technology that converts event queue
into X11 (or Citrix) stream commands, but Microsoft does not.
In the desktop arena, this means that if a user get's stuck, he
can contact someone who doesn't have to spend 20 minutes describing
complex GUI manipulations over the phone.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 52 million and growing at 3%/week!
Grega Bremec
<r.e.b...@usa.net> had somehow managed to commit the following:
>> More like a year with working code
>> for at least nine of those months.
>
>True. But the first "desktop user oriented" retail releases featuring
>fully configured KDE and GNOME/Enlightenment implementations WITHOUT
>putting a shell on the first screen came out in early April. This
>would include Red Hat 6.0 (previous versions offered limited GNOME
>capability, but mostly as an administrator interface). SuSE 6.2
>(previous versions were friendly, but 6.2 and above were better
> configured). And Caldera (Caldera has catered to the SOHO market,
>including support for MLMs and consulting, but the recent releases
>have been MUCH friendlier out-of-the-box.
>
You mean "dumb spoiled Windows user oriented"? Yeah, I'd have to agree
with you on that one. But unless you mean that, I've first used Slackware
about three/four years ago, and it was as desktop oriented as one
needs it be. TkDesk was there, MWM was there, what else one needs?
Themes support as in AfterStep & WindowMaker? OK. App-buttons as in the
latter? TkDesk had some nice desktop functionality since the copper
ages as well. Nobody patted anybody on the back and said "well, I
recommend this-and-that for your desktop, do you want me to set it up
for you", but first functional KDE versions are available since about
a year and a half, not to mention third-party experiments that failed
simply because there wasn't enough publicity or a strong backup there
for them.
>
>In the desktop arena, this means that if a user get's stuck, he
>can contact someone who doesn't have to spend 20 minutes describing
>complex GUI manipulations over the phone.
>
You see, that's exactly what my point is - there are better ways of
using computers. We have Psions for word processing, and they're
cheaper. One needs to pass a driver's exam to get to drive a car, yet
any moron can buy a box for as little as $50 and start getting into
trouble.
I think there should be a bit of a larger emphasis on computer
literacy, instead of simply popularizing certain OSes. There are
better ways, ways to make a user aware of just what they're using,
instead of simply making them think about how they can achieve what
they want to achieve with as little effort as possible. I don't mean
that ridicule called a "CS class" they all force us to attend to in
pre-high school, I mean some quality, well motivated "how to become a
good computer user" class people should get for free when they buy
their first box.
In the present state, the vast majority is either being intimidated
by black monsters called Unix, or being moronized by some idiotic
user interface such as Windows. Nobody will profit from that.
Cheers,
--
-----------------
Grega Bremec
grega....@siol.net
------------------------
http://zap.to/gbsoftware
http://gbsoftware.webjump.com/
----------------------------------
Sitaram Chamarty
<r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote:
>My two favorite demos of Linux vs NT is to take any of the text
[snippage]
Great examples! My favourite for the last 6 months or so has been
some neat PCMCIA tricks.
I have an NEC Versa LX laptop with a 10/100 3c574 and some 56K
modem card. These are the only 2 that NT knows about, although I
have used some other cards (like an older 3c562 combo, a SCSI card
whose name I forget, etc. at various times on Linux).
Here're the fun situations: Pop in a different card than the 2 for
whom drivers are installed. BSOD or hang. Pop in the 2 cards
that it knows, put the machine to sleep, wake it up. Cards dont
respond anymore. Even more nasty: pop in the 2 cards, put the
machine to sleep, swap the cards in the 2 slots, wake it up.
BSOD. This is NT WS with SP4.
Linux handles all those situations nicely, needless to say!
Donal K. Fellows
R.E.Ballard (Rex Ballard) <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote:
> My two favorite demos of Linux vs NT is to take any of the text
> editors and compare it to Notepad. Even Xedit or Xemacs is more
> featureful than Notepad.
Saying Xemacs is more featureful than Notepad is like saying a fish
swims better than a bird. Or a 40-wheeler can haul more than a
push-bike.
It isn't a fair comparison. Xemacs is a massive system that is good
at editing virtually any kind of text you throw at it; it has many
man-years worth of effort put in to tweak it to its task. Notepad is
the result of an afternoon's hacking; anyone spending more than four
hours on reimplementing it with the toolkit of your choice is taking
too long!
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
Donal K. Fellows
> 8 window managers (twm, mwm, olwm, olvwm, fvwm, fvwm95, gnome, kde),
More than that. Afterstep and wmx spring to mind offhand...
> 7 toolkits (Athena, Xview, olit, Motif, Athena3d, AUIS, QT, GTK)
More than that. Tk and Jx spring to mind offhand...
Diversity is good!
R.E.Ballard
fell...@cs.man.ac.uk (Donal K. Fellows) wrote:
> In article <7ushan$nn3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> R.E.Ballard (Rex Ballard) <r.e.b...@usa.net> wrote:
> > My two favorite demos of Linux vs NT is to take any of the text
> > editors and compare it to Notepad. Even Xedit or Xemacs is more
> > featureful than Notepad.
>
> swims better than a bird. Or a 40-wheeler can haul more than a
> push-bike.
>
> It isn't a fair comparison. Xemacs is a massive system that is good
> at editing virtually any kind of text you throw at it; it has many
> man-years worth of effort put in to tweak it to its task. Notepad is
> the result of an afternoon's hacking; anyone spending more than four
> hours on reimplementing it with the toolkit of your choice is taking
> too long!
Precisely the point! By taking a simple example like a "text editor",
and illustrating how the GPL model took a relatively simple "text
editor" and gave it all that extra horsepower while Microsoft decided
to kill off text editors like Brief by including Notepad as "The only
text editor you really need".
The Windows 95 operating environment includes about 100 packages,
including about 30 applets.
The Linux/FreeBSD operating environment includes about 1300 packages
including about 500 applets (XClient applications).
> Donal.
> --
> Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/
fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
> -- The small advantage of not having California being part of my
country would
> be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel
on our
> borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o
r . u s>
>
--
R.E.Ballard
> [...]
> > 8 window managers (twm, mwm, olwm, olvwm, fvwm, fvwm95, gnome, kde),
>
> More than that. Afterstep and wmx spring to mind offhand...
>
> > 7 toolkits (Athena, Xview, olit, Motif, Athena3d, AUIS, QT, GTK)
>
> More than that. Tk and Jx spring to mind offhand...
>
> Diversity is good!
Did I forget to mention that they all play together very nicely
(thanks to ICCCM).