Linux FUD, sad but true.
Jeff Szarka
People complain about MS's FUD, and we all know they do it, that's not
even an issue. One thing to keep in mind though is linux users do it
just as bad. Anything that has Microsoft's name on it is instantly
bad, evil, stupid, etc. Even if windows 2000 turned out to be a great
server platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a
day. It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
on the desktop level OS. Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
scaring MS into making better software. They realize the threat and
are doing a lot to make Win2k more stable (IE, getting rid of legacy
code and sacrificing compatibility)
The saddest part is it's the same thing that happened with OS/2. I
used OS/2 quite a bit, I liked it but it was simply uncomfortable
being involved with a group of people who would blindly attack "the
evil empire" many times with out all the facts.
It's become popular to hate "M$" It's really quite pathetic. Reading
about Ms's new mouse on various sites made me come to this conclusion.
People were claiming it would be junk just like everything "M$" makes.
I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
keyboards. I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
Win2k was NT and not 9x, but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
Some of the most popular linux FUD:
-Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
computer users, and gamers.
-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
available software and driver support for all their hardware.
-Linux isn't hard to configure:
Yes...Yes it is.
-Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
No....No it isn't. I have installed 98 on so many systems and 99% of
the time installs go fine. This reminds me of the guy a while back who
was installing a pirated copy of the full version of 98 and was mad
because it wouldn't install (the full version does not upgrade, it
only does fresh installs)
-Linux is perfect:
No...No it isn't. On the server level it's probably a better choice
then NT in some cases, but on the desktop there is very little reason
to use it.
-If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
Untrue. I consider myself quite advanced in the field of computers. I
make a living off it, it's everywhere in my life. From my office, to
my home. Most my friends are in the same field. Many of these people
happily use Windows9x. They don't seem to have nearly as many troubles
as linux users do. I'm not saying they don't have crashes, but I am
saying with some decent hardware and some decent software they get by
pretty well.
-Windows NT crashes all the time:
This one is simply untrue also. I use Nt a lot and yes, It does crash.
MS says it's because of flakey video drivers, This I believe. I was
installing NT on a system a few weeks back and I had found out that it
doesn't work well with this certain video card. Once the card was
replaced, no more crashes. Simple as that. If more blame went to
people who write bad drivers instead of "M$" then things would be a
lot better.
-If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
Most linux users should know better then that. 9x is designed so a
misbehaving application can take down the system. It's a horrible
thing but if developers know this they should do better to make their
applications cause problems. For some reason, in 9x a program doing
heavy disk access can cause crashes. Forte agent does very heavy disk
access and it's never crashed on me, under NT or 9x.
-Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
MS wants to make money. MS sells software. MS has no obligation to
give you anything. MS owns the source code to windows; they have no
obligation to give it away to anyone.
-Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
Perfect example, Ms gives away computers to some schools. People
instantly claim MS knows they will need to be upgraded to a new
version of windows, hence making money. Folks, 10 computers cost a lot
more then 10 copies of 98 (the student version is even less). Like it
or not, Bill Gates gives away a lot of his money to charity. Like it
or not he is not an evil borg. It's really immature to attempt to
portray him as that. It ends up sounding like 9-year-old kids saying
mean things behind someone's back. Linux users preach about free
software, MS gives away IE and everyone claims they did it to kill
Netscape.
-You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
source:
Sure, I'll believe that when I see it. Look at shareware authors, most
of them can't even make a living off it. Sure it's not the same thing
but many 30$ shareware programs are as good as their 100$-500$ big
brothers. Still, people will not pay. Still people want cracks. Still
people find serial numbers to unlock the program. If you think open
source can change the world then you should look at human nature. Open
source is a nice idea, but free software simply can't work.
I'm sure there are more examples of this behavior, but that's all I
can think of for now. It's become the "in thing" to hate MS. If you
don't hate OS then you surely must be a loyal borg of the evil empire.
Linux advocates would do themselves a favor by letting up on this evil
empire bit
hellraiser
>
> People complain about MS's FUD, and we all know they do it, that's not
> even an issue. One thing to keep in mind though is linux users do it
> just as bad. Anything that has Microsoft's name on it is instantly
> bad, evil, stupid, etc. Even if windows 2000 turned out to be a great
> server platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a
> day. It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
> on the desktop level OS. Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
> scaring MS into making better software. They realize the threat and
> are doing a lot to make Win2k more stable (IE, getting rid of legacy
> code and sacrificing compatibility)
but windows IS bad, evil, stupid, etc.!! you must see the true light, oh
non-believer!
also, i enjoy being a ferocious linux advocate who disembowles (sp?)
every winblows user who says stuff about linux, heh
a windows troll in a linux newsgroup is kindof like throwing somebody
into a pit full of a hundred fiends (the fiends from quake). we are a
very fanatical community. i like it!
> The saddest part is it's the same thing that happened with OS/2. I
> used OS/2 quite a bit, I liked it but it was simply uncomfortable
> being involved with a group of people who would blindly attack "the
> evil empire" many times with out all the facts.
>
> It's become popular to hate "M$" It's really quite pathetic. Reading
> about Ms's new mouse on various sites made me come to this conclusion.
> People were claiming it would be junk just like everything "M$" makes.
> I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
> keyboards. I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
no, their keyboards suck ass!! they have keys that are their JUST
BECAUSE OF THIER OS!!! you see how m$ invades everything?? soon they'll
take over monitors... then speakers.. then modems, etc etc. actually
they've already half taken over modems (winmodems) arrgghh
> Win2k was NT and not 9x, but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
> informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
> attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
>
> Some of the most popular linux FUD:
>
> -Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
> Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
> patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
> 9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
> computer users, and gamers.
uh, ok... you just proved the phrase "Windows98 crashes a million times
a day" to be true with that paragraph... where was the "why this is fud
and is not true" part?
> -People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
> Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
> available software and driver support for all their hardware.
>
> -Linux isn't hard to configure:
> Yes...Yes it is.
for some people it is, for others it isn't... it depends! linux is, for
me, not hard to configure at all
> -Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
> No....No it isn't. I have installed 98 on so many systems and 99% of
> the time installs go fine. This reminds me of the guy a while back who
> was installing a pirated copy of the full version of 98 and was mad
> because it wouldn't install (the full version does not upgrade, it
> only does fresh installs)
>
> -Linux is perfect:
> No...No it isn't. On the server level it's probably a better choice
> then NT in some cases, but on the desktop there is very little reason
> to use it.
well, heh, some people get in a "LINUX RULES, DESTROY EVERYTHING!!!
KILL!!! BLOOD, BLOOD!!! AAARRRGGGHH!!!!" mood and sometimes say that.
> -If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
> Untrue. I consider myself quite advanced in the field of computers. I
> make a living off it, it's everywhere in my life. From my office, to
> my home. Most my friends are in the same field. Many of these people
> happily use Windows9x. They don't seem to have nearly as many troubles
> as linux users do. I'm not saying they don't have crashes, but I am
> saying with some decent hardware and some decent software they get by
> pretty well.
well, 85% of the windows users are newbies or complete idiots
> -Windows NT crashes all the time:
> This one is simply untrue also. I use Nt a lot and yes, It does crash.
> MS says it's because of flakey video drivers, This I believe. I was
> installing NT on a system a few weeks back and I had found out that it
> doesn't work well with this certain video card. Once the card was
> replaced, no more crashes. Simple as that. If more blame went to
> people who write bad drivers instead of "M$" then things would be a
> lot better.
yeah... the truth is 98 crashes all the time, 95 crashes almost all the
time and nt crashes half of the time. unix-based os's almost never
crash. a crash on a unix-based os is usually due to operator failure...
> -If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
> Most linux users should know better then that. 9x is designed so a
> misbehaving application can take down the system. It's a horrible
> thing but if developers know this they should do better to make their
> applications cause problems. For some reason, in 9x a program doing
> heavy disk access can cause crashes. Forte agent does very heavy disk
> access and it's never crashed on me, under NT or 9x.
>
>-Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
who said that??? sure their eveil, but for other reasons. maybe the
people who say that are referring to the evil, heinous (sp?) prices put
on their crappy software.
