The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Mark S. Bilk
<heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Believe that MS has done more for the home computing market than any
>corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
>computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
product.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=550266479
>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>us all in that market :(
Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
believe them.
>As far as the Linux vs Windows contest is concerned, I believe that MS
>has set the trap and is simply waiting to spring it.
Right. Gates has the Linux folks right where they want him.
>MS has done very little to counter the press that Linux has been
>receiving in the last year. This is especially true for the desktop
>and less so for the server market but still there has been no direct
>attack on Linux.
Meaning what, that Microsoft hasn't bombed the headquarters
of Red Hat? MS has spewed out huge amounts of propaganda
against Linux and other competitors, some secretly financed
in astroturf operations, has paid for rigged benchmarks, used
non-disclosure agreements to prevent companies from publishing
benchmarks where Linux comes out ahead, put up a whole website
full of lies about the competition, etc.
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
But it still hasn't prevented the truth from coming out, in
large part by means of the Internet, and specifically Usenet
(in spite of the efforts of spammers like "Steve" here to
bury the truth under a flood of Microsoft crap).
>My theory is that MS is simply allowing people to choose and try Linux
>to see what it is all about.
>Once they try it and find out how much it sucks, all by themselves,
>they will come running back to the MS fold in mass.
If that were true, there wouldn't be so many Microsoft propa-
gandists lying about (mostly non-existent) shortcomings in
Linux, and trying in every other way to discourage people
from using it.
>Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>running.
The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
at no cost.
>To date I have given out somewhere near 50 Linux CD's and not one,
>not even one, person has stuck with Linux that I am aware of.
There is no reason whatsoever to believe this claim.
The public posting record of Steve/Mike/teknite/etc. shows
all the credibility and integrity of a rabid weasel on crack,
and the truth values of his statements are well approximated
by a random sequence of zeroes and ones. If he wrote that
the Sun rises in the East, one would have a sudden urge to
check that it still does.
>Linux in and of itself sends a powerful message....
It certainly does, one which all these guys have worked very
hard to keep people from listening to, but they have failed.
Here's a list of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
spammers operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and
past (including multiple fake names used by the same person).
Some of them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month,
each:
"Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, Stephen Edwards,
Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/heather/mcswain/
"S"/"Sponge"/"Sarek", etc., "Chad Mulligan"/"boobaabaa",
Jeff Szarka, Robert Moir, Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies,
Boris, "ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "bob/bill/
mike/e...@nospam.com(newsguy.com)", "Cuor di Mela", etc.
LShaping@...
><heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>>us all in that market :(
>
>Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>believe them.
Before AT&T was broken up, long ago, long distance rates were
approaching one dollar per minute.
LShaping
heat...@worldnet.att.net
>In article <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Believe that MS has done more for the home computing market than any
>>corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
>>computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>
>Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
>implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
>illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
>ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
>product.
>
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=550266479
So if you what you say is true why didn't all of these great companies
that MS stole from market the ideas themselves first?
>>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>>us all in that market :(
>
>Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>believe them.
Take a look at all of the Taxes you pay?
My phone bill is almost $22.00 before I even make a call.
The cost of LD has gone down due to technology costs being lower.
INW they can cram more voices on a given line, or fiber.
>>As far as the Linux vs Windows contest is concerned, I believe that MS
>>has set the trap and is simply waiting to spring it.
>
>Right. Gates has the Linux folks right where they want him.
They got there by their own accord.
>>MS has done very little to counter the press that Linux has been
>>receiving in the last year. This is especially true for the desktop
>>and less so for the server market but still there has been no direct
>>attack on Linux.
>
>Meaning what, that Microsoft hasn't bombed the headquarters
>of Red Hat? MS has spewed out huge amounts of propaganda
>against Linux and other competitors, some secretly financed
>in astroturf operations, has paid for rigged benchmarks, used
>non-disclosure agreements to prevent companies from publishing
>benchmarks where Linux comes out ahead, put up a whole website
>full of lies about the competition, etc.
>
>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
One benchmark was skewed (Mindcraft one). What about all of the others
where Linux techs were there to "tune the kernel"?
No. Linux has lost every benchmark to MS. Every single one, and is
still hiding in the closet on TPC .
It's hysterical watching the Linux community run in mass from
benchmarks.
MS tells it like it is and the Linux supporters live in a dream world
where they don't need "no stinkin' benchmarks".
>But it still hasn't prevented the truth from coming out, in
>large part by means of the Internet, and specifically Usenet
>(in spite of the efforts of spammers like "Steve" here to
>bury the truth under a flood of Microsoft crap).
Linux buries itself on it's own accord. It doesn't need any help.
>>My theory is that MS is simply allowing people to choose and try Linux
>>to see what it is all about.
>>Once they try it and find out how much it sucks, all by themselves,
>>they will come running back to the MS fold in mass.
>
>If that were true, there wouldn't be so many Microsoft propa-
>gandists lying about (mostly non-existent) shortcomings in
>Linux, and trying in every other way to discourage people
>from using it.
It's fun watching you guys squirm and set up a human shield to protect
the beloved kernel.
Only in this group do you see threads arguing over a single word
trying to define what constitutes programming. That's the very reason
why MS will win the war and Linux will peak and head toward ground
faster than one of Von Braun's V2's.
>>Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>>there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>>software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>>available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>>Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>>running.
>
>The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>at no cost.
So why aren't people running in mass from M$ if they can get all of
this great stuff for free?
>>To date I have given out somewhere near 50 Linux CD's and not one,
>>not even one, person has stuck with Linux that I am aware of.
>
>There is no reason whatsoever to believe this claim.
It's the truth.
Linux itself is the best advertisement to use Windows I have ever
seen.
I should call Gates up and suggest he send out free copies of Linux to
all registered Windows users.
Kind of like the Santa Claus at Macy's did in the movie "Miracle on
34th Street". He sent folks to Gimbles, the competition is Macy's
didn't have what they wanted.
I can't wait till the day, and it will be soon, when a credible study
is done on how many of those millions of people downloading Linux are
still using it in some capacity after a month.
>The public posting record of Steve/Mike/teknite/etc. shows
>all the credibility and integrity of a rabid weasel on crack,
>and the truth values of his statements are well approximated
>by a random sequence of zeroes and ones. If he wrote that
>the Sun rises in the East, one would have a sudden urge to
>check that it still does.
Rabid weasel on crack?
Ya got a picture of that one some where?
>>Linux in and of itself sends a powerful message....
>
>It certainly does, one which all these guys have worked very
>hard to keep people from listening to, but they have failed.
You are paranoid Mark. It's entertainment, at least for me. Pure
entertainment nothing more nothing less.
>Here's a list of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
>spammers operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and
>past (including multiple fake names used by the same person).
>Some of them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month,
>each:
>
>"Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, Stephen Edwards,
>Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/heather/mcswain/
>"S"/"Sponge"/"Sarek", etc., "Chad Mulligan"/"boobaabaa",
>Jeff Szarka, Robert Moir, Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies,
>Boris, "ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "bob/bill/
>mike/e...@nospam.com(newsguy.com)", "Cuor di Mela", etc.
>
Steve.
"Try Linux, please do. Find out for yourself what you've been missing"
Leonard F. Agius
> m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
> ><heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>><snip>
>
> >>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
> >>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
> >>us all in that market :(
> >
> >Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
> >a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
> >guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
> >believe them.
>
> Before AT&T was broken up, long ago, long distance rates were
> approaching one dollar per minute.
> LShaping
So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
I can't speak for you, but I make a hell of a lot more local calls than I
do long distance, so in the end, deregulation costs me more in the way of
higher over all phone bills.
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
LShaping@...
>"LShaping@..." wrote:
>> m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>> ><heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>
>> >>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>> >>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>> >>us all in that market :(
>> >
>> >Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>> >a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>> >guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>> >believe them.
>>
>> Before AT&T was broken up, long ago, long distance rates were
>> approaching one dollar per minute.
>> LShaping
>
>So what?
So what what?
>Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations).
That sucks. My big city doesn't have any such zones. Our phone bills
are low, for unlimited calls. Maybe you should take that up with your
city. Of course, it could be worse, you could have all of that and
one dollar per minute long distance rates.
>It's cheaper for me to call one of my siblings out of state than to call my
>parents fifteen miles a way.
Sounds like a personal problem.
Bye Jack,
LShaping
LShaping@...
LShaping
Bob Hauck
<lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations).
It is interesting that you point that out. The reasons for it are a lot
more complex than "break up bad, regulation good". Part of the problem is
that some things are still highly regulated while others are not regulated
at all. Part of the problem is the political power of the RBOC's. And
part is the slow pace of change in the telco industry.
Ameritech still has a monopoly on local residential service, as do the
other RBOCs. The only real competition is for high volume business
customers (ISP's, telemarketers, large corporations). That's why your
local calls haven't come down. OTOH, prices for things like PRI and DS3
service _have_ come down quite a bit. The reasons for this are complex
and include a desire by the competitive carriers to serve high-profit
markets first, foot-dragging by RBOCs regarding access to the local loop,
and state PUC's that want to protect the "universal service" concept.
What should have been done was to divest the physical plant (cabling and
such) from the value-added services. This would have provided incentives
for competition in residental and small business services and prevented a
lot of the foot-dragging that goes on regarding access to the local loop
that is an important reason for the lag in competition in residential
service.
>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't.
In the bad old days of Ma Bell, the phone company was a huge inefficient
bureaucracy where it was difficult to tell who was paying for what. In
general, business subsidized residential and long distance subsidized
local, but the whole thing was inefficient as hell.
It is probably true that regulated residential customers who have only
basic service are getting the short end of the stick today. One reason is
that the telco's are putting most of their resources into their
non-regulated businesses. Residential customers are basically a captive
audience while business customers increasingly are not.
In addition, residential service probably isn't as profitable as business
service, which is one reason that the competitive phone companies aren't
going there yet (another being the intransigence of the RBOCs WRT the
local loop). However, it is not true that residential is unprofitable,
especially in cities and especially if you get to sell value-added
services like Internet access. Don't let them convince you that they're
losing money on residential. They seem to have convinced some state PUC's
of this, but it isn't true.
All those $7/month charges for voicemail and call forwarding are hugely
profitable even if the basic $19.95/month rate isn't. And even that is
questionable, since at least in my neck of the woods US West is offering
incentives to get a second line for fax and Internet. They wouldn't do
that if each line lost them money.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
fmc
"Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
<c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
> >running.
>
> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> at no cost.
Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
either Windows or Mac.
For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
community to provide them.
fmc
heat...@worldnet.att.net
<lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
>call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
>a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
>making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
>regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
That is exactly what happened here in NY, especially in the suburbs.
The "local calling area" has expanded to cover hundreds of miles so
that despite being called local, it is really a toll call. I can call
from NY to CA cheaper than I can from Montauk Long Island to
SouthHampton which is one town away.
>I can't speak for you, but I make a hell of a lot more local calls than I
>do long distance, so in the end, deregulation costs me more in the way of
>higher over all phone bills.
Same here...
Steve
Boris
Boris
"Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8ccr85$mej$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> In article <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Believe that MS has done more for the home computing market than any
> >corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
> >computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>
> Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
> implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
> illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
> ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
> product.
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=550266479
>
> >Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
> >it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
> >us all in that market :(
>
> Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
> a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
> guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
> believe them.
>
> >As far as the Linux vs Windows contest is concerned, I believe that MS
> >has set the trap and is simply waiting to spring it.
>
> Right. Gates has the Linux folks right where they want him.
>
> >MS has done very little to counter the press that Linux has been
> >receiving in the last year. This is especially true for the desktop
> >and less so for the server market but still there has been no direct
> >attack on Linux.
>
> Meaning what, that Microsoft hasn't bombed the headquarters
> of Red Hat? MS has spewed out huge amounts of propaganda
> against Linux and other competitors, some secretly financed
> in astroturf operations, has paid for rigged benchmarks, used
> non-disclosure agreements to prevent companies from publishing
> benchmarks where Linux comes out ahead, put up a whole website
> full of lies about the competition, etc.
>
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
>
> But it still hasn't prevented the truth from coming out, in
> large part by means of the Internet, and specifically Usenet
> (in spite of the efforts of spammers like "Steve" here to
> bury the truth under a flood of Microsoft crap).
>
> >My theory is that MS is simply allowing people to choose and try Linux
> >to see what it is all about.
> >Once they try it and find out how much it sucks, all by themselves,
> >they will come running back to the MS fold in mass.
>
> If that were true, there wouldn't be so many Microsoft propa-
> gandists lying about (mostly non-existent) shortcomings in
> Linux, and trying in every other way to discourage people
> from using it.
>
> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
> >running.
>
> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> at no cost.
>
> >To date I have given out somewhere near 50 Linux CD's and not one,
> >not even one, person has stuck with Linux that I am aware of.
>
> There is no reason whatsoever to believe this claim.
>
> The public posting record of Steve/Mike/teknite/etc. shows
> all the credibility and integrity of a rabid weasel on crack,
> and the truth values of his statements are well approximated
> by a random sequence of zeroes and ones. If he wrote that
> the Sun rises in the East, one would have a sudden urge to
> check that it still does.
>
> >Linux in and of itself sends a powerful message....
>
> It certainly does, one which all these guys have worked very
> hard to keep people from listening to, but they have failed.
George Marengo
>On 4 Apr 2000 13:38:13 GMT, m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>In article <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
>> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Believe that MS has done more for the home computing market than any
>>>corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
>>>computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>>
>>Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
>>implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
>>illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
>>ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
>>product.
>>
>>http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=550266479
>
>So if you what you say is true why didn't all of these great companies
>that MS stole from market the ideas themselves first?
They did. As an example, do a search of Stac Electronics and Microsoft
>>>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>>>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>>>us all in that market :(
>>
>>Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>>a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>>guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>>believe them.
>
>Take a look at all of the Taxes you pay?
>
>My phone bill is almost $22.00 before I even make a call.
Is that a direct consequence of deregulation, or is that due to over
taxation?
>The cost of LD has gone down due to technology costs being lower.
>INW they can cram more voices on a given line, or fiber.
Competition -- without it there would have been no driving force to
make rates cheaper. As a recent example, look what the introduction
of the Handspring Visor has done to Palm PDA prices.
>Linux buries itself on it's own accord. It doesn't need any help.
If it doesn't need any help, then surely you have an explanation for
the Microsoft "Halloween" document, right?
>It's fun watching you guys squirm and set up a human shield to protect
>the beloved kernel.
>Only in this group do you see threads arguing over a single word
>trying to define what constitutes programming. That's the very reason
>why MS will win the war and Linux will peak and head toward ground
>faster than one of Von Braun's V2's.
Take a look at Netcraft's numbers for IIS vs. Apache. Are you quite
sure that it's headed toward ground?
>So why aren't people running in mass from M$ if they can get all of
>this great stuff for free?
Because they're not used to it, it's different, it doesn't run Word,
it's not what their employer uses, it's not what came on their
computer, etc. In other words, lots of reasons.
>It's the truth. Linux itself is the best advertisement to use Windows
>I have ever seen.
Why did nobody continue to use it?
redrum
says...
>
>In article <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Believe that MS has done more for the home computing market than any
>>corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
>>computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>
>Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
>implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
>illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
>ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
>product.
Or simply bought them out and then having them sign noncompetition
agreements.
>>Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>>there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>>software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>>available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>>Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>>running.
>
>The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>at no cost.
I already believe that Linux runs on Intel architecture chips. I'm not
sure if they have a good GUI or not, but it's really needed to succeed.
Computer makers have been bullied by M$ into putting only Windows on
their PCs. If they can get those agreements invalidated under the
antitrust ruling, then they'll be free to put whatever they want on
their PCs. Windows runs 95% of PCs now because people will buy what is
common. M$ snagged the market early so that when Joe Blow went out to
buy his first PC, he saw that they all were running Windows so he said
why not. But if a good number of Linux PCs come out with a good GUI and
Windows compatible apps, people will look into them.
George Marengo
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:51:03 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
><lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
>>call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
>>a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
>>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
>>making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
>>regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
>
>
>That is exactly what happened here in NY, especially in the suburbs.
>The "local calling area" has expanded to cover hundreds of miles so
>that despite being called local, it is really a toll call. I can call
>from NY to CA cheaper than I can from Montauk Long Island to
>SouthHampton which is one town away.
That's a local issue. I can call anywhere in the state of California
(where I live) for $0.04/minute while calls outside of California are
a penny more.
Why? Because PacBell not only has competition from MCI, but
from cable companies.
Jeremy Crabtree
I see you changed your "From:' field again (to foil killfiles?), anyway,
back in you go.
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
Leonard F. Agius
Eventually we're supposed to have that competition here, too, but so far, it
hasn't materialized. And frankly, I don't think it's going to have an impact
here, yet, because my metropolitan area is so fragmented. That fragmentation in
who-has-what cable franchise is going to make it take a LONG time to create any
real competition. In the mean time, the local phone company enjoys a fairly good
share of the market, and we pay for it.