> MS wants to make money. MS sells software. MS has no obligation to
> give you anything. MS owns the source code to windows; they have no
> obligation to give it away to anyone.
>
> -Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
almost true, heh
> Perfect example, Ms gives away computers to some schools. People
> instantly claim MS knows they will need to be upgraded to a new
> version of windows, hence making money. Folks, 10 computers cost a lot
> more then 10 copies of 98 (the student version is even less). Like it
> or not, Bill Gates gives away a lot of his money to charity. Like it
> or not he is not an evil borg. It's really immature to attempt to
> portray him as that. It ends up sounding like 9-year-old kids saying
> mean things behind someone's back. Linux users preach about free
> software, MS gives away IE and everyone claims they did it to kill
> Netscape.
but they DID do it to kill netscape...
> -You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
> source:
sure you can... you can distribute an app that is open/closed source
and still make the same amount of money off it. i think you're assuming
that 'open source' automatically means 'free' (which it doesn't)
> Sure, I'll believe that when I see it. Look at shareware authors, most
> of them can't even make a living off it. Sure it's not the same thing
> but many 30$ shareware programs are as good as their 100$-500$ big
> brothers. Still, people will not pay. Still people want cracks. Still
> people find serial numbers to unlock the program. If you think open
> source can change the world then you should look at human nature. Open
> source is a nice idea, but free software simply can't work.
>
>
>
> I'm sure there are more examples of this behavior, but that's all I
> can think of for now. It's become the "in thing" to hate MS. If you
> don't hate OS then you surely must be a loyal borg of the evil empire.
> Linux advocates would do themselves a favor by letting up on this evil
> empire bit
well the posers who hate m$ because it's the 'in thing' are dumb. i
don't hate them because it's the 'in thing', i hate them due to previous
personal experiences (which caused rather large holes in my wall, btw)
jedi
>
>
>People complain about MS's FUD, and we all know they do it, that's not
>even an issue. One thing to keep in mind though is linux users do it
>just as bad. Anything that has Microsoft's name on it is instantly
>bad, evil, stupid, etc. Even if windows 2000 turned out to be a great
>server platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a
>day. It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
>on the desktop level OS. Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
>scaring MS into making better software. They realize the threat and
>are doing a lot to make Win2k more stable (IE, getting rid of legacy
>code and sacrificing compatibility)
That is what the invisible hand is FOR.
>
>The saddest part is it's the same thing that happened with OS/2. I
>used OS/2 quite a bit, I liked it but it was simply uncomfortable
>being involved with a group of people who would blindly attack "the
>evil empire" many times with out all the facts.
>
>It's become popular to hate "M$" It's really quite pathetic. Reading
>about Ms's new mouse on various sites made me come to this conclusion.
>People were claiming it would be junk just like everything "M$" makes.
Actually, controllers are one of the few things M$
does reasonably well. That's likely due to the relative
lack of software engineering involved.
>I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
>keyboards. I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
>Win2k was NT and not 9x, but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
>informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
>attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
>
>Some of the most popular linux FUD:
>
>-Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
Once is quite enough actually.
Although, this is a bit of slander (against LinVocates).
>Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
>patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
>9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
>computer users, and gamers.
>
>-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
>Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
>available software and driver support for all their hardware.
How, precisely, does such a statement constitute fear uncertainty or doubt?
Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself. 'their hardware' is accomodated
by having someone else deal with those issues initially.
>
>-Linux isn't hard to configure:
>Yes...Yes it is.
That's certainly definitive.
>
>-Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
>No....No it isn't. I have installed 98 on so many systems and 99% of
>the time installs go fine. This reminds me of the guy a while back who
>was installing a pirated copy of the full version of 98 and was mad
>because it wouldn't install (the full version does not upgrade, it
>only does fresh installs)
>
>-Linux is perfect:
>No...No it isn't. On the server level it's probably a better choice
>then NT in some cases, but on the desktop there is very little reason
>to use it.
>
Why exactly? You don't need OLE (or even DnD quite so much)
for bundleware, which is the WinUser method of choice.
This is why agent can be such fun to migrate from, even on NT.
>-If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
>Untrue. I consider myself quite advanced in the field of computers. I
>make a living off it, it's everywhere in my life. From my office, to
>my home. Most my friends are in the same field. Many of these people
>happily use Windows9x. They don't seem to have nearly as many troubles
>as linux users do. I'm not saying they don't have crashes, but I am
>saying with some decent hardware and some decent software they get by
>pretty well.
>
>-Windows NT crashes all the time:
>This one is simply untrue also. I use Nt a lot and yes, It does crash.
It's all a matter of what your standards are really.
>MS says it's because of flakey video drivers, This I believe. I was
>installing NT on a system a few weeks back and I had found out that it
>doesn't work well with this certain video card. Once the card was
>replaced, no more crashes. Simple as that. If more blame went to
>people who write bad drivers instead of "M$" then things would be a
>lot better.
>
>-If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
>Most linux users should know better then that. 9x is designed so a
>misbehaving application can take down the system. It's a horrible
That's MS's fault. That's part of 'managing shared resources.
An OS is essentially just a 'shared resource manager'.
>thing but if developers know this they should do better to make their
>applications cause problems. For some reason, in 9x a program doing
Not having to depend upon any arbitrary developer to not fuck
over the system is the whole point of a real operating system
running on workstation/minicomputer class hardware.
The excuse that it may not be economically feasable to deliver
a real OS to the conumer hasn't cut it for quite awhile.
>heavy disk access can cause crashes. Forte agent does very heavy disk
>access and it's never crashed on me, under NT or 9x.
>
>-Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
>MS wants to make money. MS sells software. MS has no obligation to
>give you anything. MS owns the source code to windows; they have no
>obligation to give it away to anyone.
A corporation is amoral by definition. The whole point of
being a corporation is to limit one's legal responsibilities
and to make money at everyone's expense (except shareholders).
>
>-Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
>Perfect example, Ms gives away computers to some schools. People
He's a fairly immoral guy who has a moral history not
unlike some mobster. Such suspicions are not unjustified.
>instantly claim MS knows they will need to be upgraded to a new
>version of windows, hence making money. Folks, 10 computers cost a lot
>more then 10 copies of 98 (the student version is even less). Like it
>or not, Bill Gates gives away a lot of his money to charity. Like it
>or not he is not an evil borg. It's really immature to attempt to
>portray him as that. It ends up sounding like 9-year-old kids saying
>mean things behind someone's back. Linux users preach about free
>software, MS gives away IE and everyone claims they did it to kill
>Netscape.
>
>-You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
>source:
No one ever claims that, actually.
Although, if you can't be Bill, that presumption just might
be correct.
>Sure, I'll believe that when I see it. Look at shareware authors, most
>of them can't even make a living off it. Sure it's not the same thing
>but many 30$ shareware programs are as good as their 100$-500$ big
>brothers. Still, people will not pay. Still people want cracks. Still
>people find serial numbers to unlock the program. If you think open
>source can change the world then you should look at human nature. Open
>source is a nice idea, but free software simply can't work.
This is rich: the existence of rampant piracy undermines
the viabilty of free software? If anything, it merely
demonstrates how anti-natural to a free market extended
excessive artificial scarcity really is.
Free software merely restores a balance between doing things
because they are useful and doing them because they are
profitable.
>
>
>
>I'm sure there are more examples of this behavior, but that's all I
>can think of for now. It's become the "in thing" to hate MS. If you
>don't hate OS then you surely must be a loyal borg of the evil empire.
>Linux advocates would do themselves a favor by letting up on this evil
>empire bit
It's evil by nature. It has to be. It's a corporation.
If it isn't, they'll get sued by the shareholders. That's
just the nature of the beast, even without Bill at the helm.
--
"I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die |||
while you discuss this invasion in committe." / | \
In search of sane PPP docs? Try http://penguin.lvcm.com
Reality is a point of view
| a windows troll in a linux newsgroup is kindof like throwing somebody
But he isn't a troll. And he hit quite a few nails on the head
with that post. I'd be surprised if any of the chronic
prattlers here will reply with anything but hand waving and
weak jokes that mask denial.
--
Gary Johnson gjoh...@season.com
Privacy on the net is still illegal.
Jeff Szarka
<hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
:> It's become popular to hate "M$" It's really quite pathetic. Reading
:> about Ms's new mouse on various sites made me come to this conclusion.
:> People were claiming it would be junk just like everything "M$" makes.
:> I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
:> keyboards. I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
:
:no, their keyboards suck ass!! they have keys that are their JUST
:BECAUSE OF THIER OS!!! you see how m$ invades everything?? soon they'll
:take over monitors... then speakers.. then modems, etc etc. actually
:they've already half taken over modems (winmodems) arrgghh
:
I suggest not pressing those keys built for windows. Maybe you could
even map them for use in your favorite windows manager. MS isn't the
only one to use them either. Also, MS does not make winmodems. If
linux drivers were written for them they would work just fine.
:> Win2k was NT and not 9x, but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
:> informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
:> attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
:>
:> Some of the most popular linux FUD:
:>
:> -Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
:> Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
:> patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
:> 9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
:> computer users, and gamers.
:
:uh, ok... you just proved the phrase "Windows98 crashes a million times
:a day" to be true with that paragraph... where was the "why this is fud
:and is not true" part?
I wouldn't use 9x myself, although I do at work some. It's more then
fine for most people. The fud is because most people are fine with 9x
and have no reason to switch.
:
:> -People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
:> Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
:> available software and driver support for all their hardware.
:>
:> -Linux isn't hard to configure:
:> Yes...Yes it is.
:
:for some people it is, for others it isn't... it depends! linux is, for
:me, not hard to configure at all
Well of course it depends on your background, but my point is most
people could not setup linux (maybe open linux they could) but setup
is just one part of it, configuring things is always needed.
:
:> -Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
:> No....No it isn't. I have installed 98 on so many systems and 99% of
:> the time installs go fine. This reminds me of the guy a while back who
:> was installing a pirated copy of the full version of 98 and was mad
:> because it wouldn't install (the full version does not upgrade, it
:> only does fresh installs)
:>
:> -Linux is perfect:
:> No...No it isn't. On the server level it's probably a better choice
:> then NT in some cases, but on the desktop there is very little reason
:> to use it.
:
:well, heh, some people get in a "LINUX RULES, DESTROY EVERYTHING!!!
:KILL!!! BLOOD, BLOOD!!! AAARRRGGGHH!!!!" mood and sometimes say that.
:
:> -If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
:> Untrue. I consider myself quite advanced in the field of computers. I
:> make a living off it, it's everywhere in my life. From my office, to
:> my home. Most my friends are in the same field. Many of these people
:> happily use Windows9x. They don't seem to have nearly as many troubles
:> as linux users do. I'm not saying they don't have crashes, but I am
:> saying with some decent hardware and some decent software they get by
:> pretty well.
:
:well, 85% of the windows users are newbies or complete idiots
:
You're joking I'm sure. Back that number up.
:> -Windows NT crashes all the time:
:> This one is simply untrue also. I use Nt a lot and yes, It does crash.
:> MS says it's because of flakey video drivers, This I believe. I was
:> installing NT on a system a few weeks back and I had found out that it
:> doesn't work well with this certain video card. Once the card was
:> replaced, no more crashes. Simple as that. If more blame went to
:> people who write bad drivers instead of "M$" then things would be a
:> lot better.
:
:yeah... the truth is 98 crashes all the time, 95 crashes almost all the
:time and nt crashes half of the time. unix-based os's almost never
:crash. a crash on a unix-based os is usually due to operator failure...
If nt crashes for you half the time you use it you should seriously
consider learning how to configure it properly. Lots of nt crashes are
due to video drivers. You wouldn't believe how many times people buy
cheap video cards and find out the drivers cause massive problems.
:
:> -If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
So? All's fair in love, war, and software. I can't believe someone
would complain about getting something for free.
:
:> -You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
:> source:
:
:sure you can... you can distribute an app that is open/closed source
:and still make the same amount of money off it. i think you're assuming
:that 'open source' automatically means 'free' (which it doesn't)
:
:> Sure, I'll believe that when I see it. Look at shareware authors, most
:> of them can't even make a living off it. Sure it's not the same thing
:> but many 30$ shareware programs are as good as their 100$-500$ big
:> brothers. Still, people will not pay. Still people want cracks. Still
:> people find serial numbers to unlock the program. If you think open
:> source can change the world then you should look at human nature. Open
:> source is a nice idea, but free software simply can't work.
:>
:>
:>
:> I'm sure there are more examples of this behavior, but that's all I
:> can think of for now. It's become the "in thing" to hate MS. If you
:> don't hate OS then you surely must be a loyal borg of the evil empire.
:> Linux advocates would do themselves a favor by letting up on this evil
:> empire bit
:
:well the posers who hate m$ because it's the 'in thing' are dumb. i
:don't hate them because it's the 'in thing', i hate them due to previous
:personal experiences (which caused rather large holes in my wall, btw)
I get upset with Ms now and again as well, but then again I use so
many Ms products it's just logical I would run into more problems then
I do with company X of which i use maybe one program. The thing that
upsets me the most is installing linux and having it not even come
closing to living up to the hype. I predict linux has the same exact
impact os/2 did. It will scare MS, it will gain popularity in the
server market and maybe some in the desktop market.
Steve Mading
: People complain about MS's FUD, and we all know they do it, that's not
: even an issue. One thing to keep in mind though is linux users do it
: just as bad. Anything that has Microsoft's name on it is instantly
: bad, evil, stupid, etc. Even if windows 2000 turned out to be a great
: server platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a
: day. It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
: on the desktop level OS. Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
: scaring MS into making better software. They realize the threat and
: are doing a lot to make Win2k more stable (IE, getting rid of legacy
: code and sacrificing compatibility)
But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
up and not fight the hype?
jedi
>On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:12:50 -0400, hellraiser
><hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
>
>
>:> It's become popular to hate "M$" It's really quite pathetic. Reading
>:> about Ms's new mouse on various sites made me come to this conclusion.
>:> People were claiming it would be junk just like everything "M$" makes.
>:> I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
>:> keyboards. I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
>:
>:no, their keyboards suck ass!! they have keys that are their JUST
>:BECAUSE OF THIER OS!!! you see how m$ invades everything?? soon they'll
>:take over monitors... then speakers.. then modems, etc etc. actually
>:they've already half taken over modems (winmodems) arrgghh
>:
>
>I suggest not pressing those keys built for windows. Maybe you could
>even map them for use in your favorite windows manager. MS isn't the
>only one to use them either. Also, MS does not make winmodems. If
>linux drivers were written for them they would work just fine.
Sure, Loki uses the Windows Key as a minimize hotkey.
>
>:> Win2k was NT and not 9x, but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
>:> informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
>:> attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
>:>
>:> Some of the most popular linux FUD:
>:>
>:> -Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
>:> Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
>:> patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
>:> 9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
>:> computer users, and gamers.
>:
>:uh, ok... you just proved the phrase "Windows98 crashes a million times
>:a day" to be true with that paragraph... where was the "why this is fud
>:and is not true" part?
>I wouldn't use 9x myself, although I do at work some. It's more then
>fine for most people. The fud is because most people are fine with 9x
>and have no reason to switch.
That's hard to say really. 'all their apps' are on 9x.
However, its debateable if they are 'just fine'. It
may merely be a matter of them not knowing that they
can viably demand better.
VendorLock works to take choice out of the situation.
[deletia]
hellraiser
(although he does have a few warts or so), or else i would've replied
WAAYYY more ferociously
hellraiser
>
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 15:12:50 -0400, hellraiser
> <hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
>
> :> It's become popular to hate "M$" It's really quite pathetic. Reading
> :> about Ms's new mouse on various sites made me come to this conclusion.
> :> People were claiming it would be junk just like everything "M$" makes.
> :> I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
> :> keyboards. I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
> :
> :no, their keyboards suck ass!! they have keys that are their JUST
> :BECAUSE OF THIER OS!!! you see how m$ invades everything?? soon they'll
> :take over monitors... then speakers.. then modems, etc etc. actually
> :they've already half taken over modems (winmodems) arrgghh
> :
>
> I suggest not pressing those keys built for windows. Maybe you could
> even map them for use in your favorite windows manager. MS isn't the
> only one to use them either. Also, MS does not make winmodems. If
> linux drivers were written for them they would work just fine.
oh yeah. just not press the keys. that works.
not only are the keys annoying, but it is a total and utter disgrace,
not to mention a complete blasphemy to have keys on your keyboard...
peices of goddamn hardware!! ... just for windoze. ugh.
it think there should 2 keys for linux... 'ls' and 'vi'.