For the cable companies and even some of the long distance providers to create
any real competition, they will have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
they can provide the same reliable service as the company who has had the market
until now. As one cable internet tech told me, phone service is a critical
necessity (for emergencies, etc.), cable TV and cable internet aren't critical.
Leonard F. Agius
> "Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
> <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
> > <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
> > >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
> > >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
> > >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
> > >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
> > >running.
> >
> > The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> > requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> > users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> > at no cost.
>
> Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
> WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
> tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
> management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
> for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
> either Windows or Mac.
>
> For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
> available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
> community to provide them.
>
> fmc
fmc hit the nail right on the head. There aren't the off-the-shelf solutions for
Linux, or any of the other OS's, save Apple/Mac. I can't port my scanner's
software to Linux or BEOS, I can't get as inexpensive AND well supported (notice
I qualified it with both inexpensive AND well supported) an image editor as
Paint Shop Pro. I can't get a fax/voice mail solution like Win Fax or Talkworks
for Linux or BEOS, either.
And, in addition to an office suite, and personal finance software, I need ALL
of these things, RIGHT NOW, in order to keep my job. OK, Windows "sucks", MS
"sucks more". Who gives a shit? They are so entrenched now, and there is the
chicken-or-the-egg issue for any software company to port their apps to Linux,
BEOS, etc, how the hell is any government decree going to benefit the consumer?
The average retail user, and the average small business owner, have to be able
to go to Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Max, etc for most of their applications. Now.
Today. Not in three to six months, not maybe next year when someone "makes Linux
as easy to install as Windows", etc.
Right now. That's where the market has gotten to. No government decree, be it
from the courts, or from Congress, is going to change that. MS may have played
the market forces (and the ignorance of most of the market) to the hilt and to
their benefit. Be that as it may, they got us all hooked, and even a "split up"
MS will dominate.
mlw
>
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:51:03 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
> <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
> >expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
> >Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
> >call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
> >a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
> >may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
> >distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
> >making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
> >regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
>
> That is exactly what happened here in NY, especially in the suburbs.
> The "local calling area" has expanded to cover hundreds of miles so
> that despite being called local, it is really a toll call. I can call
> from NY to CA cheaper than I can from Montauk Long Island to
> SouthHampton which is one town away.
>
> >do long distance, so in the end, deregulation costs me more in the way of
> >higher over all phone bills.
>
> Same here...
>
> Steve
In eastern MA, I pay about $40 dollars a month for a phone. No local
charges at all. I only pay more for long distance, which is usually out
of state.
Before the AT&T break up, the phone bill was about $15.00. If you adjust
the amount, a today's $40 is a lot less than yesterday's $15.00.
Also, one HAD to buy a phone from Bell. I could have any phone I wanted
as long as it was one of two models, tabletop or wall. Anyone remember
that?
When AT&T broke up, companies were free to make phones, which lead to
better and/or cheaper phones.
I am really looking forward to cable companies competing for phone
service. Then we will see even more savings, more options.
Breaking up monopolies is ALWAYS better for the economy and the
consumer.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
Mark S. Bilk
fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>"Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
><c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
>> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>> >running.
>>
>> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>> at no cost.
>
>Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>either Windows or Mac.
You're forgetting about the WINE (Win32 emulator) system
that runs under Linux. It will run a lot of the non-
multimedia Windows software, without needing a copy of
Windows. Its development is being supported by Corel.
If memory serves, someone posted here months ago that
Quicken runs under it.
>For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
>available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>community to provide them.
Why do you say that?
JEDIDIAH
>fmc wrote:
>
>> "Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
>> <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
>> > <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>> > >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>> > >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>> > >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>> > >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>> > >running.
>> >
>> > The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>> > requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>> > users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>> > at no cost.
>>
>> Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>> WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>> tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>> management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>> for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>> either Windows or Mac.
>>
>> available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>> community to provide them.
>>
>
>fmc hit the nail right on the head. There aren't the off-the-shelf solutions for
>Linux, or any of the other OS's, save Apple/Mac. I can't port my scanner's
>software to Linux or BEOS, I can't get as inexpensive AND well supported (notice
>I qualified it with both inexpensive AND well supported) an image editor as
>Paint Shop Pro. I can't get a fax/voice mail solution like Win Fax or Talkworks
Gimp satisfies that criterion quite nicely actually. As far as
'porting' something, that's your burden. There are abstractions
available for that sort of thing (SANE vs. TWAIN).
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
heat...@worldnet.att.net
>In article <uroG4.36898$YU2.6...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
>fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>"Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
>><c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
>>> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>>> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>>> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>>> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>>> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>>> >running.
>>>
>>> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>>> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>>> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>>> at no cost.
>>
>>Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>>WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>>tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>>management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>>for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>>either Windows or Mac.
>
>You're forgetting about the WINE (Win32 emulator) system
>that runs under Linux. It will run a lot of the non-
>multimedia Windows software, without needing a copy of
>Windows. Its development is being supported by Corel.
>If memory serves, someone posted here months ago that
>Quicken runs under it.
>
>www.winehq.com
So you are going to run those same nasty BSOD producing Windows
applications under Linux?
Sure makes sense to me :(
>>For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
>>available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>>community to provide them.
>
>Why do you say that?
The all mighty dollar is the ultimate motivator. Quicken, TurboTax,
Agent and so forth are realities because of $$$$$.
In contrast Linux has a hodge podge collection of semi related, half
done utilities (there must be millions of them), because there is no
motivation to produce a quality, easy to use and look at piece of
software. No deadline, nobody to scream when it sucks (it's free what
do you expect?).
When commercial applications coders see $$$$ in Linux the quality
applications will come. Until then?
What you see is what you get.
Steve
"Linux:no comment is necessary. It speaks for itself. Just try it and
see for yourself"
Damien
| > WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
| > tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
| > management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
| > for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
| > either Windows or Mac.
Finace management and tax preparation
http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
[snip]
| fmc hit the nail right on the head. There aren't the off-the-shelf solutions for
| Linux, or any of the other OS's, save Apple/Mac. I can't port my scanner's
| software to Linux or BEOS,
Sounds like you should have bought a different scanner.
| I can't get as inexpensive AND well supported (notice
| I qualified it with both inexpensive AND well supported) an image editor as
| Paint Shop Pro.
Gimp. www.gimp.org
All the features of Adobe Photoshop and all the cost of the air you
breathe.
As for support, what kind of support do you need? I've never needed
tech support while using Gimp, the help is more then adequate once you
get started.
| I can't get a fax/voice mail solution like Win Fax or Talkworks
| for Linux or BEOS, either.
Faxes: http://www.hylafax.org/
There are others, but this is the one that looked most promising on
cursory inspection
Voicemail: www.gnuvoice.org
[snip chicken-or-egg]
| The average retail user, and the average small business owner, have to be able
| to go to Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Max, etc for most of their applications. Now.
| Today. Not in three to six months, not maybe next year when someone "makes Linux
| as easy to install as Windows", etc.
They sell Linux on the shelf too. It's cheaper, more stable and it
comes with more apps, but you have to install it yourself.
[snip]
Maybe after the trial we can make the
"you-have-to-install-it-yourself" problem less prevelent. If it's any
consolation, I've done a few Windows 95, 98, NT and Redhat
installations and as a rule, Redhat is easier to install.
Erik Funkenbusch
> >corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
> >computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>
> Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
> implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
> illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
> ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
> product.
Wow. That's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard one. What's
Linux if not stolen ideas from other Unix OS's and now stealing ideas from
Microsoft and Apple?
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=550266479
I always question articles that only show one side of the story. For
instance, the article mentions Stac, and that they won their court case yet
mysteriously doesn't mention the fact that Microsoft won a countersuit
against them (showing that Stac wasn't playing fair either).
> >Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
> >it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
> >us all in that market :(
>
> Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
> a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
> guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
> believe them.
Those 5 cent plans usually have a monthly fee, so you pay 5 or 6 dollars a
month wheter you use long distance or not. Therefore, if I use 1 minute of
long distance, I'm paying $6.05 per minute, not 5 cents a minute.
> Meaning what, that Microsoft hasn't bombed the headquarters
> of Red Hat? MS has spewed out huge amounts of propaganda
> against Linux and other competitors, some secretly financed
> in astroturf operations, has paid for rigged benchmarks, used
> non-disclosure agreements to prevent companies from publishing
> benchmarks where Linux comes out ahead, put up a whole website
> full of lies about the competition, etc.
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
Rigged benchmarks? Even Linus and the others that KNOW linux agreed that
the benchmarks showed faults in Linux, and they did lots of work to fix
those faults. If they were rigged, why did Linux have to be improved?
Additionally, in true Mark Bilk fasion, you portray events that did not
happen as actually having happened. The "stealth blitz" you link to states
specifically that it never happened, yet you claim that it did. Why is
that? Are you exagerating and lying?
> If that were true, there wouldn't be so many Microsoft propa-
> gandists lying about (mostly non-existent) shortcomings in
> Linux, and trying in every other way to discourage people
> from using it.
Non-existant shortcomings. I see, so Linux is perfect. Glad to hear it.
Everyone can stop work now. Go home (or if you're working from home, go
out). It's done. Nother more to do.
> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> at no cost.
At no cost for personal use. Commercial use still costs money in many
cases. More Mark exagerations? Which comprehensive Office Suite is
completely free for commercial use? Since you say "almost all of them" are
free? I don't think anyone would argue that StarOffice or Applixware had
even 10% of the features of Word. You can argue till you're blue in the
face that nobody uses more than 10% of the features of word but that would
be forgetting that each and every person uses a different 10%.
> >To date I have given out somewhere near 50 Linux CD's and not one,
> >not even one, person has stuck with Linux that I am aware of.
>
> There is no reason whatsoever to believe this claim.
Which claim? That's he's given out 50 CD's or that none have stuck with
Linux? Given that you know nothing about the people he gave them to,
there's no reason to disbelieve the claim either. Unless you know the
people he gave them to.
> The public posting record of Steve/Mike/teknite/etc. shows
> all the credibility and integrity of a rabid weasel on crack,
> and the truth values of his statements are well approximated
> by a random sequence of zeroes and ones. If he wrote that
> the Sun rises in the East, one would have a sudden urge to
> check that it still does.
So in other words, instead of addressing the statement, you prefer to change
the subject.
> >Linux in and of itself sends a powerful message....
>
> It certainly does, one which all these guys have worked very
> hard to keep people from listening to, but they have failed.
> Here's a list of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
> spammers operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and
> past (including multiple fake names used by the same person).
> Some of them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month,
> each:
>
> "Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, Stephen Edwards,
Ha! I'm not anti-Linux, no matter what you believe. I use Linux every day
and enjoy it. I simply don't believe that it's going to take over the world
or replace Microsoft. I also don't believe that in it's current form it's
any kind of replacement for windows. Most knowledgeable Linux advocates
seem to agree with that.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:grckesooctg8asmk0...@4ax.com...
> >My phone bill is almost $22.00 before I even make a call.
>
> taxation?
Most of it goes to pay for things like "access charges". For instance, you
pay money to allow other phone companies to have access to your local phone
companies wires. Most of the taxes go to paying for regulation bodies.
> >Linux buries itself on it's own accord. It doesn't need any help.
>
> If it doesn't need any help, then surely you have an explanation for
> the Microsoft "Halloween" document, right?
Oh, you mean that memo that was written by ONE PERSON? You act as if it was
sent out by Bill Gates or some other board memo as company policy. It was a
proposal written by one person to his superiors. I could write any number
of such plans, with even worse content and it wouldn't mean a thing unless
it were accepted by my superiors and turned into company policy. There is
no evidence that this is the case.
> >It's fun watching you guys squirm and set up a human shield to protect
> >the beloved kernel.
> >Only in this group do you see threads arguing over a single word
> >trying to define what constitutes programming. That's the very reason
> >why MS will win the war and Linux will peak and head toward ground
> >faster than one of Von Braun's V2's.
>
> Take a look at Netcraft's numbers for IIS vs. Apache. Are you quite
> sure that it's headed toward ground?
It's really hard to tell, since Netcrafts figures count domains and not
servers. Given that most domains are hosted by their ISP's, and run on
whatever equipment their ISP has, it seems that very few ever CHOOSE which
server to use. Additionally, since ISP's run mostly on Unix of some sort,
that means that most domains will run on Unix.
> >So why aren't people running in mass from M$ if they can get all of
> >this great stuff for free?
>
> Because they're not used to it, it's different, it doesn't run Word,
> it's not what their employer uses, it's not what came on their
> computer, etc. In other words, lots of reasons.
And how is that going to change?
Gary Hallock
> Don't make me laugh. My $69.00 Canon scanner came with enough "free"
> software to blow the doors off anything Linux has, including Gimp.
> Not to mention it worked perfectly out of the box.
> The wizards did everything from configuring to prompting me through
> making my first scan.
>
> Worked like a charm right out of the box and no overpriced SCSI
> needed.
>
> Sane?
>
> Should be called insane...What a joke.....
>
> Linux misses the boat again. When will you people understand that
> setup.exe is your friend?
>
> In this case all I did was pop the CD in and away it went.
>
> Steve
Don't make me laugh. I have the same exact Cannon printer/scanner as you with the same
Cannon software. It is a piece of crap, Control buttons for one screen overlay parts of
the next screen - they don't know how to update the windows properly. And other then the
c:/aux/aux trick, the most likely way to crash windows is running Cannon Creative. Half
the time it decides to eject the paper early and then goes into crazy mode where it only
prints a fraction of an inch per page and then ejects again.
Gary
Tim Kelley
> And since Apache is the market leader this makes them primarily responsible
> for putting Netscape into the ground.
>
> Unless of course you believe that Microsoft has been responsible because
> more important sites are run on IIS than Apache. But that creates an
> interesting conundruum for you since it would not support the argument I
> just quoted above. :)
Well, good, then.
Netscape is just getting a little taste of discipline before M$.
Netscape (the company) was horrible, just as all corporations are.
--
Tim Kelley
tpke...@winkinc.com
kel...@mindspring.com
Bob Lyday
> >
> Unless of course you believe that Microsoft has been responsible because
> more important sites are run on IIS than Apache.
Yeah, IIS is so cool! Why are IIS sites always going down,
Stevie? Why does it take so long to access one? What's with
all the error messages, dude?
IIS fails under heavy loads = well-known fact. IIS is a
gigantic security hole = same. IIS is unstable = ditto.
> --
> Steve Sheldon
> BSCS/MCSE/Bill's bitch
> BEEFsh*t! - my posts
--
Bob
"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
Bob Lyday
>
> na...@na.da (redrum) writes:
> >I already believe that Linux runs on Intel architecture chips. I'm not
> >sure if they have a good GUI or not, but it's really needed to succeed.
> >Computer makers have been bullied by M$ into putting only Windows on
> >their PCs. If they can get those agreements invalidated under the
> >antitrust ruling, then they'll be free to put whatever they want on
> >their PCs. Windows runs 95% of PCs now because people will buy what is
> >common. M$ snagged the market early so that when Joe Blow went out to
> >buy his first PC, he saw that they all were running Windows so he said
> >why not. But if a good number of Linux PCs come out with a good GUI and
> >Windows compatible apps, people will look into them.
>
> PC was relatively uncommon in the home market. It didn't happen, despite
> Commodore actually having the largest share of the home market in the early
> 80's.
Oh, and M$ pre-loading agreements had nothing to do with it!
Too bad we aren't running Amiga and Mac now, it'd be a better
world...
>
> There are forces at work here far more powerful that Microsoft, far more
> powerful than the Computer makers unwillingness to waste their time putting
> other software on the machines.
If they can sell the box, why is it a waste of time? And they
can...
That force is the consumer, woe be it to
> him who defies the will of the consumer.
Gee, M$ has made a career of it, Stevie, how come they don't get
their due?
> --
<snip ad for Steve>
Bob Lyday
>
> Mark S. Bilk wrote in message <8ccr85$mej$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >>corporation to date.
You a stand-up comic?
They have truly brought the geek world of
> >>computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
Leah now she can crash all day too! previously only geeks had
that illustrious privilege!
Bob Lyday
>
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:23:52 GMT,
> heat...@worldnet.att.net <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU (Damien) wrote:
> > >
> You've sunk to new (low) levels of Wintrollism "Heather/Steve",
>
> Do you know the difference between on line banking, home financial software
> and tax software "Heather/Steve" ?
>>>
> Uhhhhhhhh, why does "Steve" call himself "Heather"?????????????? Um, does he have some, uh, "issues"? Wanna talk about it, Steve? C'mon, get it off your chest...we're *real* warm and sympathetic, here. Didn't you notice?
heat...@worldnet.att.net
wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>fmc wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
>>> <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
>>> > <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>>> > >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>>> > >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>>> > >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>>> > >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>>> > >running.
>>> >
>>> > The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>>> > requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>>> > users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>>> > at no cost.
>>>
>>> Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>>> WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>>> tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>>> management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>>> for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>>> either Windows or Mac.
>>>
>>> For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
>>> available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>>> community to provide them.
>>>
>>> fmc
>>
>>fmc hit the nail right on the head. There aren't the off-the-shelf solutions for
>>Linux, or any of the other OS's, save Apple/Mac. I can't port my scanner's
>>software to Linux or BEOS, I can't get as inexpensive AND well supported (notice
>>I qualified it with both inexpensive AND well supported) an image editor as
>>Paint Shop Pro. I can't get a fax/voice mail solution like Win Fax or Talkworks
>
> Gimp satisfies that criterion quite nicely actually. As far as
> 'porting' something, that's your burden. There are abstractions
> available for that sort of thing (SANE vs. TWAIN).
heat...@worldnet.att.net
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>Leonard F. Agius <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>| > Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>| > WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>| > tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>| > management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>| > for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>| > either Windows or Mac.
>
>Finace management and tax preparation
>http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
>
>My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
You're joking right?
You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
QuickBooks ?
Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
TaxCut...
What a joke....
Steve
>[snip]
>
>| fmc hit the nail right on the head. There aren't the off-the-shelf solutions for
>| Linux, or any of the other OS's, save Apple/Mac. I can't port my scanner's
>| software to Linux or BEOS,
>
>Sounds like you should have bought a different scanner.
My scanner works great under Windows. Best $69.00 I ever spent.
>| I can't get as inexpensive AND well supported (notice
>| I qualified it with both inexpensive AND well supported) an image editor as
>| Paint Shop Pro.
>
>Gimp. www.gimp.org
Yawnnnn
Adobe PhooShop Deluxe Home edition comes with most scanners, even my
$69.00 variety. Blows the doors off Gimp.
>All the features of Adobe Photoshop and all the cost of the air you
>breathe.
And an interface that takes a roadmap to figure out...
Not to mention the program just looks, well, ugly for lack of a better
word.
>As for support, what kind of support do you need? I've never needed
>tech support while using Gimp, the help is more then adequate once you
>get started.
Assuming your hardware works which is unlikely.
>| I can't get a fax/voice mail solution like Win Fax or Talkworks
>| for Linux or BEOS, either.
>
>Faxes: http://www.hylafax.org/
>There are others, but this is the one that looked most promising on
>cursory inspection
It's a joke to compared to even the shareware or home version Win
programs.
>Voicemail: www.gnuvoice.org
Can't help you here.
>[snip chicken-or-egg]
>
>| The average retail user, and the average small business owner, have to be able
>| to go to Best Buy, CompUSA, Office Max, etc for most of their applications. Now.
>| Today. Not in three to six months, not maybe next year when someone "makes Linux
>| as easy to install as Windows", etc.
>
>They sell Linux on the shelf too. It's cheaper, more stable and it
>comes with more apps, but you have to install it yourself.
It comes with 15 different CLI editors, 10 CLI mail clients and a
collection of disjointed hacker level programs that the average user
has no need for and could'nt even find them on the disk if he did.
>[snip]
>
>Maybe after the trial we can make the
>"you-have-to-install-it-yourself" problem less prevelent. If it's any
>consolation, I've done a few Windows 95, 98, NT and Redhat
>installations and as a rule, Redhat is easier to install.
This I would agree with. Corel is even easier and Caldera is best in
my opinion. Windows needs a good install program.
Steve
Leonard F. Agius
> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:44:15 GMT, jedi...@dementia.mishnet (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >>fmc wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
> >>> <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
> >>> > <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
> >>> > >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
> >>> > >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
> >>> > >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
> >>> > >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
> >>> > >running.
> >>> >
> >>> > The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> >>> > requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> >>> > users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> >>> > at no cost.
> >>>
> >>> Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
> >>> WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
> >>> tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
> >>> management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
> >>> for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
> >>> either Windows or Mac.
> >>>
> >>> For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
> >>> available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
> >>> community to provide them.
> >>>
> >>> fmc
> >>
> >>fmc hit the nail right on the head. There aren't the off-the-shelf solutions for
> >>Linux, or any of the other OS's, save Apple/Mac. I can't port my scanner's
> >>software to Linux or BEOS, I can't get as inexpensive AND well supported (notice
> >>I qualified it with both inexpensive AND well supported) an image editor as
> >>Paint Shop Pro. I can't get a fax/voice mail solution like Win Fax or Talkworks
> >
> > Gimp satisfies that criterion quite nicely actually. As far as
> > 'porting' something, that's your burden. There are abstractions
> > available for that sort of thing (SANE vs. TWAIN).
>
> Don't make me laugh. My $69.00 Canon scanner came with enough "free"
> software to blow the doors off anything Linux has, including Gimp.
> Not to mention it worked perfectly out of the box.
> The wizards did everything from configuring to prompting me through
> making my first scan.
>
> Worked like a charm right out of the box and no overpriced SCSI
> needed.
>
> Sane?
>
> Should be called insane...What a joke.....
>
> Linux misses the boat again. When will you people understand that
> setup.exe is your friend?
>
> In this case all I did was pop the CD in and away it went.
>
> Steve
LOL!!! You tell 'em, Steve. When the hell are these people going to realize that the
majority of people WANT the MS Monopoly...they want a COMMON STANDARD, not a bunch of
incompatible Unix variants!!!
fmc
> In article <uroG4.36898$YU2.6...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net>,
> fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >"Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
> ><c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
> >> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
> >> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
> >> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
> >> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
> >> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
> >> >running.
> >>
> >> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> >> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> >> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> >> at no cost.
> >
> >Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
> >WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS
Money, a
> >tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
> >management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't
exist
> >for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
> >either Windows or Mac.
>
> that runs under Linux. It will run a lot of the non-
> multimedia Windows software, without needing a copy of
> Windows. Its development is being supported by Corel.
> If memory serves, someone posted here months ago that
> Quicken runs under it.
>
> www.winehq.com
Maybe WINE will do that, but there's no guarantee it will run all the apps I
need, and I'm not interested in running an emulator anyway. I use to run NT
4.0 under VMWare when I had Mandrake 6.0 installed a while back. VMWare is
nice for cross platform developement, but I wasn't doing any of that. Since
I was spending all of my productive time in the virtual machine, I went back
to native NT.
Anyway, the average computer doesn't want or need an emulator. He just
wants to runs applications, and most of the ones he uses are not available
under Linux. IBM disn't understand this when they made the mistake of
making OS/2 a "Better Windows". The lack of native OS/2 applicatations
drove people (myself included) back to Windows.
> >For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs
become
> >available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
> >community to provide them.
>
> Why do you say that?
It's not that the open source developers lack the skill to create the apps
I'm talking about. It's more a lack of interest, a shortage of experience
in those application areas, and the wrong infrastructure for this kind of
project. You can start an open source server project and watch the bits
fly, but just try getting people involved in creating next year's tax
software. Is anyone out there even interested in working on such a program?
Major problems will arise: there are calendar deadlines that cannot be
missed, and the software has to be approved before the IRS will permit
online filings. Plus, this cycle will repeat itself every year.
I don't think anyone who reads this is interested in commiting themselves to
that.
fmc
fmc
<heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:f42les0alhrrlcih0...@4ax.com...
> On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU (Damien) wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> >| > WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS
Money, a
> >| > tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and
project
> >| > management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't
exist
> >| > for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That
requires
> >| > either Windows or Mac.
> >
> >http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
> >
> >My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
>
> You're joking right?
>
FRESH MEAT??? ROTFL. That sure has that stable financial aura.
> You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
> QuickBooks ?
>
> Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
>
> I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
At least you get to deduct the COST of the software. And the 1999 version
should be out any day now.
Jim Richardson
brought forth the following words...:
>"LShaping@..." wrote:
>
>> m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>> ><heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>
>> >>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>> >>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>> >>us all in that market :(
>> >
>> >Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>> >a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>> >guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>> >believe them.
>>
>> Before AT&T was broken up, long ago, long distance rates were
>> approaching one dollar per minute.
>> LShaping
>
>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
>call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
>a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
>making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
>regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
Right, so the guys who can compete. (the long distance companies) are cheaper
than before the breakup. But the stuff you have no choice on (the dial-tone
provider) is more expensive, free clue, the guys with the monopoly, (dial tone)
are gouging you, because they have a monopoly.
For me, given my calling habits, Sprint PCS is cheaper than POTS, and
as soon as my ISP gets wireless, then I'll drop the landline completely.
>
>I can't speak for you, but I make a hell of a lot more local calls than I
>do long distance, so in the end, deregulation costs me more in the way of
>higher over all phone bills.
>
>
How much of that is either taxes, or fees to a govt. protected monopoly?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
Damien
Shell <sheldon...@yuck.net> wrote:
| It is my contention that it is in fact Apache which put Netscape into the
| ground.
Apache pre-dates Netscape . . . but that's okay.
| Think about it for a bit. In both the case of Netscape and Internet
| Explorer they gave the browser away for free. Why?
| The thought was, they could get you hooked and then sell backend
| services(i.e the Server) to make income.
True in the case of IE. Netscape did the same in an attempt to keep
that from happening.
Damien
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
| Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote in message
| news:8ccr85$mej$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
|
| > of Red Hat? MS has spewed out huge amounts of propaganda
| > against Linux and other competitors, some secretly financed
| > in astroturf operations, has paid for rigged benchmarks, used
| > non-disclosure agreements to prevent companies from publishing
| > benchmarks where Linux comes out ahead, put up a whole website
| > full of lies about the competition, etc.
|
| > http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
|
| Rigged benchmarks? Even Linus and the others that KNOW linux agreed that
| the benchmarks showed faults in Linux, and they did lots of work to fix
| those faults. If they were rigged, why did Linux have to be improved?
Rigged is the wrong term, more like 'contrived'. Benchmarks which
have considerably less relevence to real world situations then you
average benchmark, and that were designed that way because it would
put MS in favorable light.
Of course this still mean NT did prove to be better, even under these
ridiculous circumstances. Linux is not perfect and has benifited from
progress made in those areas.
| > If that were true, there wouldn't be so many Microsoft propa-
| > gandists lying about (mostly non-existent) shortcomings in
| > Linux, and trying in every other way to discourage people
| > from using it.
|
| Non-existant shortcomings. I see, so Linux is perfect. Glad to hear it.
| Everyone can stop work now. Go home (or if you're working from home, go
| out). It's done. Nother more to do.
He said *mostly* non-existent.
Alan
>>computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>
successful, are they above the laws that you and I have to follow?
Alan
Leonard F. Agius wrote in message <38EA0111...@mediaone.net>...
>"LShaping@..." wrote:
>
>> m...@netcom.com (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>> ><heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>><snip>
>>
>> >>Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>> >>it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>> >>us all in that market :(
>> >
>> >Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>> >a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>> >guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>> >believe them.
>>
>> Before AT&T was broken up, long ago, long distance rates were
>> approaching one dollar per minute.
>> LShaping
>
>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
>call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
>a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
>making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
>regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
>
>do long distance, so in the end, deregulation costs me more in the way of
>higher over all phone bills.
>
defaulted to a small (per minute) fee for all local phone calls. After I
complained they offered me the unlimited local calls (for about $5.00 extra
per month).
Local phone companies are like credit card companies. Unless you complain,
you will pay the highest rates).
They are also under some significant government regulation (which MS isn't,
er wasn't).
Chad Myers
"Jeremy Crabtree" <Jer...@TMBG.org> wrote in message
news:slrn8ekm4v...@Tick.ItMightBeAServer.net...
> Boris allegedly wrote:
>
> I see you changed your "From:' field again (to foil killfiles?), anyway,
> back in you go.
It's funny, because Boris was the one actually contributing something (humor)
and Mark was just blowing out his usually moronic banter again.
Mark has earned a place on the block-train quite a few times, himself.
-Chad
JEDIDIAH
>heat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 23:44:15 GMT, jedi...@dementia.mishnet (JEDIDIAH)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >>fmc wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> "Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
>> >>> <c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
>> >>> > <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>> >>> > >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>> >>> > >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>> >>> > >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>> >>> > >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>> >>> > >running.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>> >>> > requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>> >>> > users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>> >>> > at no cost.
>> >>>
>> >>> WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>> >>> tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>> >>> management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>> >>> for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>> >>> either Windows or Mac.
>> >>>
>> >>> available. It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>> >>> community to provide them.
>> >>>
That rhetoric doesn't address just where the Linux defficiencies
are with respect to a standardized device layer, image manipulation
software, OCR or anything else you care not to mention.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
Jim Richardson
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <er...@visi.com>,
brought forth the following words...:
>George Marengo <gmar...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:grckesooctg8asmk0...@4ax.com...
>> >My phone bill is almost $22.00 before I even make a call.
>>
>> Is that a direct consequence of deregulation, or is that due to over
>> taxation?
>
>Most of it goes to pay for things like "access charges". For instance, you
>pay money to allow other phone companies to have access to your local phone
>companies wires. Most of the taxes go to paying for regulation bodies.
>
If most of the taxes go towards paying for the regulation bodies, then
I'd say sack 'em all and deregulate allready.
>> >Linux buries itself on it's own accord. It doesn't need any help.
>>
>> If it doesn't need any help, then surely you have an explanation for
>> the Microsoft "Halloween" document, right?
>
>Oh, you mean that memo that was written by ONE PERSON? You act as if it was
>sent out by Bill Gates or some other board memo as company policy. It was a
>proposal written by one person to his superiors. I could write any number
>of such plans, with even worse content and it wouldn't mean a thing unless
>it were accepted by my superiors and turned into company policy. There is
>no evidence that this is the case.
Halloween II
Kerberos and M$'s little "addition" (undocumented)
>> >It's fun watching you guys squirm and set up a human shield to protect
>> >the beloved kernel.
>> >Only in this group do you see threads arguing over a single word
>> >trying to define what constitutes programming. That's the very reason
>> >why MS will win the war and Linux will peak and head toward ground
>> >faster than one of Von Braun's V2's.
>>
>> Take a look at Netcraft's numbers for IIS vs. Apache. Are you quite
>> sure that it's headed toward ground?
>
>It's really hard to tell, since Netcrafts figures count domains and not
>servers. Given that most domains are hosted by their ISP's, and run on
>whatever equipment their ISP has, it seems that very few ever CHOOSE which
>server to use. Additionally, since ISP's run mostly on Unix of some sort,
>that means that most domains will run on Unix.
There are enough (barely, what, less than 20%?) domains on IIS, so there is
enough choice available that if people want to run their site on IIS, they
can, but there doesn't seem to be much demand, wonder why...
>> >So why aren't people running in mass from M$ if they can get all of
>> >this great stuff for free?
>>
>> Because they're not used to it, it's different, it doesn't run Word,
>> it's not what their employer uses, it's not what came on their
>> computer, etc. In other words, lots of reasons.
>
>And how is that going to change?
>
Day by day.
Terry Porter
>
>"Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
><c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
>> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>> >running.
>>
>> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>> at no cost.
>
>Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>WP/Spreadsheet/Browser.
Thinks like, multi user, remote admin, stability, and freedom.
> I need a financial app like Quicken
Then use Quicken, your money your choice.
> or MS Money,
Ms Money is crap, I purchased 2 versions. Now I use CBB and I'm happy
at last. CBB for Linux is excellent.
> a
>tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
My accountant does that in 10 mins, with the summaries I give him from CBB.
>management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>for Linux.
No Linux does not make MS Project oe CA-SuperProject.
>I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>either Windows or Mac.
Not for long.
>
>For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs become
>available.
Hey keep waiting, waiting is a cargo cultists speciality.
>It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>community to provide them.
The Free Software community have better things to do than design software
for you.
Please feel free to continue to pay the Windows tax.
>
>fmc
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use tpn...@gronk.apana.org.au ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 17 hours 38 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
Terry Porter
>>Finace management and tax preparation
>>http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
>>
>>My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
>
>You're joking right?
>
>You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
>QuickBooks ?
>
>Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
>
>I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
>
>I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
>TaxCut...
>
>What a joke....
>
>Steve
You've sunk to new (low) levels of Wintrollism "Heather/Steve", he responded
to *on line banking* and you jump in with TAX software!!
Do you know the difference between on line banking, home financial software
and tax software "Heather/Steve" ?
Do you have *any* clue at all ?
Christopher Browne
>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:07:54 GMT, fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>>either Windows or Mac.
>Not for long.
Ah, so you've volunteered to build an OFX client for CBB or GnuCash?
Which language are you planning to use? Tcl? Perl? C? Or Guile?
--
Rules of the Evil Overlord #53. "I will offer oracles the choice of
working exclusively for me or being executed."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html>
cbbr...@hex.net - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Jeremy Crabtree
>
>
>"Jeremy Crabtree" <Jer...@TMBG.org> wrote in message
>news:slrn8ekm4v...@Tick.ItMightBeAServer.net...