> :> Win2k was NT and not 9x, but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
> :> informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
> :> attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
> :>
> :> Some of the most popular linux FUD:
> :>
> :> -Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
> :> Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
> :> patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
> :> 9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
> :> computer users, and gamers.
> :
> :uh, ok... you just proved the phrase "Windows98 crashes a million times
> :a day" to be true with that paragraph... where was the "why this is fud
> :and is not true" part?
> I wouldn't use 9x myself, although I do at work some. It's more then
> fine for most people. The fud is because most people are fine with 9x
> and have no reason to switch.
well, the average person who doesn't give a damn about computers could
care less... but someone who actually uses them to some affect could do
without winblows
> :
> :> -People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
> :> Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
> :> available software and driver support for all their hardware.
> :>
> :> -Linux isn't hard to configure:
> :> Yes...Yes it is.
> :
> :for some people it is, for others it isn't... it depends! linux is, for
> :me, not hard to configure at all
> Well of course it depends on your background, but my point is most
> people could not setup linux (maybe open linux they could) but setup
> is just one part of it, configuring things is always needed.
most people aren't supposed to use linux! only hardcore computer users:
nerd, hackers, geeks, programmers... whatever you wanna call them
it's weird how most linux users want everybody to use linux. i'd rather
the linux community stay the size it is now and just be an elite group
of computer users with the better os. hmm..... world domination would
be fun, though...
> :
> :> -Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
> :> No....No it isn't. I have installed 98 on so many systems and 99% of
> :> the time installs go fine. This reminds me of the guy a while back who
> :> was installing a pirated copy of the full version of 98 and was mad
> :> because it wouldn't install (the full version does not upgrade, it
> :> only does fresh installs)
> :>
> :> -Linux is perfect:
> :> No...No it isn't. On the server level it's probably a better choice
> :> then NT in some cases, but on the desktop there is very little reason
> :> to use it.
> :
> :well, heh, some people get in a "LINUX RULES, DESTROY EVERYTHING!!!
> :KILL!!! BLOOD, BLOOD!!! AAARRRGGGHH!!!!" mood and sometimes say that.
> :
> :> -If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
> :> Untrue. I consider myself quite advanced in the field of computers. I
> :> make a living off it, it's everywhere in my life. From my office, to
> :> my home. Most my friends are in the same field. Many of these people
> :> happily use Windows9x. They don't seem to have nearly as many troubles
> :> as linux users do. I'm not saying they don't have crashes, but I am
> :> saying with some decent hardware and some decent software they get by
> :> pretty well.
> :
> :well, 85% of the windows users are newbies or complete idiots
> :
>
> You're joking I'm sure. Back that number up.
well, ok... 84%
> :> -Windows NT crashes all the time:
> :> This one is simply untrue also. I use Nt a lot and yes, It does crash.
> :> MS says it's because of flakey video drivers, This I believe. I was
> :> installing NT on a system a few weeks back and I had found out that it
> :> doesn't work well with this certain video card. Once the card was
> :> replaced, no more crashes. Simple as that. If more blame went to
> :> people who write bad drivers instead of "M$" then things would be a
> :> lot better.
> :
> :yeah... the truth is 98 crashes all the time, 95 crashes almost all the
> :time and nt crashes half of the time. unix-based os's almost never
> :crash. a crash on a unix-based os is usually due to operator failure...
>
> If nt crashes for you half the time you use it you should seriously
> consider learning how to configure it properly. Lots of nt crashes are
> due to video drivers. You wouldn't believe how many times people buy
> cheap video cards and find out the drivers cause massive problems.
total bs. and you say there's alot of fud from us linux users!! there
may be some, but there's a whole ass-cramming more of it from windoze
users!!!!
all's fair?!!?!??!!? um, no. nothing is fair in our capitalist
society!!!! it's all a rat race!!!!
also: well, ie is free and no wonder: it sucks! linux is free and it
doesn't suck. heh
os/2 hardly grew at all compared to how fast linux is growing. i've
heard sources say that linux is te fastest growing os ever!! linux is
not just a hype, it's a revolution. linux will definately dominate the
server market, but not the desktop market. i would like linux to just
take over the server market and stay that way, though...
after using linux, i'd say it's the best os ever (not for the average
person tho). i totally love linux and fully support it, and i love
community and everything... i'm getting the full power out of my
computer now and i'm never gonna use another os. linux is nearly
everything to me. i love almost every aspect of linux, etc etc. hmm i
could go on for awhile expressing my love and faith for linux and how
many penguins and o'rielly books i have but i think i'll shut up
now.....
jedi
> +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (20 Apr 1999 23:58:47 GMT):
> | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
> | up and not fight the hype?
>
>Pot, kettle?
If you ever substantiated your retorts, it would probably kill you.
Much of the 'hype' you complain about is merely seting the record
straight with respect to the predominant vendor. My last personal
experience was the Hauppauge WinTV 401 install procedure trashing
the then current Win9x video driver (on the subject of PnP being
better than what creatures such as myself make it out to be).
...reminded me why the FAT partition got toasted to begin with...
Reality is a point of view
| But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
| up and not fight the hype?
+----
Pot, kettle?
--
Reality is a point of view
| > | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
| > | up and not fight the hype?
| > +----
| >
| >Pot, kettle?
|
You are a working example. Full of hype, little content.
Should someone like me shut up, or fight it?
Not that you are unique in this regard, c.o.l.a is full of
inane posts by prattlers that feel safe in knowning that
GNU/Linux is better than Microsoft Windows. Which renders
c.o.l.a useless as a source of timely or useful information.
In that you serve Bill Gates well.
Your failure, along with a few others so far, in addressing the
valid points of the original post just goes to show that
Microsoft management is one up on you. They listen to
criticism, they learn from their mistakes.
Which is one reason why it is dangerous to throw rocks at
Microsoft. They are as thick headed as you are, and stock
cannons for just such events.
Steve Mading
: +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (20 Apr 1999 23:58:47 GMT):
: | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
: | up and not fight the hype?
: +----
: Pot, kettle?
I raised a valid point. If something really *does* suck badly, are you
supposed to not dare to talk about it lest you come off sounding like
a zealot? What is worse? Letting a lie go unaswered, or argue against
it and in so doing look like a kook?
the_...@my-dejanews.com
Trad...@concentric.net (Jeff Szarka) wrote:
>
>
> People complain about MS's FUD, and we all know they do it, that's not
> even an issue. One thing to keep in mind though is linux users do it
> just as bad. Anything that has Microsoft's name on it is instantly
> bad, evil, stupid, etc. Even if windows 2000 turned out to be a great
> server platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a
> day. It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
> on the desktop level OS. Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
> scaring MS into making better software. They realize the threat and
> are doing a lot to make Win2k more stable (IE, getting rid of legacy
> code and sacrificing compatibility)
>
"scaring MS into making better software. "? But that's what we want, right?
Better software no matter what the name is... I don't support FUD'ing, but
saying that MS can be scared into making better software should not be used as
an argument not to do so!!!
> The saddest part is it's the same thing that happened with OS/2. I
> used OS/2 quite a bit, I liked it but it was simply uncomfortable
> being involved with a group of people who would blindly attack "the
> evil empire" many times with out all the facts.
>
> It's become popular to hate "M$" It's really quite pathetic. Reading
> about Ms's new mouse on various sites made me come to this conclusion.
> People were claiming it would be junk just like everything "M$" makes.
> I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
> keyboards. I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
> Win2k was NT and not 9x, but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
> informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
> attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
>
What I'm scared of personally is MS as a monopolist, not as a software or
hardware vendor. Big monopolies fall asleep on old successes, and what will
happen when there are no more innovative little companies left for MS to buy?