>> Boris allegedly wrote:
>>
>> I see you changed your "From:' field again (to foil killfiles?), anyway,
>> back in you go.
>
>It's funny, because Boris was the one actually contributing something (humor)
That would be a first. Mr. Boris seems to mostly blather on blindly.
(at least, he did when I put him in there the first time)
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
Jeremy Crabtree
>
><heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>news:f42les0alhrrlcih0...@4ax.com...
>> >| > Money, a tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver,
>> >| > and project management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject.
>> >| > These don't exist for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts
>> >| > online. That requires either Windows or Mac.
>> >
>> >http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
>> >
>> >My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
>>
>> You're joking right?
>>
>
So, you're admitting to us that you didn't even bother to check out the URL?
Apparently you didn't get that Freshmeat.net is a rough Linux equivalent to
download.com or shareware.com
>
>> You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
>> QuickBooks ?
>>
>> Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
>>
>> I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
>
>At least you get to deduct the COST of the software. And the 1999 version
>should be out any day now.
Have you considered using a pencil and paper, and possibly a caluculator?
They're compatile with any OS you can possibly name...
>>
>> I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
>> TaxCut...
>>
>> What a joke....
The biggest joke is the blind hatred andrhetoric /YOU/ keep spewing out. You
could AT THE VERY LEAST ///TRY/// the software BEFORE you call is "crap" or
^^^^^^
a "joke."
Terry Porter
Gary Hallock <gha...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>heat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>> Don't make me laugh. My $69.00 Canon scanner came with enough "free"
>> software to blow the doors off anything Linux has, including Gimp.
>> Not to mention it worked perfectly out of the box.
>> The wizards did everything from configuring to prompting me through
>> making my first scan.
>>
>> Worked like a charm right out of the box and no overpriced SCSI
>> needed.
>>
>> Sane?
>>
>> Should be called insane...What a joke.....
>>
>> Linux misses the boat again. When will you people understand that
>> setup.exe is your friend?
>>
>> In this case all I did was pop the CD in and away it went.
>>
>> Steve
>
>Cannon software. It is a piece of crap, Control buttons for one screen overlay parts of
>the next screen - they don't know how to update the windows properly. And other then the
>c:/aux/aux trick, the most likely way to crash windows is running Cannon Creative. Half
>the time it decides to eject the paper early and then goes into crazy mode where it only
>prints a fraction of an inch per page and then ejects again.
>
>Gary
>
>
Oh dear, "Heather/Steve/Amy" the WinTroll just got blown out of the water
again.
As usual, it only takes someone with the *real* facts, to show everyone
what a WinTroll "Heather/Steve/Amy" really is.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use tpn...@gronk.apana.org.au ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 19 hours 38 minutes
fmc
"Jeremy Crabtree" <Jer...@TMBG.org> wrote in message
OF course I checked out the URL. That's how I knew there was no 99 version
of PTax. I just though the name was funny. I can imagine the looks I'd get
if I told anyone I worked with to get their financial software at Fresh
meat. That's a term some brokers use to refer to naive customers.
>
>
> >
> >> You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
> >> QuickBooks ?
> >>
> >> Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
> >>
> >> I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
> >
> >At least you get to deduct the COST of the software. And the 1999
version
> >should be out any day now.
>
> Have you considered using a pencil and paper, and possibly a caluculator?
> They're compatile with any OS you can possibly name...
It's really VERY complex, it takes forever, and most accountants can't do it
without consistently making mistakes, That's why tax software is so popular
that even accounting firms use it. I used one to check my 96 return against
what an accountant charged me $400 to do, and it produced exactly the same
return. I've been doing it myself ever since. This year I picked up
TurboTax AND MS TaxSaver (cost $20, free after $20 rebate). I'll use
TurboTax to do the actual filing, but TaxSaver has a great help section with
access to an online copy of J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax 2000. It helps
you save on next year's taxes by planning for them starting now. That's how
I was able to buy this computer.
Who still does these things on paper? Let the computer do the things it's
good at. I only use a pencil to do crossword puzzles.
>
> >>
> >> I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
> >> TaxCut...
> >>
> >> What a joke....
>
> The biggest joke is the blind hatred andrhetoric /YOU/ keep spewing out.
You
> could AT THE VERY LEAST ///TRY/// the software BEFORE you call is "crap"
or
Who are you talking to anyway? I didn't write that. As far as trying
PTax98 is concerned, that was only good for LAST YEAR. There's no PTax99 to
be found, at least at that site. That's the joke.
fmc
"Terry Porter" <tjpo...@gronk.apana.org.au> wrote in message
news:slrn8elh2j....@gronk.apana.org.au...
> ><c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
> >> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
> >> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
> >> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
> >> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
> >> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
> >> >running.
> >>
> >> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
> >> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
> >> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
> >> at no cost.
> >
> >WP/Spreadsheet/Browser.
> Thinks like, multi user, remote admin, stability, and freedom.
Multi user and remote admin are required by a small minority of the people
who use a desktop. Probably about as many people who use, or who will ever
want to use "a software package Judge Jackson has termed a 'fringe'
product".
>
> > I need a financial app like Quicken
> Then use Quicken, your money your choice.
> > or MS Money,
> Ms Money is crap, I purchased 2 versions. Now I use CBB and I'm happy
> at last. CBB for Linux is excellent.
MS Money IS pretty crappy. Quicken is the class leader. I can do online
banking with either one. Can CBB? Is that the one that was still rolling
out a Y2K fix as 2000 began? No thanks, I want better support for the
software that maintains my financial records than "a round tuit". Of course
it IS free. The only way people can get Quicken's bugs fixed is to buy the
software. I guess money does have its uses.
>
> > a
> >tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
> My accountant does that in 10 mins, with the summaries I give him from
CBB.
He probably uses Kiplinger TaxCut on Windows. They might have a Mac version
too. Linux, ah... no.
>
> >management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't
exist
> >for Linux.
> No Linux does not make MS Project oe CA-SuperProject.
What, no PBB (Project Book Balancer) for Linux? Does your accountant do
project management as well?
>
> >I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
> >either Windows or Mac.
> Not for long.
I guess that answers my question about CBB.
>
> >
> >For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs
become
> >available.
> Hey keep waiting, waiting is a cargo cultists speciality.
I'm not seriously waiting. Unlike a cargo cult, I KNOW Linux will never
provide the apps I need. Wanna-be clones with unreliable support, maybe,
but not the real thing.
>
> >It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
> >community to provide them.
> The Free Software community have better things to do than design software
> for you.
>
> Please feel free to continue to pay the Windows tax.
I pay 8 bucks in tax every week when I fill up my gas tank. That's $400 a
year. For comparison; Windows NT came free with my PC; TurboTax was $10
after rebate; TaxSaver free after rebate; StarOffice was free; my company
provides CA-SuperProject; Quicken cost around 20 bucks after rebate; and
there's lots of free stuff for Windows on the net.
>
> >
> >fmc
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use tpn...@gronk.apana.org.au ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 2 days 17 hours 38 minutes
George Marengo
<lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>George Marengo wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:36:12 GMT, heat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>>
>> >On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:51:03 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
>> ><lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> >That is exactly what happened here in NY, especially in the suburbs.
>> >The "local calling area" has expanded to cover hundreds of miles so
>> >that despite being called local, it is really a toll call. I can call
>> >from NY to CA cheaper than I can from Montauk Long Island to
>> >SouthHampton which is one town away.
>>
>> That's a local issue. I can call anywhere in the state of California
>> (where I live) for $0.04/minute while calls outside of California are
>> a penny more.
>>
>> Why? Because PacBell not only has competition from MCI, but
>> from cable companies.
>
>Eventually we're supposed to have that competition here, too, but so far, it
>hasn't materialized. And frankly, I don't think it's going to have an impact
>here, yet, because my metropolitan area is so fragmented.
That's unfortunate, because I've seen competition in the telephone
market, and it's a good thing.
>For the cable companies and even some of the long distance providers to create
>any real competition, they will have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that
>they can provide the same reliable service as the company who has had the market
>until now. As one cable internet tech told me, phone service is a critical
>necessity (for emergencies, etc.), cable TV and cable internet aren't critical.
I can't speak for any area except my own, but over the past year my
cable service has been more reliable than my telephone service.
I think I've had 4 calls for telephone service -- once for my line and
3 times for my sons line. None for cable.
Competition is a good thing.
George Marengo
wrote:
>George Marengo <gmar...@home.com> writes:
>
>>Take a look at Netcraft's numbers for IIS vs. Apache. Are you quite
>>sure that it's headed toward ground?
>
> Thank you for bringing that up.
>
> It is my contention that it is in fact Apache which put Netscape into the
>ground.
>
> Think about it for a bit. In both the case of Netscape and Internet
>Explorer they gave the browser away for free. Why?
An interesting idea, but Netscape sold their browser for quite some
time. I purchased Netscape 3.0 Gold, which allowed me to do editing
of web pages.
NS was only given away after they lost too much marketshare to IE.
I do tend to agree that Apache was probably as big an influence in
Netscapes economic demise as IE was, simply because that was
where their real income came from.
George Marengo
wrote:
>Those 5 cent plans usually have a monthly fee, so you pay 5 or 6 dollars a
>month wheter you use long distance or not. Therefore, if I use 1 minute of
>long distance, I'm paying $6.05 per minute, not 5 cents a minute.
The 5 cent plans you're referring to are the ones that the masses
get suckered into. At least in Ca. it's not difficult at all to get 5
cents for all in-state toll calls. It took a bit longer to obtain, but
4 cents is also possible.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:slrn8elgcu....@raven.myth...
> >Oh, you mean that memo that was written by ONE PERSON? You act as if it
was
> >sent out by Bill Gates or some other board memo as company policy. It
was a
> >proposal written by one person to his superiors. I could write any
number
> >of such plans, with even worse content and it wouldn't mean a thing
unless
> >it were accepted by my superiors and turned into company policy. There
is
> >no evidence that this is the case.
>
> Halloween II
> Kerberos and M$'s little "addition" (undocumented)
And that undocumented addition is entirely standards compliant. The
standard doesn't require the documentation of extension fields.
> >It's really hard to tell, since Netcrafts figures count domains and not
> >servers. Given that most domains are hosted by their ISP's, and run on
> >whatever equipment their ISP has, it seems that very few ever CHOOSE
which
> >server to use. Additionally, since ISP's run mostly on Unix of some
sort,
> >that means that most domains will run on Unix.
>
> There are enough (barely, what, less than 20%?) domains on IIS, so there
is
> enough choice available that if people want to run their site on IIS,
they
> can, but there doesn't seem to be much demand, wonder why...
As I said above, most domains are hosted by a users's ISP. Whatever server
their ISP uses is what they use. No choice in the matter other than
switching ISP's (or co-locating your own server, which is orders of
magnitude more expensive than a simple domain hosting).
George Marengo
wrote:
>George Marengo <gmar...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:grckesooctg8asmk0...@4ax.com...
>> >My phone bill is almost $22.00 before I even make a call.
>>
>> Is that a direct consequence of deregulation, or is that due to over
>> taxation?
>
>Most of it goes to pay for things like "access charges". For instance, you
>pay money to allow other phone companies to have access to your local phone
>companies wires. Most of the taxes go to paying for regulation bodies.
And further deregulation would bring about more competition, which
would likely bring about even lower prices.
Do you think competition is a good thing? Do you think MS has
competition?
>> >Linux buries itself on it's own accord. It doesn't need any help.
>>
>> If it doesn't need any help, then surely you have an explanation for
>> the Microsoft "Halloween" document, right?
>
>Oh, you mean that memo that was written by ONE PERSON? You act as if it was
>sent out by Bill Gates or some other board memo as company policy. It was a
>proposal written by one person to his superiors. I could write any number
>of such plans, with even worse content and it wouldn't mean a thing unless
>it were accepted by my superiors and turned into company policy. There is
>no evidence that this is the case.
Did MS fund a study to show how NT compared to Linux? Did they
submit TPC benchmarks? What exactly was the point of doing the
Mindcraft benchmark, not once, but twice? Yes, we all know that NT
won the benchmark, but WHY was the benchmark done in the first
place?
I'd say plenty of evidence exists to show that Linux is getting active
resistance from MS -- IOW, Linux does NOT bury itself on it's own
accord.
>It's really hard to tell, since Netcrafts figures count domains and not
>servers. Given that most domains are hosted by their ISP's, and run on
>whatever equipment their ISP has, it seems that very few ever CHOOSE
>which server to use. Additionally, since ISP's run mostly on Unix of some sort,
>that means that most domains will run on Unix.
I agree, but there are indications that it's making headway into the
ISP market.
>> >So why aren't people running in mass from M$ if they can get all of
>> >this great stuff for free?
>>
>> Because they're not used to it, it's different, it doesn't run Word,
>> it's not what their employer uses, it's not what came on their
>> computer, etc. In other words, lots of reasons.
>
>And how is that going to change?
I have no idea. I only use it for the Trinux toolkit right now.
Terry Porter
>
>"Terry Porter" <tjpo...@gronk.apana.org.au> wrote in message
>news:slrn8elh2j....@gronk.apana.org.au...
>> On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 16:07:54 GMT, fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Mark S. Bilk" <m...@netcom.com> > In article
>> ><c2ejes8ln4ji355mg...@4ax.com>,
>> >> <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Linux truely speaks for itself. For every geek that loves the control
>> >> >there are 500 normal users that need to accomplish tasks that require
>> >> >software that simply is not available under Linux. Or if it is
>> >> >available, it is so crude and ugly looking it is not worth mentioning.
>> >> >Or it's simply not compatible with what the rest of the free world is
>> >> >running.
>> >>
>> >> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>> >> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>> >> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>> >> at no cost.
>> >
>> >Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>> >WP/Spreadsheet/Browser.
>> They sure do.
>
>Multi user and remote admin are required by a small minority of the people
>who use a desktop.
users don't want them.
> Probably about as many people who use, or who will ever
>want to use "a software package Judge Jackson has termed a 'fringe'
>product".
If you mean Linux, thats still a lot of desktop users languishing in single user
/visit your pc to fix software problems, land.
>
>>
>> > I need a financial app like Quicken
>> Then use Quicken, your money your choice.
>> > or MS Money,
>> Ms Money is crap, I purchased 2 versions. Now I use CBB and I'm happy
>> at last. CBB for Linux is excellent.
>
>MS Money IS pretty crappy. Quicken is the class leader. I can do online
>banking with either one. Can CBB?
I live in Australia and MsMoney's on line banking had no facility
for Ausie banks.
>Is that the one that was still rolling
>out a Y2K fix as 2000 began?
Possibly, but I use it and havent had any problems.
> No thanks, I want better support for the
>software that maintains my financial records than "a round tuit".
Better than, stable, reliable and author response via email within a day?
> Of course
>it IS free.
CBB is Free Software, do you know what that means ?
>The only way people can get Quicken's bugs fixed is to buy the
>software. I guess money does have its uses.
Guess you're lucky MS couldnt buy Quicken then ?
>
>>
>> > a
>> >tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>> My accountant does that in 10 mins, with the summaries I give him from
>CBB.
>
>He probably uses Kiplinger TaxCut on Windows. They might have a Mac version
>too. Linux, ah... no.
No he's a taxation accountant, he knows what is needed based on his knowledge
of Australian tax laws, which change constantly. Actually he uses MsDos.
You sound like the kinda person who would recommend a doctor because he uses
MsMedicine on his pc!
>
>>
>> >management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't
>exist
>> >for Linux.
>> No Linux does not make MS Project oe CA-SuperProject.
>
>What, no PBB (Project Book Balancer) for Linux?
Hahhahaahh, pretty good!
> Does your accountant do
>project management as well?
No he's a taxation accountant, pls see above.
>
>>
>> >I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>> >either Windows or Mac.
>> Not for long.
>
>I guess that answers my question about CBB.
No, it's irellevant to CBB, CBB is for personal finance management.
>
>>
>> >
>> >For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs
>become
>> >available.
>> Hey keep waiting, waiting is a cargo cultists speciality.
>
>I'm not seriously waiting. Unlike a cargo cult, I KNOW Linux will never
>provide the apps I need.
Then that makes you a clairvoyant ?
> Wanna-be clones with unreliable support,
Support comes via people, ever called MsHelp (I have) ?
> maybe,
>but not the real thing.
No Linux does not make Coke-a-Cola.
>
>>
>> >It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
>> >community to provide them.
>> The Free Software community have better things to do than design software
>> for you.
>>
>> Please feel free to continue to pay the Windows tax.
>
>I pay 8 bucks in tax every week when I fill up my gas tank. That's $400 a
>year. For comparison; Windows NT came free with my PC;
Oh really, well I've a little used bridge in Sydney I'd like to sell ya then ?
>TurboTax was $10
>after rebate; TaxSaver free after rebate;
> StarOffice was free;
What no MS Office ???
>my company
>provides CA-SuperProject
Of course they do, can you aford a personal copy for home ?
>Quicken cost around 20 bucks after rebate; and
Yes its a excellent program, and well priced. Pity it only runs on
MsWindows, or I might be interested. As it is, they'll never see my
$20 after rebate.
>there's lots of free stuff for Windows on the net.
Like cuteFTP ?
Which snooper program will your "free" windows application install today ?
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use tpn...@gronk.apana.org.au ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 2 days 21 hours 38 minutes
Boris
you about because you are "true believer" in what he says.
Boris
"Jeremy Crabtree" <Jer...@TMBG.org> wrote in message
news:slrn8elj6d...@Tick.ItMightBeAServer.net...
> Chad Myers allegedly wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Jeremy Crabtree" <Jer...@TMBG.org> wrote in message
> >news:slrn8ekm4v...@Tick.ItMightBeAServer.net...
> >> Boris allegedly wrote:
> >>
> >> I see you changed your "From:' field again (to foil killfiles?), anyway,
> >> back in you go.
> >
> >It's funny, because Boris was the one actually contributing something (humor)
>
> That would be a first. Mr. Boris seems to mostly blather on blindly.
> (at least, he did when I put him in there the first time)
>
>
>
Chad Myers
"Jeremy Crabtree" <Jer...@TMBG.org> wrote in message
> >At least you get to deduct the COST of the software. And the 1999 version
> >should be out any day now.
>
> Have you considered using a pencil and paper, and possibly a caluculator?
> They're compatile with any OS you can possibly name...
Seems to be the trend eh? Can't find good apps for Linux, end up going back
to Paper/Pencil just so you won't have to use that Evvvillll M$ software, right?
-Chad
Rick Schaut
fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:AlBG4.37969$YU2.6...@typhoon.ne.mediaone.net...
> OF course I checked out the URL. That's how I knew there was no 99 version
> of PTax.
So, does PTax also compute your penalties for filing late?
> Who still does these things on paper? Let the computer do the things it's
> good at. I only use a pencil to do crossword puzzles.
Doing a crossword puzzle in anything but ink is cheating.
Regards,
Rick Schaut
Damien
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
| Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
| news:slrn8elgcu....@raven.myth...
| > Kerberos and M$'s little "addition" (undocumented)
|
| And that undocumented addition is entirely standards compliant. The
| standard doesn't require the documentation of extension fields.
Basically, Microsoft has made additions to the standard that make it
impossible for a non MS server to server Kerberos tickets to an MS
client. Another cut and dry case of MS using embrace-and-extend
tactics to leverage their desktop OS monopoly into the server market.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/kerberos-faq/general/section-62.html
Tim Kelley
>
> Wow. That's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard one. What's
> Linux if not stolen ideas from other Unix OS's and now stealing ideas from
> Microsoft and Apple?
Well, the gnu programmers are quite open about, if not proud of
that. In fact, that is one of the major arguments FOR free
software: no duplication of effort.
There is a lot of imitation in the linux camp, and there is
nothing wrong with that.
Microsoft, on the other hand, tries to pass off everything as
their own, and make money off of it into the bargain. So there
is a crucial difference.
> Rigged benchmarks? Even Linus and the others that KNOW linux agreed that
> the benchmarks showed faults in Linux, and they did lots of work to fix
> those faults. If they were rigged, why did Linux have to be improved?
The initial tests were rigged. The fact that subsequent
non-rigged tests, while still showing NT outperforming linux on
this test, also proved that the previous ones were indeed rigged.
--
Tim Kelley
tpke...@winkinc.com
Erik Funkenbusch
news:slrn8emmpn...@localhost.localdomain...
If you read the article, Microsoft made no such "additions". Microsoft
worked with the Kerberos committee, thus the committee created the
additions. Microsoft merely created a standard compliant extension.
Note the message you link to is a message from Jeremy Allison. It doesn't
state the date of the message, but here's a message from Jeremy from only a
few weeks ago that states matter of factly that Microsoft followed the
standard.
http://x30.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=594981919
Jeremy is probably rightfully annoyed that Microsoft hasn't documented their
PAC format, but the standard does not require them to do so.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:38EB6224...@winkinc.com...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> >
> > Wow. That's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard one.
What's
> > Linux if not stolen ideas from other Unix OS's and now stealing ideas
from
> > Microsoft and Apple?
>
> Well, the gnu programmers are quite open about, if not proud of
> that. In fact, that is one of the major arguments FOR free
> software: no duplication of effort.
So you're claiming that there is no duplication of effort between KDE and
Gnome?
No duplication of effort between ext3, ReiserFS, etc..?
> There is a lot of imitation in the linux camp, and there is
> nothing wrong with that.
Ah, but there is something wrong with Microsoft duplicating someone elses
work.
> Microsoft, on the other hand, tries to pass off everything as
> their own, and make money off of it into the bargain. So there
> is a crucial difference.
Microsoft does make significant changes to most of the concepts they reuse.
In fact, they are criticized for this. Those changes are indeed "their
own".
> > Rigged benchmarks? Even Linus and the others that KNOW linux agreed
that
> > the benchmarks showed faults in Linux, and they did lots of work to fix
> > those faults. If they were rigged, why did Linux have to be improved?
>
> The initial tests were rigged. The fact that subsequent
> non-rigged tests, while still showing NT outperforming linux on
> this test, also proved that the previous ones were indeed rigged.
The initial tests weren't rigged. The initial testers simply did not have
access to the information to configure Linux optimally, and in true Linux
fashion were ridiculed on the newsgroups for asking questions.
Red Hat also dropped the ball by not referring them to the correct support
number for their needs.
Mark S. Bilk
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>Mark S. Bilk <m...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8ccr85$mej$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Steve-Heather, Proctologist of Borg wrote:
>> >Believe that MS has done more for the home computing market than any
>> >corporation to date. They have truely brought the geek world of
>> >computing to the desktop of the typical soccer mom.
>>
>> Microsoft has stolen practically every idea that it has
>> implemented (badly) for the public, often using coercive and
>> illegal methods which have destroyed the originators of those
>> ideas, and prevented them from bringing out a much better
>> product.
>
>Wow. That's the pot calling the kettle black if I ever heard one. What's
>Linux if not stolen ideas from other Unix OS's and now stealing ideas from
>Microsoft and Apple?
The creators of Linux, GNU, KDE, etc., have been totally
upfront about creating a public-domain version of Unix, and
enabling KDE to look like Windows if desired, so that MS users
can switch over easily. This is ethical, because much of Unix
and its associated software tools were developed with public
money at UC Berkeley, and by people elsewhere contributing
their work freely. The whole window/icon/menu/pointer paradigm
was developed by Xerox, and ripped off by Apple and Microsoft.
Microsoft took the ideas, generally without acknowledging
their sources, and incorporated them into products sold for
profit. The recent fiasco in which they claimed to have
invented directory links, which have been available in Unix
since its beginning, is typical, as is their claim to have
first made the Internet available to home users, when that
was done by Trumpet Winsock.
The GNU/Linux/KDE folks admit using the ideas of others, give
credit where it's due, and give their products away for free.
Microsoft uses the ideas of others, does not give them credit,
and makes a profit from it. This is theft.
>> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=550266479
>
>I always question articles that only show one side of the story. For
>instance, the article mentions Stac, and that they won their court case yet
>mysteriously doesn't mention the fact that Microsoft won a countersuit
>against them (showing that Stac wasn't playing fair either).
The article mentions a lot of other companies besides Stac
that Microsoft ripped off ideas and even source code from,
and then nearly destroyed.
>> >Believe that whatever the government does, MS will come out on top of
>> >it all. Checked your phone bill lately? Deregulation did wonders for
>> >us all in that market :(
>>
>> Long distance rates within the U.S. used to be about 30 cents
>> a minute, and now they are 5 cents. It's amazing how this
>> guy just pours the lies out so glibly and hopes that we will
>> believe them.
>
>Those 5 cent plans usually have a monthly fee, so you pay 5 or 6 dollars a
>month wheter you use long distance or not. Therefore, if I use 1 minute of
>long distance, I'm paying $6.05 per minute, not 5 cents a minute.
That's an absurd example, but if a person uses very little
LD time, they should avoid plans with monthly fees. The
one I use -- 5 cents/min intra/interstate -- has none. In
any case, it's irrelevant to the lie that Steve-Heather told
about phone rates.
>> Meaning what, that Microsoft hasn't bombed the headquarters
>> of Red Hat? MS has spewed out huge amounts of propaganda
>> against Linux and other competitors, some secretly financed
>> in astroturf operations, has paid for rigged benchmarks, used
>> non-disclosure agreements to prevent companies from publishing
>> benchmarks where Linux comes out ahead, put up a whole website
>> full of lies about the competition, etc.
>Rigged benchmarks? Even Linus and the others that KNOW linux agreed that
>the benchmarks showed faults in Linux, and they did lots of work to fix
>those faults. If they were rigged, why did Linux have to be improved?
At the time, and subsequently, none of the Microsoft propa-
gandists have been able to come up with even a single example
of a real-world system serving small static web pages via
four 100 Mb/sec network interfaces. So Microsoft designed
that unrealistic benchmark solely to create a situation in
which NT could outperform Linux -- at doing something useless,
as it turned out.
However, testing on that high-speed equipment did reveal some
previously unknown conditions in the Linux kernel that could
slow down throughput, so they were fixed.
>Additionally, in true Mark Bilk fasion, you portray events that did not
>happen as actually having happened. The "stealth blitz" you link to states
>specifically that it never happened, yet you claim that it did. Why is
>that? Are you exagerating and lying?
>> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=342778662
Apparently Funkenbusch thinks that readers of his article
won't access the URL, and will just take his word for it.
The L.A. Times article says that the *Microsoft spokesman*
whose name was all over the documents denied knowing anything
about them, and then changed his story and said that it was
only a proposal. The article also stated that other know-
ledgeable sources who were interviewed said that Microsoft
told them it was a "done deal", and that they were told to
come to the meeting with plans for carrying it out.
>> If that were true, there wouldn't be so many Microsoft propa-
>> gandists lying about (mostly non-existent) shortcomings in
>> Linux, and trying in every other way to discourage people
>> from using it.
>
>Non-existant shortcomings. I see, so Linux is perfect. Glad to hear it.
>Everyone can stop work now. Go home (or if you're working from home, go
>out). It's done. Nother more to do.
Apparently Funkenbusch thinks that readers of his article
won't remember the text he quoted *four lines* above his lie,
which says "(mostly non-existent) shortcomings".
------
There seems to be an arrogance that possesses Microsoft
propagandists (by which I do not mean to imply that they are
necessarily *paid* for what they do). When our poor, obsessed
Boris called someone "an idiot and a loser" (and he was being
relatively nice, since he left out the "stinky" 8^), I said
that he was expressing Microsoft's attitude toward the public.
It is also the attitude of our dedicated MS propagandists.
>> The true situation is that applications fulfilling the
>> requirements (with the exception of games) of most Windows
>> users are *now* available under Linux, almost all of them
>> at no cost.
>
>At no cost for personal use. Commercial use still costs money in many
>cases. More Mark exagerations? Which comprehensive Office Suite is
>completely free for commercial use? Since you say "almost all of them" are
>free?
My statement meant: for each common requirement of Windows
users, there is at least one app satisfying it that runs
under Linux, and is most likely free. It would have been
absurd to claim that almost all apps satisfying each require-
ment are free, which seems to be the way Funkenbusch wants
to interpret it, in order to claim that I exaggerated.
StarOffice is completely free for commercial and personal use.
It can be downloaded from the Web, or a manual and CD can be
purchased for $40. Either the download or the CD can then be
installed on any number of machines within an organization,
and/or put on a LAN server and accessed from there.
http://www.sun.com/products/staroffice/get.cgi
http://www.sun.com/products/staroffice/faq.html
>I don't think anyone would argue that StarOffice or Applixware had
>even 10% of the features of Word. You can argue till you're blue in the
>face that nobody uses more than 10% of the features of word but that would
>be forgetting that each and every person uses a different 10%.
That's a load of bull. Most people use the same common set
of WP features, namely those needed to produce ordinary
documents, which are generally the features available in
StarOffice. Since it is the office suite for Solaris, it's
very likely that Sun will continue to enhance it, too.
http://www.sun.com/products/staroffice/feature-list.html
Many of the features in Microsoft office software are put in
so the company can claim that its customers need them and
ought to spend several hundred dollars every year or two to
get them. It also provides an excuse for changing the docu-
ment format with every new version, so that if even a few
suckers buy the new one, every business they send documents
to will be forced to upgrade also, at tremendous cost to
the public and profit to Microsoft.
>> >To date I have given out somewhere near 50 Linux CD's and not one,
>> >not even one, person has stuck with Linux that I am aware of.
>>
>> There is no reason whatsoever to believe this claim.
>
>Which claim? That's he's given out 50 CD's or that none have stuck with
>Linux? Given that you know nothing about the people he gave them to,
>there's no reason to disbelieve the claim either. Unless you know the
>people he gave them to.
There is no reason to take Steve-Heather's word for *anything*,
because "he" has been caught in so many lies, which are easily
apparent from his Usenet posts, that he has no credibility
whatsoever. Since he also keeps his identity secret, nothing
that he claims as personal experience can be verified or
trusted.
>> The public posting record of Steve/Mike/teknite/etc. shows
>> all the credibility and integrity of a rabid weasel on crack,
>> and the truth values of his statements are well approximated
>> by a random sequence of zeroes and ones. If he wrote that
>> the Sun rises in the East, one would have a sudden urge to
>> check that it still does.
>
>So in other words, instead of addressing the statement, you prefer to change
>the subject.
What subject? There is no reason to think that he carried
out the experiment that he claims to have done. He tells us
to believe on his word a result that is just another version
of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux lies and propaganda that he's
posted in thousands of articles, under a dozen different
false names.
>> >Linux in and of itself sends a powerful message....
>>
>> It certainly does, one which all these guys have worked very
>> hard to keep people from listening to, but they have failed.
>> Here's a list of the pro-Microsoft/anti-Linux propaganda
>> spammers operating in comp.os.linux.advocacy, present and
>> past (including multiple fake names used by the same person).
>> Some of them post at a rate of nearly 500 articles per month,
>> each:
>>
>> "Drestin Black", Chad Myers, Erik Funkenbusch, Stephen Edwards,
>
>Ha! I'm not anti-Linux, no matter what you believe. I use Linux every day
>and enjoy it.
It's only necessary to look at Funkenbusch's posts in Deja
News to see that almost every one of them defends Microsoft
or bashes Linux. Here are a few recent quotes. Readers
can decide for themselves.
"X is unstable and shouldn't be used for real work."
"Learning Unix ... requires a masochistic bent."
"Win2k is the most thoroughly tested product of this
magnitude ever developed."
>I simply don't believe that it's going to take over the world
>or replace Microsoft. I also don't believe that in it's current form it's
>any kind of replacement for windows.
>Most knowledgeable Linux advocates seem to agree with that.
That depends on exactly what is meant by "replacement for
windows". It isn't an exact replacement, but most of the
functionality of commonly used Windows applications (except
for particular games) can either be found in Linux apps, or
in Windows programs that run under WINE.
>> Steve/"teknite"/keymaster/keys88/"Sewer Rat"/heather/mcswain/
>> "S"/"Sponge"/"Sarek", etc., "Chad Mulligan"/"boobaabaa",
>> Jeff Szarka, Robert Moir, Steve Sheldon, "piddy", Brent Davies,
>> Boris, "ubercat"/"Odin", "Xerophyte"/Kelly_Robinson, "bob/bill/
>> mike/e...@nospam.com(newsguy.com)", "Cuor di Mela", etc.
fmc
Presumably Quicken can, since you didn't say otherwise.
>
> >Is that the one that was still rolling
> >out a Y2K fix as 2000 began?
> Possibly, but I use it and havent had any problems.
If you have version "oh point eight" then that problem is supposed to be
fixed. As Curtis Olson puts it, "The Y2K rollover exposed several remaining
Y2K bugs in CBB's front end GUI. These issues are all [hopefully] addressed
by the 0.8.0 release."
[Hopefully] you won't have any problems.
>
> > No thanks, I want better support for the
> >software that maintains my financial records than "a round tuit".
> Better than, stable, reliable and author response via email within a day?
>
Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program supported by
a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's why
user support is a team effort.
> > Of course
> >it IS free.
> CBB is Free Software, do you know what that means ?
For a rib splitting chuckle, give a listen to Richard Stallman's immortal
rendition of the The Free Software Song at:
http://www.fsf.org/music/free-software-song.html
The Free Software Song (sounds best on the FREE Windows Media Player)
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
x2
Hoarders may get piles of money,
That is true, hackers, that is true.
But they cannot help their neighbors;
That's not good, hackers, that's not good.