"You can fool some of the people all the time, and maybe even all the people
some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time." (This
quotation might not be 100% correct, but you probably know what it means). IF
MS makes great hardware, it will be known commonly, and thus MS will survive
no matter how hard Linux FUD'ers try (so save your breath Linux FUD'ers, and
promote Linux instead!) IF, on the other hand MS hardware IS really bad, then
it's not FUD. Then it's the truth...
> Some of the most popular linux FUD:
>
> -Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
> Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
> patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
> 9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
> computer users, and gamers.
Don't underestimate the importance of gamers!!! I personally think that games
is a (not THE but A) so called killer application. Fast Video and sound cards
development happens because of gamers, and who wouldnt like goood, fast, and
cheap videocards. The Games industry is worth billions, and I think that the
lack of Linux games(No, not minesweeper and such) is a major inhibitor for the
success of Linux. So PLEASE, wont you Linux-experts start making some!!!
Remember: Some of the first computers to enter our homes were game-consoles.
>
> -People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
> Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
> available software and driver support for all their hardware.
>
> -Linux isn't hard to configure:
> Yes...Yes it is.
My experience is that Linux is hard to configure, very hard indeed. But it is
also my experience that Windows is impossible to configure. (Meaning that;
yes I can configure Windows to work, but I'm never happy with my
configuration. I'm happy with my Linux configuration. I think that Windows
seems easier to configure because of the limits of freedom it sets for it's
configuration. I'm not a computer expert, so please tell me if I'm wrong on
this.
>
> -Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
> No....No it isn't. I have installed 98 on so many systems and 99% of
> the time installs go fine. This reminds me of the guy a while back who
> was installing a pirated copy of the full version of 98 and was mad
> because it wouldn't install (the full version does not upgrade, it
> only does fresh installs)
True. But PnP-hardware configuration on Linux is a pain (at least for a non-
expert like myself). PnP is just another MS-weapon to consolidate MS monopoly,
that's my guess.
>
> -Linux is perfect:
> No...No it isn't. On the server level it's probably a better choice
> then NT in some cases, but on the desktop there is very little reason
> to use it.
>
The Open Source idea is perfect! A nearly infinite amount of knowledge freely
available, no-one can ever steal or by it. It belongs to the public. And
belong to the public it must!
> -If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
> Untrue. I consider myself quite advanced in the field of computers. I
> make a living off it, it's everywhere in my life. From my office, to
> my home. Most my friends are in the same field. Many of these people
> happily use Windows9x. They don't seem to have nearly as many troubles
> as linux users do. I'm not saying they don't have crashes, but I am
> saying with some decent hardware and some decent software they get by
> pretty well.
>
Many people stick to Windows because of investments already made, both time
used for learning and installing, and money used on software and hardware (See
PnP discussion above). If all my MS software was available for Linux, I would
erase Windows immediately
> -Windows NT crashes all the time:
> This one is simply untrue also. I use Nt a lot and yes, It does crash.
> MS says it's because of flakey video drivers, This I believe. I was
> installing NT on a system a few weeks back and I had found out that it
> doesn't work well with this certain video card. Once the card was
> replaced, no more crashes. Simple as that. If more blame went to
> people who write bad drivers instead of "M$" then things would be a
> lot better.
Not all the time, but still too often. And add to that the times NT behaves
"funny", like hiding a configuration file for 2 months and then bringing it
back, erasing the new configuration file created in the mean-time. That
actually happened to me once! But then again, maybe I'm the idiot... But
idiots have a right to configure too, right?!?
>
> -If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
> Most linux users should know better then that. 9x is designed so a
> misbehaving application can take down the system. It's a horrible
> thing but if developers know this they should do better to make their
> applications cause problems. For some reason, in 9x a program doing
> heavy disk access can cause crashes. Forte agent does very heavy disk
> access and it's never crashed on me, under NT or 9x.
>
> -Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
> MS wants to make money. MS sells software. MS has no obligation to
> give you anything. MS owns the source code to windows; they have no
> obligation to give it away to anyone.
>
Monopoly discussion again. The air that we breathe is free, but if someone
someday managed to buy it, would you silently accept that, paying a breathing
fee??? Maybe the comparison is not perfect, but it seems to me that Open
Source Software is nearly suffacating, because MS placed it's big butt on
it's face, by occupying 95% of all Desktop-computers and inventing standards
(PnP again) to keep that position, and keeping other OSS's out.
> -Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
> Perfect example, Ms gives away computers to some schools. People
> instantly claim MS knows they will need to be upgraded to a new
> version of windows, hence making money. Folks, 10 computers cost a lot
> more then 10 copies of 98 (the student version is even less). Like it
> or not, Bill Gates gives away a lot of his money to charity. Like it
> or not he is not an evil borg. It's really immature to attempt to
> portray him as that. It ends up sounding like 9-year-old kids saying
> mean things behind someone's back. Linux users preach about free
> software, MS gives away IE and everyone claims they did it to kill
> Netscape.
>
Bill Gates knows the power of Marketing, and he masters it, that (and only
that) I admire about him. Listen up Linux developers, here's a lesson to be
learned: Try a little harder to make your software USERFRIENDLY (a nasty word
for you, I know), and stop giving your software silly names (yes I know you
want to get the respect of other hackers with little wordgames and acronyms,
but please come up with some boring marketing names instead, for the sake of
OSS).
Names I can relate to:
Windows: What I see on-screen actually reminds me of looking through a window
'into' a program.
Word: Something for writing, right?!
Plug and Play: You plug in something and youre ready to go.
Names I CANT relate to:
GNOME: Erh, some kind of little troll?!
GNU: I know that, some kind of african cow!
Emacs: Wait, maybe I can guess; climax? Toothpaste? Tampax? - I give up!
> -You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
> source:
> Sure, I'll believe that when I see it. Look at shareware authors, most
> of them can't even make a living off it. Sure it's not the same thing
> but many 30$ shareware programs are as good as their 100$-500$ big
> brothers. Still, people will not pay. Still people want cracks. Still
> people find serial numbers to unlock the program. If you think open
> source can change the world then you should look at human nature. Open
> source is a nice idea, but free software simply can't work.
>
You can't! Open Source garantees free competition. A Monopoly must keep it's
source closed in order to maintain it's position. Monopolys make big bucks!
Free competitors might make money...
> I'm sure there are more examples of this behavior, but that's all I
> can think of for now. It's become the "in thing" to hate MS. If you
> don't hate OS then you surely must be a loyal borg of the evil empire.
> Linux advocates would do themselves a favor by letting up on this evil
> empire bit
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Jeff Szarka
:
:> :> Win2k was NT and not 9x, but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
:> :> informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
:> :> attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
:> :>
:> :> Some of the most popular linux FUD:
:> :>
:> :> -Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
:> :> Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
:> :> patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
:> :> 9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
:> :> computer users, and gamers.
:> :
:> :uh, ok... you just proved the phrase "Windows98 crashes a million times
:> :a day" to be true with that paragraph... where was the "why this is fud
:> :and is not true" part?
:> I wouldn't use 9x myself, although I do at work some. It's more then
:> fine for most people. The fud is because most people are fine with 9x
:> and have no reason to switch.
:
:well, the average person who doesn't give a damn about computers could
:care less... but someone who actually uses them to some affect could do
:without winblows
Well what about the people who use windows based software? I do lots
of work for small business that use quickbooks and/or act. There isn't
even a linux program close to those is there?
:> :
:> :> -People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
:> :> Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
:> :> available software and driver support for all their hardware.
:> :>
:> :> -Linux isn't hard to configure:
:> :> Yes...Yes it is.
:> :
:> :for some people it is, for others it isn't... it depends! linux is, for
:> :me, not hard to configure at all
:> Well of course it depends on your background, but my point is most
:> people could not setup linux (maybe open linux they could) but setup
:> is just one part of it, configuring things is always needed.
:
:most people aren't supposed to use linux! only hardcore computer users:
:nerd, hackers, geeks, programmers... whatever you wanna call them
:
:it's weird how most linux users want everybody to use linux. i'd rather
:the linux community stay the size it is now and just be an elite group
:of computer users with the better os. hmm..... world domination would
:be fun, though...
Maybe that's the thing that bothers me... OS's that are run on 90% of
the computers have to appeal to the lowest common denominator. they
can't involve lots of editing of all sorts of config files. Linux
would serve itself much better to just say, 'here is what linux does
good, here is what you probably wouldn't want to use it for' instead
of the current "YOU MUST USE LINUX EVERYWEHERE OR YOU ARE REALLY DUMB"
kinda message.
:
:> :
:> :> -Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
:> :> No....No it isn't. I have installed 98 on so many systems and 99% of
:> :> the time installs go fine. This reminds me of the guy a while back who
:> :> was installing a pirated copy of the full version of 98 and was mad
:> :> because it wouldn't install (the full version does not upgrade, it
:> :> only does fresh installs)
:> :>
:> :> -Linux is perfect:
:> :> No...No it isn't. On the server level it's probably a better choice
:> :> then NT in some cases, but on the desktop there is very little reason
:> :> to use it.
:> :
:> :well, heh, some people get in a "LINUX RULES, DESTROY EVERYTHING!!!
:> :KILL!!! BLOOD, BLOOD!!! AAARRRGGGHH!!!!" mood and sometimes say that.
:> :
:> :> -If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
:> :> Untrue. I consider myself quite advanced in the field of computers. I
:> :> make a living off it, it's everywhere in my life. From my office, to
:> :> my home. Most my friends are in the same field. Many of these people
:> :> happily use Windows9x. They don't seem to have nearly as many troubles
:> :> as linux users do. I'm not saying they don't have crashes, but I am
:> :> saying with some decent hardware and some decent software they get by
:> :> pretty well.
:> :
:> :well, 85% of the windows users are newbies or complete idiots
:> :
:>
:> You're joking I'm sure. Back that number up.
:
:well, ok... 84%
As long as I am part of that newly found 1% I may agree. Although lets
not but the compete idiots in a negative tone, There are lots of
people who just want to use it. No thinking, no configuring, just sit
down, look up a record for a customer, hit print and leave.
:
:> :> -Windows NT crashes all the time:
:> :> This one is simply untrue also. I use Nt a lot and yes, It does crash.
:> :> MS says it's because of flakey video drivers, This I believe. I was
:> :> installing NT on a system a few weeks back and I had found out that it
:> :> doesn't work well with this certain video card. Once the card was
:> :> replaced, no more crashes. Simple as that. If more blame went to
:> :> people who write bad drivers instead of "M$" then things would be a
:> :> lot better.
:> :
:> :yeah... the truth is 98 crashes all the time, 95 crashes almost all the
:> :time and nt crashes half of the time. unix-based os's almost never
:> :crash. a crash on a unix-based os is usually due to operator failure...
:>
:> If nt crashes for you half the time you use it you should seriously
:> consider learning how to configure it properly. Lots of nt crashes are
:> due to video drivers. You wouldn't believe how many times people buy
:> cheap video cards and find out the drivers cause massive problems.
:
:total bs. and you say there's alot of fud from us linux users!! there
:may be some, but there's a whole ass-cramming more of it from windoze
:users!!!!
Opps, I was talking about NT and the person replying was talking about
9x. He's right about 9x thoug..sometimes it just crashes without
warning.
:
:> :
:> :> -If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
Rats will do anything to get ahead, within the last few months linux
as officially started running in this race. Media/business has a way
of killing anything, no matter how well off it started.
:
:also: well, ie is free and no wonder: it sucks! linux is free and it
"Penguin in bondage" by Frank Zappa would be the perfect theme song to
linux..
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:06:45 GMT, Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
:> +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (20 Apr 1999 23:58:47 GMT):
:> | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
:> | up and not fight the hype?
:> +----
:>
:>Pot, kettle?
:
: If you ever substantiated your retorts, it would probably kill you.
:
: Much of the 'hype' you complain about is merely seting the record
: straight with respect to the predominant vendor. My last personal
: experience was the Hauppauge WinTV 401 install procedure trashing
: the then current Win9x video driver (on the subject of PnP being
: better than what creatures such as myself make it out to be).
:
: ...reminded me why the FAT partition got toasted to begin with...
All bets are off with 9x. It's PNP is pretty damn good but really it's
nothing more (as you know) then win dos with pretty menu's version
4.93829.209830.234134.234134. It's a horrible OS, the sooner it dies
the better. NT on the other hand... now there is an Os who works
_very_ well for doing serious desktop workstation work.
Jeff Szarka
is a point of view) wrote:
: +---- je...@dementia.mishnet wrote (Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:00:46 -0700):
: | On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:06:45 GMT, Reality is a point of view <gjoh...@dream.season.com> wrote:
: | > +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (20 Apr 1999 23:58:47 GMT):
: | > | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
: | > | up and not fight the hype?
: | > +----
: | >
: | >Pot, kettle?
: |
: | If you ever substantiated your retorts, it would probably kill you.
: +----
:
:You are a working example. Full of hype, little content.
:Should someone like me shut up, or fight it?
:
:Not that you are unique in this regard, c.o.l.a is full of
:inane posts by prattlers that feel safe in knowning that
:GNU/Linux is better than Microsoft Windows. Which renders
:c.o.l.a useless as a source of timely or useful information.
:In that you serve Bill Gates well.
:
:Your failure, along with a few others so far, in addressing the
:valid points of the original post just goes to show that
:Microsoft management is one up on you. They listen to
:criticism, they learn from their mistakes.
A stable OS with a lot of power scares Ms to death. For the first time
they have been stuck. They can't but it, and on the server level
linux(or *nix's in general) does seem to be a better choice then NT in
some cases. linux users end up seeming like rabid geeks who hate MS so
much they'll let it get in the way of clearly thinking. You're
exactly right, Ms is going to learn from linux and simply one up it
while linux advocates scream about "EVIL M$ IS AT IT AGAIN..." while
the whole time no one will notice since you guys cry wolf so often.
Bill Gates donates money to sick kids, instantly posts pop up about
Bill doing it just to get good PR and to make sure there are more
people to buy ms products in the future. By the time there is a valid
case for linux on the desktop people will be scared to death of linux
and it's users....the same ones who call them idiots for using their
current OS.
It's like selling someone a car and the whole time you're talking to
them you keep saying things like;
"Oh my god you bought that, you must be stupid"
"You did what? Didn't you read the fucking manual?"
"Only stupid people buy <insert car here>"
"Yea the CEO of <insert company here> is satan himself."
"Yep, I drive <insert car here> so that instantly makes me more
serious about my car then you, since only dumb, mindless people buy
<insert car here>"
I wish linux advocates could see why those sales pitches don't quite
come across so well.
:Which is one reason why it is dangerous to throw rocks at
Reality is a point of view
| can't involve lots of editing of all sorts of config files. Linux
| would serve itself much better to just say, 'here is what linux does
| good, here is what you probably wouldn't want to use it for' instead
| of the current "YOU MUST USE LINUX EVERYWEHERE OR YOU ARE REALLY DUMB"
| kinda message.
Yep.
| "Penguin in bondage" by Frank Zappa would be the perfect theme song to
| linux..
+----
Nope. If there's a vote I'm for G Spot Tornado.
Reality is a point of view
| Reality is a point of view (gjoh...@dream.season.com) wrote:
| : +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (20 Apr 1999 23:58:47 GMT):
| : | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
| : | up and not fight the hype?
| : +----
| : Pot, kettle?
|
| supposed to not dare to talk about it lest you come off sounding like
| a zealot? What is worse? Letting a lie go unaswered, or argue against
| it and in so doing look like a kook?
To be honest I was thinking of someone else in particular when
I posted that, and the poster I was thinking of replied. But
since you asked, yes, I'm all for open debate and challenging
questionable statements. Even if you look like a kook. I do
it from time to time myself.
But I don't stop with the competition. Do you? That is the
point hiding in the deceptively simple question quoted above.
It is OK to show where Microsoft is full of shit, even easy
(remember the AARD code?), though it would be nice to do it in
an on topic fashion. I _don't_ think it is OK to hand wave and
spin when someone does the same for my OS of choice.
The original poster raised valid points, too. I wish more
people would. Given the state of c.o.l.a it wouldn't take much
for Microsoft apologists to look more reasonable than GNU/Linux
apologists. Maybe something like that is what it will take to
get the chronic prattlers spewing in c.o.l.a to wake up.