When we have enough free software
At our call, hackers, at our call,
We'll throw out those dirty licenses
Ever more, hackers, ever more.
Join us now and share the software;
You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
x2
Better keep the day job, RS!
Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of copyright
like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL, where
it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
BTW, he gets pissed when you say Linux. You're supposed to call it
GNU/Linux, in deference to him, I suppose. He's definitely out standing in
his field.
>
> >The only way people can get Quicken's bugs fixed is to buy the
> >software. I guess money does have its uses.
> Guess you're lucky MS couldnt buy Quicken then ?
That wouldn't be a problem. If MS bought the Quicken division or Intuit
they'd also be buying their expertise. The end result would be a better
product.
>
> >
> >>
> >> > a
> >> >tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and
project
> >> My accountant does that in 10 mins, with the summaries I give him from
> >CBB.
> >
> >He probably uses Kiplinger TaxCut on Windows. They might have a Mac
version
> >too. Linux, ah... no.
> No he's a taxation accountant, he knows what is needed based on his
knowledge
> of Australian tax laws, which change constantly. Actually he uses MsDos.
U.S. laws change every year as well. External influences that determine
what the requirements are and when they must be implemented are the prime
reasons why tax software can't be developed in a casual atmosphere
>
> You sound like the kinda person who would recommend a doctor because he
uses
> MsMedicine on his pc!
An accountant can do taxes on a computer. Doctor's don't use computers to
treat patients, although they do use information systems to track cases, and
the billing department uses software. My doctor's office uses NT. He could
have picked Linux. He just needed the right applications, and a company to
come in, set up the hardware and software, train his staff and provide
support.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't
> >exist
> >> >for Linux.
> >> No Linux does not make MS Project oe CA-SuperProject.
> >
> >What, no PBB (Project Book Balancer) for Linux?
> Hahhahaahh, pretty good!
>
> > Does your accountant do
> >project management as well?
> No he's a taxation accountant, pls see above.
Then your project managers are out of luck. Maybe they can use Pencil,
Paper, and Calculator. I think I'll GPL that and call it GNU/PPC.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
> >> >either Windows or Mac.
> >> Not for long.
> >
> >I guess that answers my question about CBB.
> No, it's irellevant to CBB, CBB is for personal finance management.
Online banking is just one aspect of a good personal finance management
product like Quicken.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >For myself, I'll wait to try Linux again until solutions for my needs
> >become
> >> >available.
> >> Hey keep waiting, waiting is a cargo cultists speciality.
> >
> >I'm not seriously waiting. Unlike a cargo cult, I KNOW Linux will never
> >provide the apps I need.
> Then that makes you a clairvoyant ?
There's no need to read tea leaves. Linux programmers keep developing new
solutions to a narrow range of problems. There's no reason to believe this
will change in the future.
>
> > Wanna-be clones with unreliable support,
> Support comes via people, ever called MsHelp (I have) ?
>
> > maybe,
> >but not the real thing.
> No Linux does not make Coke-a-Cola.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >It will be a long wait if I have to rely on the open source
> >> >community to provide them.
> >> The Free Software community have better things to do than design
software
> >> for you.
> >>
> >> Please feel free to continue to pay the Windows tax.
> >
> >I pay 8 bucks in tax every week when I fill up my gas tank. That's $400
a
> >year. For comparison; Windows NT came free with my PC;
> Oh really, well I've a little used bridge in Sydney I'd like to sell ya
then ?
If it's a FREE bridges, then just send me a copy.
>
> >TurboTax was $10
> >after rebate; TaxSaver free after rebate;
> > StarOffice was free;
> What no MS Office ???
I don't use StarOffice too much, so Office would be a waste of money. The
WP is OK, but I could get along just fine with MSWorks (I got it for FREE
when I bought my desktop). I use DB2 Universal Database (FREE for personal
use), so I don't need Access, and the StarOffice spreadsheet will work with
DB2.
>
> >my company
> >provides CA-SuperProject
> Of course they do, can you aford a personal copy for home ?
No, they paid the 400 buck and gave me a copy to take home. They also paid
for training, which cost them a lot more in time lost from work and training
fees than the cost of the software itself. Some things are just worth the
money they cost.
>
> >Quicken cost around 20 bucks after rebate; and
> Yes its a excellent program, and well priced. Pity it only runs on
> MsWindows, or I might be interested. As it is, they'll never see my
> $20 after rebate.
>
> >there's lots of free stuff for Windows on the net.
> Like cuteFTP ?
Don't use it. WS_FTP works just fine. The LE version is free for personal
use.
>
> Which snooper program will your "free" windows application install today ?
Certainly not Aureate/Radiate. Steve Gibson's FREE OptOut program took care
of that. Future releases will handle the other nasties. ZoneAlarm (FREE)
keeps my ports clean and shiny, and IDcide (FREE) makes sure those grimy
hands stay out of the cookie jar. These are programs I'm willing to pay
for, but they're FREE. That's pretty cool, don'tcha think?
fmc
Jeremy Crabtree
>
>"Jeremy Crabtree" <Jer...@TMBG.org> wrote in message
>news:slrn8eljpj...@Tick.ItMightBeAServer.net...
>> >
>> ><heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>> >news:f42les0alhrrlcih0...@4ax.com...
>> >> On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU (Damien) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>MS
>> >> >| > Money, a tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or
>TaxSaver,
>> >> >| > and project management software like MS Project or
>CA-SuperProject.
>> >> >| > These don't exist for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts
>> >> >| > online. That requires either Windows or Mac.
>> >> >
>> >> >http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
>> >> >
>> >> >My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
>> >>
>> >> You're joking right?
>> >>
>> >
>> >FRESH MEAT??? ROTFL. That sure has that stable financial aura.
>>
>> So, you're admitting to us that you didn't even bother to check out the
>URL?
>>
>> Apparently you didn't get that Freshmeat.net is a rough Linux equivalent
>to
>> download.com or shareware.com
>
>if I told anyone I worked with to get their financial software at Fresh
>meat. That's a term some brokers use to refer to naive customers.
You still don't seem to be getting it...Freshmeat.net /DOES NOT HOST OR
DISTRIBUTE ANY SOFTWARE/! The merely direct you to the sites where you can
find it.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
>> >> QuickBooks ?
>> >>
>> >> Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
>> >>
>> >> I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
>> >
>> >At least you get to deduct the COST of the software. And the 1999
>version
>> >should be out any day now.
>>
>> Have you considered using a pencil and paper, and possibly a caluculator?
>> They're compatile with any OS you can possibly name...
>
>It's really VERY complex, it takes forever, and most accountants can't do it
>without consistently making mistakes, That's why tax software is so popular
>that even accounting firms use it. I used one to check my 96 return against
>what an accountant charged me $400 to do, and it produced exactly the same
>return. I've been doing it myself ever since. This year I picked up
>TurboTax AND MS TaxSaver (cost $20, free after $20 rebate). I'll use
>TurboTax to do the actual filing, but TaxSaver has a great help section with
>access to an online copy of J.K. Lasser's Your Income Tax 2000. It helps
>you save on next year's taxes by planning for them starting now. That's how
>I was able to buy this computer.
>
>Who still does these things on paper?
Well...my mother does...of course, she has an MBA...
> Let the computer do the things it's
>good at. I only use a pencil to do crossword puzzles.
>
>>
>> >>
>> >> I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
>> >> TaxCut...
>> >>
>> >> What a joke....
>>
>> The biggest joke is the blind hatred andrhetoric /YOU/ keep spewing out.
>You
>> could AT THE VERY LEAST ///TRY/// the software BEFORE you call is "crap"
>or
>
>Who are you talking to anyway?
You, and your ilk...you all seem to be full of insults and excuses...and
not much else.
> I didn't write that. As far as trying
>PTax98 is concerned, that was only good for LAST YEAR. There's no PTax99 to
>be found, at least at that site. That's the joke.
>
>
Damien
fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
| Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program supported by
| a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's why
| user support is a team effort.
The same thing can happen with propritary programs. The only
difference is that with Open Source software development can continue
when the original authors abandon it.
| Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of copyright
| like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
| neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL, where
| it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
| except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
| prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
The purpose of the GPL is to allow people to share information, and
enforce it actually.
| BTW, he gets pissed when you say Linux. You're supposed to call it
| GNU/Linux, in deference to him, I suppose.
It's understandable. The GNU project created and entire operating
system, minus a kernel. Linus creates a kernel, and get credit for
the whole shabang. Plus, the GNU name makes it easier to spread the
word about freedom, which is what the GNU project is all about.
Damien
What Jeremy doesn't mention is that MS made their clients dependent on
this non-standard addition to Kerberos. So while the servers still
meet the standard, the clients don't, since they depend on proprietary
additions.
fmc
The name FRESH MEAT is still a hoot. What can I say?
My mother still writes all her business correspondence longhand. She also
knits sweaters by hand. I think I'll give her a call tommorrow.
>
> > Let the computer do the things it's
> >good at. I only use a pencil to do crossword puzzles.
> >
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
> >> >> TaxCut...
> >> >>
> >> >> What a joke....
> >>
> >> The biggest joke is the blind hatred andrhetoric /YOU/ keep spewing
out.
> >You
> >> could AT THE VERY LEAST ///TRY/// the software BEFORE you call is
"crap"
> >or
> >
> >Who are you talking to anyway?
>
> You, and your ilk...you all seem to be full of insults and excuses...and
> not much else.
What excuses? I didn't make any excuses. Are you ilk?
Craig Kelley
> Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program supported by
> a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's why
> user support is a team effort.
Where is CricketGraph that will work on MacOS > 8.0?
We use this program heavily in our college, and we have to keep an old
Mac up and running because the company which made CG was purchased a
few years ago and they never bothered to port it to PPC. It doesn't
run well on a Mac after System 7.5.
The users don't like any of the alternatives. They are not as easy
and don't have the same features.
Where do I go for support now? If it were Open Source, I could do
something about it...
--
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
fmc
supported by
> | a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's
why
> | user support is a team effort.
>
> difference is that with Open Source software development can continue
> when the original authors abandon it.
That leaves a lot to chance. If I'm betting my livelihood on a program, I
want some assurance that the program will be maintained by the developer.
In some cases (Apache comes to mind) there are enough interested parties to
keep the project alive, but that's not always possible. Sometimes you have
a single developer, and when he loses interest the program could be
orphaned.
>
> | Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of
copyright
> | like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
> | neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL,
where
> | it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
Program
> | except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
> | prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
>
> The purpose of the GPL is to allow people to share information, and
> enforce it actually.
If he believes that his intellectual property is meant to be shared, that's
his business, and he can copyright the GPL to do just that. In fact, the
word "copyright" is used no less than 16 times in the GPL sample text at
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
The hypocrisy starts when he makes excuses for piracy that violates the
intellectual property of other people. Just because HIS license requires
the user to share the covered software doesn't mean that MY copyrighted
property is OK to share with others. Yet he approves of just that when he
says that software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
neighbor''.
>
> | BTW, he gets pissed when you say Linux. You're supposed to call it
> | GNU/Linux, in deference to him, I suppose.
>
> It's understandable. The GNU project created and entire operating
> system, minus a kernel. Linus creates a kernel, and get credit for
> the whole shabang. Plus, the GNU name makes it easier to spread the
> word about freedom, which is what the GNU project is all about.
Nobody cares. BestBuy had 3 or 4 versions of Linux on their shelves
yesterday, and not a single one said GNU/Linux on the box. Maybe that's
because without the Linux kernel, there wouldn't be a single GNU product on
those shelves.
fmc
fmc
"Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
news:m1snx0x...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> "fmc" <f...@mediaone.net> writes:
>
> > Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
supported by
> > a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's
why
> > user support is a team effort.
>
>
> We use this program heavily in our college, and we have to keep an old
> Mac up and running because the company which made CG was purchased a
> few years ago and they never bothered to port it to PPC. It doesn't
> run well on a Mac after System 7.5.
>
> The users don't like any of the alternatives. They are not as easy
> and don't have the same features.
>
> Where do I go for support now? If it were Open Source, I could do
> something about it...
>
You mean you have to port Mac programs between hardware platforms? That
sounds like Apple's problem. How old is this thing anyway? In any case, if
they don't sell enough copies to make it worth their while to upgrade, it's
not commercially viable to upgrade it. If it was open source you might not
find anyone interested in doing it for free, so you'd be stuck doing the
work yourself. If you're good at that kind of thing, why not just get
something else that's similar and modify it yourself?
Or you could get the college to buy Mathematica. That runs on Mac, and I
hear it's one hell of a program.
fmc
Chad Myers
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 03:42:48 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
> | Jim Richardson <war...@eskimo.com> wrote in message
> | news:slrn8elgcu....@raven.myth...
>
> | > Kerberos and M$'s little "addition" (undocumented)
> |
> | And that undocumented addition is entirely standards compliant. The
> | standard doesn't require the documentation of extension fields.
>
> Basically, Microsoft has made additions to the standard that make it
> impossible for a non MS server to server Kerberos tickets to an MS
> client. Another cut and dry case of MS using embrace-and-extend
> tactics to leverage their desktop OS monopoly into the server market.
That WAS true early in the betas. However, the release version of Win2K
is fully interoperable.
The only catch is that non-windows KDCs cannot feed windows clients all
extra extended Microsoft stuff (group policies, group membership, directory
stuff, etc). However, a non-Windows KDC-issued ticket is still valid to
a Windows server if the Windows server trusts the KDC (which is standards
based with Kerberos).
The only people complaining about this Vendor-specific field (which is
exactly what MIT designed it for) is the Samba team, as they can't act
like a full Windows2000 domain server for Windows2000 kerberos clients.
However, MSFT's implementation is still 100% Kerberos v5 compliant.
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/kerberos-faq/general/section-62.html
This document is way old. Note that they still refer to it as NT 5.
This _WAS_ true, but not any more.
-Chad
heat...@worldnet.att.net
It says FINANCE MANAGEMENT AND TAX PREPARATION and the link provided
is Freshmet.net/appindex/x11/financial.html/
It's all below..Read it.......
Steve
On 5 Apr 2000 12:59:35 +0800, tjpo...@gronk.apana.org.au (Terry
Porter) wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 00:23:52 GMT,
> heat...@worldnet.att.net <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU (Damien) wrote:
>
>>>Finace management and tax preparation
>>>http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
>>>
>>>My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
>>
>>You're joking right?
>>
>>You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
>>QuickBooks ?
>>
>>Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
>>
>>I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
>>
>>I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
>>TaxCut...
>>
>>What a joke....
>>
>>Steve
>
>You've sunk to new (low) levels of Wintrollism "Heather/Steve", he responded
>to *on line banking* and you jump in with TAX software!!
>
>Do you know the difference between on line banking, home financial software
>and tax software "Heather/Steve" ?
>
>Do you have *any* clue at all ?
>
>Kind Regards
>Terry
heat...@worldnet.att.net
regards to tax preparation software I tend to run like hell before the
IRS is after me and I have to run even faster.
Steve
On 5 Apr 2000 05:29:09 GMT, Jer...@TMBG.org (Jeremy Crabtree) wrote:
>fmc allegedly wrote:
>>
>><heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>>news:f42les0alhrrlcih0...@4ax.com...
>>> On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU (Damien) wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>>> >Leonard F. Agius <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>> >| > Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>>> >| > WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS
>>> >| > Money, a tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver,
>>> >| > and project management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject.
>>> >| > These don't exist for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts
>>> >| > online. That requires either Windows or Mac.
>>> >
>>> >Finace management and tax preparation
>>> >http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
>>> >
>>> >My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
>>>
>>> You're joking right?
>>>
>>
>>FRESH MEAT??? ROTFL. That sure has that stable financial aura.
>
>So, you're admitting to us that you didn't even bother to check out the URL?
>
>Apparently you didn't get that Freshmeat.net is a rough Linux equivalent to
> download.com or shareware.com
>
>
>>
>>> You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
>>> QuickBooks ?
>>>
>>> Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
>>>
>>> I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
>>
>>At least you get to deduct the COST of the software. And the 1999 version
>>should be out any day now.
>
>Have you considered using a pencil and paper, and possibly a caluculator?
>They're compatile with any OS you can possibly name...
>
>>>
>>> I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
>>> TaxCut...
>>>
>>> What a joke....
>
>The biggest joke is the blind hatred andrhetoric /YOU/ keep spewing out. You
>could AT THE VERY LEAST ///TRY/// the software BEFORE you call is "crap" or
> ^^^^^^
>a "joke."
heat...@worldnet.att.net
They never left the stoneage.
A pencil and paper is an improvement to someone running Linux.
Steve
Chad Myers
> |
> | http://x30.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=594981919
> |
> | Jeremy is probably rightfully annoyed that Microsoft hasn't documented their
> | PAC format, but the standard does not require them to do so.
>
> What Jeremy doesn't mention is that MS made their clients dependent on
> this non-standard addition to Kerberos. So while the servers still
> meet the standard, the clients don't, since they depend on proprietary
> additions.