As leaked documents have shown; Microsoft already has . . .
Paul E. Larson
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>>
>> People complain about MS's FUD, and we all know they do it, that's not
>> even an issue. One thing to keep in mind though is linux users do it
>> just as bad. Anything that has Microsoft's name on it is instantly
>> bad, evil, stupid, etc. Even if windows 2000 turned out to be a great
>> server platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a
>> day. It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
>> on the desktop level OS. Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
>> scaring MS into making better software. They realize the threat and
>> are doing a lot to make Win2k more stable (IE, getting rid of legacy
>> code and sacrificing compatibility)
>
>but windows IS bad, evil, stupid, etc.!! you must see the true light, oh
>non-believer!
>
>also, i enjoy being a ferocious linux advocate who disembowles (sp?)
>every winblows user who says stuff about linux, heh
>
Paul
Get rid of the blahs to email me :}
David M. Cook
>bad, evil, stupid, etc. Even if windows 2000 turned out to be a great
>server platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a
>day. It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
>on the desktop level OS.
But many (perhaps most) of these people have direct experience with NT and
the lower forms of windows. Not all of them are exaggerating (as you do
here). And I don't think any are lying.
Now I don't think those that say that windows has been stable for them are
lying either, but I do think they may just be forgetting the occaisonal
reboot. Probably it doesn't even impinge on their consciousness.
>Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
"Rabid" is a pretty loaded, don't you think? Perhaps we should all avoid
loaded language like that.
>The saddest part is it's the same thing that happened with OS/2.
OS/2 failed because of "rabid" users? And I thought it was IBM's fault.
>I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
>keyboards.
This is curious praise. And I don't find them at all impressive, myself.
>I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
>Win2k was NT and not 9x,
I believe the next MS consumer OS will be based on win9x, though. I
remember reading that the merge has been put of indefinitely.
>but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
>informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
>attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
>Some of the most popular linux FUD:
>-Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
This is called a strawman argument.
>Sure it crashes,
Then it's not FUD to say so.
Another thing you fail to realize is that Joe Schmo voicing an opinion on
Usenet it is very different from Ed Muth making statements to the press.
>-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
Not FUD.
>Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
>available software and driver support for all their hardware.
If it's preinstalled the OEM can make sure that there are drivers for all
the hardware.
Any new desktop OS will start off with fewer apps than the 20 year old MS
application base. Unix is pretty new to the desktop (not counting high end
graphics workstations). Even then, a lot of what casual users need is
already there.
>-Linux isn't hard to configure:
Opinion, not FUD.
>-Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
It is very imperfect. I've often seen it detect things I don't have. It
will sometimes decide to detect something on the 5th reboot.
It can be quite a challenge to fix hardware conflicts on a windows system,
and installing drivers can be made very tricky by the plug-n-play system. I
never did get windows to correctly work with my 3 button mouse.
>-Linux is perfect:
Opinion, not FUD.
>-If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
No, just not a truly enlightened being ;}
>-Windows NT crashes all the time:
Now this one I wouldn't know about since where I work we turn of our NT
machines every night as recommended by Microsoft. That makes it impossible
to judge long-term stability. But I have heard enough first-hand accounts
from people I respect (professional admins that work with both NT and unix)
about NT's relative instability compared to unix. And I did have a guy tell
me that our file server is always going down (I'm the evening tech, so I
don't have to deal with these things).
>-If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
Just as true of Linux as of windows. An app shouldn't be able to take down
the OS.
>-Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
Not just Microsoft.
>-Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
Corporations are essentially amoral institutions, though the people in them
are often nice folks.
>Perfect example, Ms gives away computers to some schools. People
>instantly claim MS knows they will need to be upgraded to a new
>version of windows, hence making money. Folks, 10 computers cost a lot
>more then 10 copies of 98
That's not the problem. The problem is that MS expects something in return
for that gift.
>-You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
>source:
Again, not FUD.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that the same amount of cash can be
generated by open source as by proprietary software. But I do think that
consultants can make a comfortable living utilizing open source software.
So where's the FUD you are complaing about?
Dave Cook
Michael B. Trausch
> :> :well, 85% of the windows users are newbies or complete idiots
> :> :
This would be my experience in repairing computers (going on my sixth
year now....)
Windows seems to have been created for the idiot user, so that they
really don't have to think about what they're doing. Everything is at
hand, and Microsoft is tripping over the code to ensure that a user will
*know* how to use Windows just by sitting down and looking at it.
Sad to say, this really lowers the standards for software, now doesn't
it? Think about this, though... Linus Torvalds started developing Linux
in 1991. The system now, in 1999, is in version 2.2.6. The core to the
operating system is released as the next version number whenever there
are a substantial amount of changes. Lately, the developers have been
optimising the code and adding drivers to the codebase.
In their development process, there is a "Stable" source tree and there
is a "Development" source tree. This is a *MAJOR* strength, because
they add features fast as HELL to the development version. And bugs
show up (No surprise, it's the development version.) Many people like
living on the edge, and they use the development version. When they
find a bug they whip out their compiler, whip out an editing program,
fix the bug, make a patch file, and send it to the developers.
That's over and above their call of duty, but they do it anyway.
A Windows user will simply bitch on and on and on. I"ve seen it many
times. Linux gives something that Windows could only aspire to: a sense
of accomplishment because the computer actually DOES what you want it to
do. There are many taglines out there that make fun of Microsoft's
brainchild. I'll admit, my tagline file holds quite a few of them.
But, there is a serious aspect to it all.
Do we just sit here and let Windows lower the standards of the computer
industry? Well, right now, we're forced to. But Linux *IS*, no matter
how much some people dislike it, crawling slowly into places like
business and even some homes. (It crawled into this sixteen year old's
computer April, 1997).
Admittedly, Linux isn't for all people, just yet. My hope is that the
UI in Linux will be developed to the point that it will prove to be
effective for many "idiot" users that use Windows. In fact, there is
one already out that I have seen, and it is truely impressive, IMHO...
GNOME + Enlightenment (that's two programs). I've seen it demo'd at a
local Linux user meeting and it was absolutely wonderful (we had people
new to Linux there that were oohing and aahing over it, and saying that
it was sweet themselves... now THAT tells you something).
Now, one last thing. I support in troubleshooting/repair/customer
support, Windows 3.x - 98, Windows NT, Macintosh, and, you guessed it,
Linux. All of them. And I've found something: I make more money from
calls on Windows 95/98/NT problems than I do on *ANY* other operating
system. The people on the Macintosh are quite happy much of the time,
but I still make more money off of them, then I do with those whom I
support Linux on. I get more questions from my Linux users, though, for
one reason or another. And I've got a policy where I'll do phone
support for something for free unless it gets out of hand. Conditions:
I don't do long-distance callbacks, and I will charge if it takes up
alot of my time that I'm concentrating on just one person and not
everyone.
Honestly, I make almost *NO* money from the Linux people. Maybe I
should start selling Linux, and support it as well. I dunno. The only
time I'm ever called out to do work on Linux is if someone upgrades
their hardware (well, buys the hardware and calls me to upgrade it for
them), or if someone runs the system as root and crash the thing because
they accidently deleted something. Fine and dandy, and while I'm
repartitioning/formatting/installing, I ask them if they learned
anything ;). More often than not, it's the lesson: Don't run as "root'
unless you specifically have to.
Anyway... the statistic that is above is more than likely not an untrue
statement. At least, as I've said, I've found it to be true in my
experiences.
--
- Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------
--- Michael B. Trausch, mtra...@wcnet.org. 100% MS Free! ---
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tagline for Wednesday, April 21, 1999:
All I need to know I learned from my cat.
.sig file by: LinuxTaRT version 2.27
----------------------------------------------------------------
--- See if I'm Online by checking out: ---
--- http://www.wcnet.org/~mtrausch/status.html ---
----------------------------------------------------------------
--- Web Site: http://www.wcnet.org/~mtrausch ---
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Trausch
>
> +---- Trad...@concentric.net wrote (Wed, 21 Apr 1999 05:44:32 GMT):
> | would serve itself much better to just say, 'here is what linux does
> | good, here is what you probably wouldn't want to use it for' instead
> | of the current "YOU MUST USE LINUX EVERYWEHERE OR YOU ARE REALLY DUMB"
> | kinda message.