You're wrong. The Clients will be able to authenticate, however, they
won't get all the full features as if they were authenticated through
a Win2K server.
Things like Group Policy from ADS, group membership, network rights, etc.
It'll function, just you will loose some functionality.
If you had a situation with a bunch of *nix boxes and only a few Win2K
workstations and no servers, it would work perfectly.
However, in a mixed environment, you might loose some functionality, but
it's still not the end of the road.
Oh, and would you stop calling it a "non-standard addition". You're completely
wrong and we've proven it several times.
There is a section for vendor-specific, proprietary data to be based. MIT
made this for just the same purpose that MS is using it for.
The only problem is that MS is not disclosing what it's stuffing in that
section, nor does it have to be standards compliant. Sure, the Samba team
would love it if MSFT did, but it's not a requirement for anyone but
people like Samba trying to take business away from MSFT.
-Chad
Chad Myers
> 8.0?
>
> something about it...
Well, write your own. I mean, you guys hoot and hollar about how easy
it is for people to just sit down and start coding apps, why not right
you're own. I mean, this stuff comes naturally to you guys, doesn't it?
-Chad
lcs...@my-deja.com
heat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> >
> >Faxes: http://www.hylafax.org/
> >There are others, but this is the one that looked most promising on
> >cursory inspection
>
> It's a joke to compared to even the shareware or home version Win
> programs.
hmmmmm... I once set up hylafax on two hp's (needed 4 serial ports:)
to send 40 faxes over 4 lines 16 times a day in under 5 minutes per
cycle. The software was free. The results were great. The word
'joke' never really occured to me. Shrug...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Damien
fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
|
| "Damien" <dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU> wrote in message
| > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:13:36 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
| > fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
| >
| supported by
| > | a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's
| why
| > | user support is a team effort.
| >
| > difference is that with Open Source software development can continue
| > when the original authors abandon it.
|
| That leaves a lot to chance. If I'm betting my livelihood on a program, I
| want some assurance that the program will be maintained by the developer.
| In some cases (Apache comes to mind) there are enough interested parties to
| keep the project alive, but that's not always possible. Sometimes you have
| a single developer, and when he loses interest the program could be
| orphaned.
You get no such assurance with proprietary programs. With Open Source
the worst case senerio is that you'll have to pay for continued
development yourself. With proprietary software, you are just stuck
with the last version they made before they went into the spreadsheet
business.
| > | Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of
| copyright
| > | like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
| > | neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL,
| where
| > | it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
| Program
| > | except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
| > | prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
| >
| > The purpose of the GPL is to allow people to share information, and
| > enforce it actually.
|
| If he believes that his intellectual property is meant to be shared, that's
| his business, and he can copyright the GPL to do just that. In fact, the
| word "copyright" is used no less than 16 times in the GPL sample text at
| http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.txt
|
| The hypocrisy starts when he makes excuses for piracy that violates the
| intellectual property of other people. Just because HIS license requires
| the user to share the covered software doesn't mean that MY copyrighted
| property is OK to share with others. Yet he approves of just that when he
| says that software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
| neighbor''.
Yet that's exactly what it is. You have no innate right to control
other people's property. That right is given by the government in
order to foster progress. But in the case of the software industry,
there is good reason to believe these laws are stifling progress.
| > | BTW, he gets pissed when you say Linux. You're supposed to call it
| > | GNU/Linux, in deference to him, I suppose.
| >
| > It's understandable. The GNU project created and entire operating
| > system, minus a kernel. Linus creates a kernel, and get credit for
| > the whole shabang. Plus, the GNU name makes it easier to spread the
| > word about freedom, which is what the GNU project is all about.
|
| Nobody cares. BestBuy had 3 or 4 versions of Linux on their shelves
| yesterday, and not a single one said GNU/Linux on the box. Maybe that's
| because without the Linux kernel, there wouldn't be a single GNU product on
| those shelves.
Similarly, without the GNU project Linux would not be on any shelves.
It probably never would have been created.
Craig Kelley
> "Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
> news:m1snx0x...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> > "fmc" <f...@mediaone.net> writes:
> >
> > > Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
> > > supported by a single person, when that person goes off to do
> > > something else? That's why user support is a team effort.
> >
> > Where is CricketGraph that will work on MacOS > 8.0?
> >
> > We use this program heavily in our college, and we have to keep an old
> > Mac up and running because the company which made CG was purchased a
> > few years ago and they never bothered to port it to PPC. It doesn't
> > run well on a Mac after System 7.5.
> >
> > The users don't like any of the alternatives. They are not as easy
> > and don't have the same features.
> >
> > Where do I go for support now? If it were Open Source, I could do
> > something about it...
>
> You mean you have to port Mac programs between hardware platforms? That
> sounds like Apple's problem. How old is this thing anyway? In any case, if
> they don't sell enough copies to make it worth their while to upgrade, it's
> not commercially viable to upgrade it. If it was open source you might not
> find anyone interested in doing it for free, so you'd be stuck doing the
> work yourself. If you're good at that kind of thing, why not just get
> something else that's similar and modify it yourself?
The point is, commercial software suffers from the exact same problem
that you are complaining about with Linux software. If it becomes
unsupported, you are screwed. It is even *worse* with commercial
software, because after it is unsupported you cannot do anything about
it. At least open source software lets someone else continue on.
> Or you could get the college to buy Mathematica. That runs on Mac, and I
> hear it's one hell of a program.
We already have it.
Craig Kelley
> "Craig Kelley" <i...@inconnu.isu.edu> wrote in message
> news:m1snx0x...@inconnu.isu.edu...
> > Where is CricketGraph that will work on MacOS
> > 8.0?
> >
> > Where do I go for support now? If it were Open Source, I could do
> > something about it...
>
> Well, write your own. I mean, you guys hoot and hollar about how easy
> it is for people to just sit down and start coding apps, why not right
> you're own. I mean, this stuff comes naturally to you guys, doesn't it?
I knew you'd become an open-source software advocate eventually.
Seriously though, if I had the source to Cricket Graph, I'd be
compiling it right now using Metrowerks for PPC.
Craig Kelley
> "Damien" <dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU> wrote in message
> news:slrn8emuj2...@localhost.localdomain...
> > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 17:13:36 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> > fmc <f...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> >
> > | Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program
> supported by
> > | a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's
> why
> > | user support is a team effort.
> >
> > The same thing can happen with propritary programs. The only
> > difference is that with Open Source software development can continue
> > when the original authors abandon it.
>
> That leaves a lot to chance. If I'm betting my livelihood on a program, I
> want some assurance that the program will be maintained by the developer.
> In some cases (Apache comes to mind) there are enough interested parties to
> keep the project alive, but that's not always possible. Sometimes you have
> a single developer, and when he loses interest the program could be
> orphaned.
The same exact thing happened to us with Cricket Graph.
So much for "betting our livelihood" on commercial software.
[snip]
Leonard F. Agius
Bob Lyday wrote:
> Shell wrote:
> >
> > na...@na.da (redrum) writes:
> > >I already believe that Linux runs on Intel architecture chips. I'm not
> > >sure if they have a good GUI or not, but it's really needed to succeed.
> > >Computer makers have been bullied by M$ into putting only Windows on
> > >their PCs. If they can get those agreements invalidated under the
> > >antitrust ruling, then they'll be free to put whatever they want on
> > >their PCs. Windows runs 95% of PCs now because people will buy what is
> > >common. M$ snagged the market early so that when Joe Blow went out to
> > >buy his first PC, he saw that they all were running Windows so he said
> > >why not. But if a good number of Linux PCs come out with a good GUI and
> > >Windows compatible apps, people will look into them.
> >
> > The Amiga and Macintosh had a chance to do this back in the 1980's when the
> > PC was relatively uncommon in the home market. It didn't happen, despite
> > Commodore actually having the largest share of the home market in the early
> > 80's.
>
> Oh, and M$ pre-loading agreements had nothing to do with it!
> Too bad we aren't running Amiga and Mac now, it'd be a better
> world...
> >
> > There are forces at work here far more powerful that Microsoft, far more
> > powerful than the Computer makers unwillingness to waste their time putting
> > other software on the machines.
>
> If they can sell the box, why is it a waste of time? And they
> can...
>
> That force is the consumer, woe be it to
> > him who defies the will of the consumer.
>
> Gee, M$ has made a career of it, Stevie, how come they don't get
> their due?
You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? Steve Sheldon had it right on
the nose - there are forces at play here that are truely far more powerful than
either Microsoft, or its detractors. And these forces are ESPECIALLY more powerful
than the detractors are.
John Q. Public, the non-technogeek who can't even program his own VCR, has got a
taste of what you can do with a PC, got learning the Windows OS, and going to Best
Buy or CompUSA to buy his additional toys, be they software or hardware.
Especially now, with USB and Win98, adding some new hardware, like an external CD
burner, is, for these people, a no brainer. Programs like GoBack are taking some
of the stress (real or merely percieved) out of installing new software.
John Q. Businessperson now has an opportunity to buy off-the-shelf, out-of-the-box
solutions, be they Office/Productivity suites, contact managers, image editing,
do-it-yourself-wysiwyg web page editors, etc. And it's being done on Wintel boxes,
with the non technogeek
John Q. Public as the hapless employee that John Q. Businessperson doesn't have to
spend an arm & a leg training to work the Wintel box.
None of these people give a rats hind end what Microsoft's detractors have to say,
because the PC business people who are detractors (the Netscapes, the Sun
Microsytems, the Apples, etc) come off as a bunch of sore losers using politics to
bash someone the public, correctly or incorrectly, perceives as a success, and the
technogeek detractors come off as a bunch of computer elitists who want to keep
the non-technogeek under their collective thumb by creating a hodge-podge of OS's
and non-off-the-retail-shelf software and hardware solutions. All guaranteed to
turn off John Q. Public, the non-technogeek, from becoming a computer user, and
keeping a the whole concept of Personal Computing as something mystical that's
only good enough for the technogeek/computer nerd types (have I offended any of
you, so far...good, I hope so, because I'm trying to).
Not only are their forces at play here that are more powerful than the MS
detractors are, but slap MS with anything other than a token sanction, and allow
the public to percieve their days of EASY, PAINLESS (in their own minds) access to
Personal Computing to be under threat of dominance (again) by the
technogeek/computer nerd types, and you will see a public backlash that some of
you will FEEL, as if someone walked up to and punched you right in the nose. I've
already heard grumbling from shoppers at places like Best Buy and CompUSA - not
exactly the epitome of computer shoppers, but representative of most of the
non-technogeek computer newbie that the majority of the industry now panders
(rightfully so) to.
Frankly, some of them already feel so anxious over any threat to the current
status quo, that they would like nothing more than to start publicly flogging some
of you with a whip tipped with tire irons. Some BestBuy computer department clerk
made some pro-Linux comment, follwoed a reference to Microsoft as "Microsuck", and
one couple got so upset, and so angry, that they went complaining to the store
manager, and this poor kid got sent home, after the couple threatened to putback
the PC, scanner & printer they were planning to buy. I swear, I never saw a store
manager look so flustered over something even I thought was trivial.
Ya know what? About a dozen other shoppers applauded (literally started clapping)
this couple and the other BestBuy computer department clerks, who were definately
pro-Linux technogeek/computer nerd types smarted off to the manager and went off
sulking, and wouldn't help any customers for about five or ten minutes. When they
finally got dragged back to the sales floor, they made real sure everyone else
could see the chip they were carrying on their shoulder over this bullsh*t.
Steve Sheldon gets it. Alot of other non-MS detractors get. Why the hell don't the
rest of you get it? Personal Computing is now MASS MARKET, so all of you who want
to tinker (and since I build my own systems I fall under this group too), who want
to install and run alternative OS's, are now FRINGE USERS. Period.
The rest of the PC Mass Market don't give a shit how Microsoft became dominant,
even when our Windows boxes lock up, crash, and otherwise drive us crazy. For all
the public really cares, Bill Gates could have run over Scott McNeely with his
Bimmer, and bribed Apple execs into running that company into the ground. Personal
Computing is now mass market, Windows is the Defacto standard OS, a lot of the
public have mutual finds that have hold stock in Microsoft, and no one wants this
apple cart upset, especially if it's upset in the favor of the technogeek/computer
nerd types the mass market considers the lunatic fringe. Period.
>
> > --
> <snip ad for Steve>
> --
> Bob
> "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
> significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
> interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
> Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
--
Fight SPAM!!! Remove the _nospam from the above address to send e-mail.
The opinions expressed are my own.
Leonard F. Agius
>that's
>only good enough for the technogeek/computer nerd types (have I offended any
>of
>you, so far...good, I hope so, because I'm trying to).
I'm really not trying to offend anyone, but I couldn't miss the opportunity to be a
smart ass;>) When you're on a roll, you're on a roll.
2:1
> software to blow the doors off anything Linux has, including Gimp.
> Not to mention it worked perfectly out of the box.
> The wizards did everything from configuring to prompting me through
> making my first scan.
>
> Worked like a charm right out of the box and no overpriced SCSI
> needed.
>
> Sane?
>
> Should be called insane...What a joke.....
>
> Linux misses the boat again. When will you people understand that
> setup.exe is your friend?
>
> In this case all I did was pop the CD in and away it went.
No offence, but you Winvocates are *always* buying scanners and DVDs. How many can you
realistically use at once, even if they do work out of the box?
But seriously, though, SCSI scanners give noticable performance increases over parallel
ones, but it obvioulsy comes at a price. Personally, I can spend the mmoney I saved on
software, on hardware. You're choice (and aren't you glad that you do have a choice)?
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
2:1
heat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> Going back?
>
> They never left the stoneage.
>
> A pencil and paper is an improvement to someone running Linux.
I know someone who used the said pencil to write the OEM code wor his windows 95
license on the moniter, because it seemed to need reinstalling so often. He never had
to do a linux re install.
-Ed
>
> Steve
>
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 13:09:03 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <cmy...@NO.SPAMaustin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >Seems to be the trend eh? Can't find good apps for Linux, end up going back
> >to Paper/Pencil just so you won't have to use that Evvvillll M$ software, right?
> >
> >-Chad
> >
--
heat...@worldnet.att.net
Market acceptance is one.
Market share another.
Applications/ease of use/compatability are 3 more.
>John Q. Public, the non-technogeek who can't even program his own VCR, has got a
>taste of what you can do with a PC, got learning the Windows OS, and going to Best
>Buy or CompUSA to buy his additional toys, be they software or hardware.
And at the current state of hardware and software the chances are good
he doesn't even have to look at the box because they will be
supported, especially under Win98 and less so for NT and 2k.
Speaking of the box, when Mr. Public opens up his hardware, he will be
greeted with all kinds of nice software to help extend the function of
his hardware (scanners, printers, audio cards, mice, camera's etc) all
of which is lost when running Linux.
>Especially now, with USB and Win98, adding some new hardware, like an external CD
>burner, is, for these people, a no brainer. Programs like GoBack are taking some
>of the stress (real or merely percieved) out of installing new software.
Setup.exe is all it takes. If auto insert is on, pop in the CD and
away you go.
>John Q. Businessperson now has an opportunity to buy off-the-shelf, out-of-the-box
>solutions, be they Office/Productivity suites, contact managers, image editing,
>do-it-yourself-wysiwyg web page editors, etc. And it's being done on Wintel boxes,
>with the non technogeek
Even my 9 year old son can do it and it has worked every time.
>John Q. Public as the hapless employee that John Q. Businessperson doesn't have to
>spend an arm & a leg training to work the Wintel box.
Even if he doesn't he can ask just about anyone on the street or at
his lodge or business association and chances are he will get the
answer he needs.
Mention Linux and chances are you will get into a discussion of how to
pronounce it (happened to me yesterday).
>None of these people give a rats hind end what Microsoft's detractors have to say,
>because the PC business people who are detractors (the Netscapes, the Sun
>Microsytems, the Apples, etc) come off as a bunch of sore losers using politics to
>bash someone the public, correctly or incorrectly, perceives as a success, and the
>technogeek detractors come off as a bunch of computer elitists who want to keep
>the non-technogeek under their collective thumb by creating a hodge-podge of OS's
>and non-off-the-retail-shelf software and hardware solutions. All guaranteed to
>turn off John Q. Public, the non-technogeek, from becoming a computer user, and
>keeping a the whole concept of Personal Computing as something mystical that's
>only good enough for the technogeek/computer nerd types (have I offended any of
>you, so far...good, I hope so, because I'm trying to).
The public at large is curious about Linux. Curious until they
actually try it, if they even get that far after they read the read
me. Oh yea that's IF they can read the readme because a lot of them
are PS files and PS is a virtual unknown in the Windows world. Then
they have to have a partitioned drive, risk data loss by
re-partitioning and throw away all of the software they have
accumulated over the years just to run wannabe Linux applications with
crude, sometimes down right hostile interfaces (sendmail comes to
mind).
You Linvocates have got to be kidding.
>Not only are their forces at play here that are more powerful than the MS
>detractors are, but slap MS with anything other than a token sanction, and allow
>the public to percieve their days of EASY, PAINLESS (in their own minds) access to
>Personal Computing to be under threat of dominance (again) by the
>technogeek/computer nerd types, and you will see a public backlash that some of
>you will FEEL, as if someone walked up to and punched you right in the nose. I've
>already heard grumbling from shoppers at places like Best Buy and CompUSA - not
>exactly the epitome of computer shoppers, but representative of most of the
>non-technogeek computer newbie that the majority of the industry now panders
>(rightfully so) to.
Quite frankly folks are not interested in returning to the 1980's
editing text files. Show them Pine after they have been using Outlook
and they will be laughing out loud. Tell them how many programs they
need to run in order to read news OFFLINE and you've lost them
forever.
>Frankly, some of them already feel so anxious over any threat to the current
>status quo, that they would like nothing more than to start publicly flogging some
>of you with a whip tipped with tire irons. Some BestBuy computer department clerk
>made some pro-Linux comment, follwoed a reference to Microsoft as "Microsuck", and
>one couple got so upset, and so angry, that they went complaining to the store
>manager, and this poor kid got sent home, after the couple threatened to putback
>the PC, scanner & printer they were planning to buy. I swear, I never saw a store
>manager look so flustered over something even I thought was trivial.
My wife works at one of the very large national chains and you would
not believe how many folks come back returning Linux and screaming out
loud that it F%#$#d up their hard drive and they lost all their data.
Linux is numero uno in returns and nothing is even close.
Makes me wonder how many of those cheapbytes CD's and downloads of
Linux are REALLY being used.
>Ya know what? About a dozen other shoppers applauded (literally started clapping)
>this couple and the other BestBuy computer department clerks, who were definately
>pro-Linux technogeek/computer nerd types smarted off to the manager and went off
>sulking, and wouldn't help any customers for about five or ten minutes. When they
>finally got dragged back to the sales floor, they made real sure everyone else
>could see the chip they were carrying on their shoulder over this bullsh*t.
My wife would have fired them on the spot (she doesn't work for
BestBuy though).
>Steve Sheldon gets it. Alot of other non-MS detractors get. Why the hell don't the
>rest of you get it? Personal Computing is now MASS MARKET, so all of you who want
>to tinker (and since I build my own systems I fall under this group too), who want
>to install and run alternative OS's, are now FRINGE USERS. Period.
Because most of them are idiots so caught up in Linux that they fail
to see what's going on around them.
>The rest of the PC Mass Market don't give a shit how Microsoft became dominant,
>even when our Windows boxes lock up, crash, and otherwise drive us crazy. For all
>the public really cares, Bill Gates could have run over Scott McNeely with his
>Bimmer, and bribed Apple execs into running that company into the ground.
Yep. While most would agree MS's tactics were less than honorable, all
they care about is their software and business. Microsoft has made
this happen. Linux has not, and as far as the desktop at it's current
rate of improvement never will.
> Personal
>Computing is now mass market, Windows is the Defacto standard OS, a lot of the
>public have mutual finds that have hold stock in Microsoft, and no one wants this
>apple cart upset, especially if it's upset in the favor of the technogeek/computer
>nerd types the mass market considers the lunatic fringe. Period.
Can't comment as I don't own any stock.
>>
>> > --
>> <snip ad for Steve>
Yea, they don't like me because I have actually tried and used Linux
and can speak from my miserable experience unlike most of the
Linvocates whose last experience with Windows was Win95 original
version.
Bottom line is Linux is a geek system, always has been and no amount
of candy will help it along.
Windows has the market, and will continue to have such especially the
desktop/home market where Linux is laughable at best.
>> Bob
>> "There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
>> significant number of users want fixed," Bill Gates, in an
>> interview with Focus magazine, Oct 23, 1995.
>> Remove ".diespammersdie" to reply.
Steve
2:1
heat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:So you are going to run those same nasty BSOD
producing Windows
> applications under Linux?
>
> Sure makes sense to me :(
There may be a reason for some.
> The all mighty dollar is the ultimate motivator. Quicken, TurboTax,
> Agent and so forth are realities because of $$$$$.
Linux and many of its followers are not motivated primarily by $$$. Ultilately,
some things are more satisfying, and at the expense of a cliche, and you can't
throw money at them to become a wholesome person.
> In contrast Linux has a hodge podge collection of semi related, half
> done utilities (there must be millions of them), because there is no
> motivation to produce a quality, easy to use and look at piece of
> software. No deadline, nobody to scream when it sucks (it's free what
> do you expect?).
That sounds more like the millions of windows shareware products scattered around.
Most linux things work much better. There is an unquanitfiably HUGE motivation to
produce the very best that you can. Because so many people can see the code, it is
motivation to write the best software that you are capable of.
Lack of deadlines prevent buggy, broken software being pushed out. And, as for
people not screaming, where did you get that idea from? If software is made by a
huge company like MS, you, personally, could scream until blue in the face and get
nowhere, by contrast, you could easily contact the autoor of the [insert OSS
program here], or even fix it yourself.
How does freedom with software make it automatically buggy?
> When commercial applications coders see $$$$ in Linux the quality
> applications will come. Until then?
The quality is there already. I use linux for everything except games.
TeX typesets beautiful docs for me.
GCC compiles my (hopefully) beautiful programs, with an optimiser at no extra
cost. c.f VC++
Vi (yep, I actually like it) and XEmacs provide all my editing needs
The list goes on...
...and if I get my tax back soon enough, the gov does most of it for me :-)
I have all the quality I need. I also have the power and flexibility that I need.
But for people who don't like what I do, then, roll on commercial apps for linux.
> What you see is what you get.
I see a lot more in Linux than Windows, therefore I get more.
-Ed
heat...@worldnet.att.net
sheet music and so forth.
Canon 630P and it works great. I especially like Adobe Photoshop
(included BTW), but alas niether the software nor the scanner work
under Linux.
Typical.
I wonder how many Linvocates overpaid by purchasing over priced SCSI
scanners and for that matter over priced PS printers just for the joy
of running Linsux,,oooppss meant Linux.
Steve
CG
apples to oranges.
The one irrefutable fact that the M$ crowd continuously crow about is
M$'s dominance in the marketplace. No question about it, there is
more software available for windows, and in this sense, there is no
comparison, windows wins hands down. There is more software available
for windows because there are more companies marketing software for
windows, and there are more companies marketing software for windows
because windows is dominant in the marketplace. the companies follow
the money.
But to say this makes windows a better os is just plain ridiculous.
Linux is better than windows. It can do anything windows can do, and
it doesn't crash. In my book, that makes it a better os. the fact I
can't get the applications I need for it isn't a negative reflection
on linux, it just represents the current state of the marketplace.
All things being equal, i.e., all applications available for both
operating systems, I wouldn't touch windows to save my life. but with
things being as they are, I don't have much choice. So, being without
an effective choice, the fact that I buy and use windows software sure
doesn't mean I prefer windows over linux.
linux and windows co-exist peacefully in my office. where we can use
linux, we do. where we have to use windows, we do. we reboot the
windows machines daily, the linux boxes stay up and running for months
at a time. I can't think of a thing that I can do in linux that is
easier to do in windows (independent of the applications available for
windows) or where I would prefer to use windows. in other words,
there is absolutely nothing about the windows os that draws me to it,
other than the availability of software. the only credit M$ gets for
this is its marketing ability. the genius of gates and company is
making so much money off inferior goods.
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 02:07:47 GMT, sheldon...@yuck.net (Shell)
wrote:
>na...@na.da (redrum) writes:
>>I already believe that Linux runs on Intel architecture chips. I'm not
>>sure if they have a good GUI or not, but it's really needed to succeed.
>>Computer makers have been bullied by M$ into putting only Windows on
>>their PCs. If they can get those agreements invalidated under the
>>antitrust ruling, then they'll be free to put whatever they want on
>>their PCs. Windows runs 95% of PCs now because people will buy what is
>>common. M$ snagged the market early so that when Joe Blow went out to
>>buy his first PC, he saw that they all were running Windows so he said
>>why not. But if a good number of Linux PCs come out with a good GUI and
>>Windows compatible apps, people will look into them.
>
> The Amiga and Macintosh had a chance to do this back in the 1980's when the
>PC was relatively uncommon in the home market. It didn't happen, despite
>Commodore actually having the largest share of the home market in the early
>80's.
>
> There are forces at work here far more powerful that Microsoft, far more
>powerful than the Computer makers unwillingness to waste their time putting
>other software on the machines. That force is the consumer, woe be it to
Damien
heat...@worldnet.att.net <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
| On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 20:50:09 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
| <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
| accumulated over the years just to run wannabe Linux applications with
| crude, sometimes down right hostile interfaces (sendmail comes to
| mind).
| You Linvocates have got to be kidding.
Sendmail is not an "app". It's a deamon, a mail transfer agent to be
specific.
CG
>On 04 Apr 2000 23:51:37 GMT, dam...@DAMIEN.MIT.EDU (Damien) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 04 Apr 2000 21:57:04 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>>Leonard F. Agius <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>>| > Most people have some requirements that go beyond the standard
>>| > WP/Spreadsheet/Browser. I need a financial app like Quicken or MS Money, a
>>| > tax preparation program like TurboTax, TaxCut, or TaxSaver, and project
>>| > management software like MS Project or CA-SuperProject. These don't exist
>>| > for Linux. I also can't manage my bank accounts online. That requires
>>| > either Windows or Mac.
>>
>>Finace management and tax preparation
>>http://freshmeat.net/appindex/x11/financial.html
>>
>>My bank allows me to use any browser capable of SSL.
>
>You're joking right?
>
>You are comparing a collection of checkbook balancing programs to
>QuickBooks ?
>
>Oh, I really like PTax98. "Computes MOST of the 1998 Federal 1040EZ?
>
>I'll bet the IRS is real interested in the part it doesn't compute.
>
>I'll be sure to watch for the 2000 update so I can switch from
>TaxCut...
>
>What a joke....
>
>Steve
>
I don't get it. What does tax software have to do with linux? The
fact that intuit (turbo tax) doesn't develop its program for linux is
only a marketing decision by intuit, it has nothing to do with windows
or linux as operating systems. they just want to sell the most
programs possible.
if the tables were reversed, and linux were on 95 percent of the
desktops, do you think intuit would still be developing turbo tax for
windows?
I certainly understand why you use windows based products to do your
taxes, I do too, but I still think linux is a better o/s.
Chad Myers
"2:1" <u98...@eng.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:38EBAEDA...@eng.ox.ac.uk...
> heat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
> > A pencil and paper is an improvement to someone running Linux.
>
> I know someone who used the said pencil to write the OEM code wor his windows
95
> license on the moniter, because it seemed to need reinstalling so often. He
never had
> to do a linux re install.
>
> -Ed
Hey, Linux is better than Win95, that's something to brag about. Woohoo.
-Chad
heat...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
>heat...@worldnet.att.net wrote:So you are going to run those same nasty BSOD
>producing Windows
>
>> applications under Linux?
>>
>> Sure makes sense to me :(
>
>There may be a reason for some.
>
>
>> The all mighty dollar is the ultimate motivator. Quicken, TurboTax,
>> Agent and so forth are realities because of $$$$$.
>
>Linux and many of its followers are not motivated primarily by $$$. Ultilately,
>some things are more satisfying, and at the expense of a cliche, and you can't
>throw money at them to become a wholesome person.
And that is all nice and good but that is exactly the reason why Linux
software is so far behind Windows software that it isn't even a fair
contest.
>> In contrast Linux has a hodge podge collection of semi related, half
>> done utilities (there must be millions of them), because there is no
>> motivation to produce a quality, easy to use and look at piece of
>> software. No deadline, nobody to scream when it sucks (it's free what
>> do you expect?).
>
>That sounds more like the millions of windows shareware products scattered around.
Like WinAmp and MusicMatch? Or how about PaintShop pro?
Winzip?
I could go on for hours with software that is shareware for Windows
and has been, cloned terribly I might add, for Linux.
>Most linux things work much better. There is an unquanitfiably HUGE motivation to
>produce the very best that you can. Because so many people can see the code, it is
>motivation to write the best software that you are capable of.
I see it as a collection of half done utilities that most folks have
no use for.
>Lack of deadlines prevent buggy, broken software being pushed out. And, as for
>people not screaming, where did you get that idea from? If software is made by a
>huge company like MS, you, personally, could scream until blue in the face and get
>nowhere, by contrast, you could easily contact the autoor of the [insert OSS
>program here], or even fix it yourself.
I agree with you there, but personally I have not had any problems
with commercial software.
>How does freedom with software make it automatically buggy?
It makes it cheap looking and half done looking.
Take a look at typical Linux applications and you will see. Maybe in
another 5 years they will look complete, but for now.......
>
>> When commercial applications coders see $$$$ in Linux the quality
>> applications will come. Until then?
>
>The quality is there already. I use linux for everything except games.
>TeX typesets beautiful docs for me.
If you want to learn the interface that's fine.
Show TeX to a secretary and she will scream.
>GCC compiles my (hopefully) beautiful programs, with an optimiser at no extra
>cost. c.f VC++
Just what the home user needs.
>Vi (yep, I actually like it) and XEmacs provide all my editing needs
Another home user program. VI is powerful no doubt but most folks need
wordpad and that's it. The first time vi starts beeping at them it
will be dumped, pronto.
>The list goes on...
Into the land of nowhere....
>...and if I get my tax back soon enough, the gov does most of it for me :-)
Hee hee...Good one :)
>I have all the quality I need. I also have the power and flexibility that I need.
>But for people who don't like what I do, then, roll on commercial apps for linux.
That's a plus for you. It will be a hard sell to Joe Windows User
though.
>> What you see is what you get.
>
>I see a lot more in Linux than Windows, therefore I get more.
Fair enough. You are entitled to that.
>
>-Ed
Steve
2:1
> Linux advocates talk about stability. How stable is a program supported by
> a single person, when that person goes off to do something else? That's why
> user support is a team effort.
If someone stops working on a project, it won't instantly crash... and someone
else may well take it up.
> Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of copyright
> like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
> neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL, where
> it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
> except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
> prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
That's out of neccessity. If it didn't have those terms, people could legally
use the code and NOT pass on the source, which is not what Free Software is
about. The license is needed to keep the free software free. I, personally like
that.
> BTW, he gets pissed when you say Linux. You're supposed to call it
> GNU/Linux, in deference to him, I suppose. He's definitely out standing in
> his field.
C'mon! There is a HUGE amount of GNU stuff in a GNU/Linux distro. Over half, and
most of it was there fisrt. Don't you think that GNU deserve some credit?
> I don't use StarOffice too much, so Office would be a waste of money. The
> WP is OK, but I could get along just fine with MSWorks (I got it for FREE
> when I bought my desktop). I use DB2 Universal Database (FREE for personal
> use), so I don't need Access, and the StarOffice spreadsheet will work with
> DB2.
StarOffice is passable. I quite like, actually, esp. because the browser is much
more stable than Netscape.
2:1
> yesterday, and not a single one said GNU/Linux on the box. Maybe that's
> because without the Linux kernel, there wouldn't be a single GNU product on
> those shelves.
>
Who the hell would use *just* an OS kernel. Much as we all love it, it is no use
on its own.
--Ed
Darren Winsper
> Tim Kelley <tpke...@winkinc.com> wrote in message
> news:38EB6224...@winkinc.com...
> > The initial tests were rigged. The fact that subsequent
> > non-rigged tests, while still showing NT outperforming linux on
> > this test, also proved that the previous ones were indeed rigged.
>
> The initial tests weren't rigged.
Yes they were.
> The initial testers simply did not have
> access to the information to configure Linux optimally,
/usr/doc/apache-doc? IIRC someone went through the appropriate man
page showing how the configuration file was altered in ways that would
kill performance.
> and in true Linux
> fashion were ridiculed on the newsgroups for asking questions.
There are no references to support that. There was *one* message found
that could have been what Mindcraft were refering to, and it *was*
answered to an extent, but the person ansering needed more information,
which was never supplied.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
Chad Myers
<heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:fmanesos27ufqmoqb...@4ax.com...
> Linux is numero uno in returns and nothing is even close.
> Makes me wonder how many of those cheapbytes CD's and downloads of
> Linux are REALLY being used.
Perhaps they will start competing for AOL CDs in terms of numbers unused.
-Chad
Chad Myers
> On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:18:46 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> heat...@worldnet.att.net <heat...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> | <lfagius...@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> | accumulated over the years just to run wannabe Linux applications with
> | crude, sometimes down right hostile interfaces (sendmail comes to
> | mind).
> | You Linvocates have got to be kidding.
>
> specific.
So that makes its ok that it is horrible to configure and administrate?
-Chad