I really wish that more Linux users would see this. I can see being
enthusiastic about the OS, but there are many people that like to push
this to the point where it drives a non-Linux user crazy. If you're
gentle about it, that will go a long way, and you'll gain respect in the
Windows user's eyes, even if they hate you for being a rebel to
Microsoft. I won't say that just because one uses Windows or the
Macintosh (or any of the other choices) that you're dumb. There are
some things that Linux is admittedly not good at yet. People who have
the attude that you must be dumb if you don't use Linux obviously don't
see the downfalls of the operating system.
But I'll say that the effort on the Operating System is to further
itself. They're adding GUI like you've never seen before, and the
interface with users is getting better and better as we speak. In fact,
they're starting to make it setup all using the GUI, which might just be
a Good Thing, because it will certainly draw users.
I myself don't mind the configuration file editing and so forth, but it
*does* get annoying after awhile. =)
--
- Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------
--- Michael B. Trausch, mtra...@wcnet.org. 100% MS Free! ---
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tagline for Wednesday, April 21, 1999:
Learn from your parent's mistakes: Use birth control.
Michael B. Trausch
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:47:01 GMT, gjoh...@dream.season.com (Reality
> is a point of view) wrote:
>
> :Not that you are unique in this regard, c.o.l.a is full of
> :inane posts by prattlers that feel safe in knowning that
> :GNU/Linux is better than Microsoft Windows. Which renders
> :c.o.l.a useless as a source of timely or useful information.
> :In that you serve Bill Gates well.
> :
> :Your failure, along with a few others so far, in addressing the
> :valid points of the original post just goes to show that
> :Microsoft management is one up on you. They listen to
> :criticism, they learn from their mistakes.
>
> A stable OS with a lot of power scares Ms to death. For the first time
> they have been stuck. They can't but it, and on the server level
> some cases.
It sure does. Did anyone here read the Halloween documents? They're
STUFFED with things that the Microsoft people say, like the fact that
typical Microsoft FUD won't work against the Linux operating system
because it already has a well established userbase. Microsoft
recognizes that they're up against not just Linux, but open source
software in general. They don't feel comfortable with the power that
open source gives to the users (and for sure, they don't feel
comfortable with how the users love having the source code...).
> linux users end up seeming like rabid geeks who hate MS so
> much they'll let it get in the way of clearly thinking. You're
> exactly right, Ms is going to learn from linux and simply one up it
> while linux advocates scream about "EVIL M$ IS AT IT AGAIN..." while
> the whole time no one will notice since you guys cry wolf so often.
>
I see this often, too. The best thing to do to remedy this is to try to
calm our fellow Linux users down a few notches. Joking about Microsoft
is one matter, but some people present such things ("Bill Gates is
Satan," "Microsoft is Evil," etc.) as the gospel truth to Windows users.
Here's something that I've not heard any Linux user say: Microsoft has
helped us out a LOT. They've put computers in damn near every home.
They've donated money to our schools, and copies of software to our
schools. Microsoft has done a whole bunch of great things. I just
personally dislike their software, that's all. ;)
> Bill Gates donates money to sick kids, instantly posts pop up about
> Bill doing it just to get good PR and to make sure there are more
> people to buy ms products in the future. By the time there is a valid
> case for linux on the desktop people will be scared to death of linux
> and it's users....the same ones who call them idiots for using their
> current OS.
>
Such posts typically mention Gates' past and present techniques of theft
and "stepping all over people's toes," so to speak. Fine and dandy,
those may be his business practices and all. I do care about them, but
I care more when he's actually doing some good stuff with his money.
He's giving it away to those who need it. It's good that he's doing
that.
> It's like selling someone a car and the whole time you're talking to
> them you keep saying things like;
>
> "Oh my god you bought that, you must be stupid"
>
> "You did what? Didn't you read the fucking manual?"
>
> "Only stupid people buy <insert car here>"
>
> "Yea the CEO of <insert company here> is satan himself."
>
> "Yep, I drive <insert car here> so that instantly makes me more
> serious about my car then you, since only dumb, mindless people buy
> <insert car here>"
>
Hm. Why are computers and cars always compared? Hehehe.... well, the
thing is many people that are Linux "advocates" are really hurting their
cause and need to leave. I dislike them juat about as much as someone
who will say, "My system is better than yours," with a kid's tone of
voice and making faces at you, and won't talk about it any more than
that. If you say something else to them, they spew the same sentence
out. Yuck. I *really* wish that these people would just get off it.
Seriously.
> I wish linux advocates could see why those sales pitches don't quite
> come across so well.
Don't come across so well? They'll completely turn someone away from
the operating system for sure. One comparision would be the religion
debate... many people go around, and they're pushy, and say, "You better
have Jesus Christ as your savior or you'll go to Hell!" That's just
like what is happening with Linux. The general impression from these
people is that "If you don't use Linux on your computer, you'll go to
Hell!" which is not something I say to someone.
>
> :Which is one reason why it is dangerous to throw rocks at
> :Microsoft. They are as thick headed as you are, and stock
> :cannons for just such events.
I'm sure Microsoft is watching over the comp.os.linux.* groups. It
wouldn't suprise me at all... in fact, I'm hoping that they're
watching. Maybe they'll make the reliability issue more important on
their priority list. I still won't use it because I like the UNIX way
of things better, personally, but that would be a *big* plus on the side
of Microsoft.
--
- Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------
--- Michael B. Trausch, mtra...@wcnet.org. 100% MS Free! ---
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tagline for Wednesday, April 21, 1999:
I'm not as thunk as you drink I am.
Michael B. Trausch
>
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 19:24:26 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >server platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a
> >day. It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
> >on the desktop level OS.
>
> the lower forms of windows. Not all of them are exaggerating (as you do
> here). And I don't think any are lying.
>
I've never seen the Windows 2000 beta, but I have used Windows 95,
Windows 98, Windows NT, DOS, Windows 3.1, the Macintosh from System 5.0
- 8.5.1, and of course, Linux. When I had Windows NT installed, it
crashed within the first 10 minutes of it running and gave me the BSOD.
Not a nice sight when the computer has been sitting there (I left it
idle, because I had to use the little boys room). I rebooted and tried
a few different things. I didn't like it at all, and it did crash
alot. I don't know about 30 times, but it was bad enough (worse than
Windows 95/98 on my system) to where I up and deleted it, and put
Windows 95 back on it. Windows 98 is full of problems moreso than
Windows 95, on one of my systems. On the other system, it does great.
It seems that the OS itself is probably using generic drivers and that
may be where the instability comes from, but not being a programmer, I
can't say for sure.
> Now I don't think those that say that windows has been stable for them are
> lying either, but I do think they may just be forgetting the occaisonal
> reboot. Probably it doesn't even impinge on their consciousness.
>
I remember when I first switched to Linux thinking, "When am I going to
have to reboot this computer?" Well, there has only been three
occasions where a reboot has occured since I installed Linux:
- I Upgraded the Linux Kernel
- I Upgraded my Computer Hardware
- There was a ferocious storm and I don't have a UPS, so I
shut down.
With the most stable configuration of Windows I've used, I had to reboot
about once a week or so.
> >Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
>
> "Rabid" is a pretty loaded, don't you think? Perhaps we should all avoid
> loaded language like that.
>
Mmmm... I think rabid may be an appripriate term. Seriously. Many
advocates claim that Linux is the One True Way of things. I must
disagree in that, because the One True Way of things does not lie within
a computer, it lies within Jesus Christ. But that's beside the point.
> >The saddest part is it's the same thing that happened with OS/2.
>
> OS/2 failed because of "rabid" users? And I thought it was IBM's fault.
>
I liked OS/2, but it was pretty slow, and it was worse than Windows in
that I couldn't get the Win/OS/2 thingy installed, so I had to do a
fresh install of OS/2. It looked nice and as if it had potential, but I
never could find OS/2 applications other than what was in the box, at
any local stores.
At least now, you've got stores (im my local area) that are thinking
about downloading a ton of software for Linux and will start pressing
CDs locally. That will be cool, because I only have a 56kbps modem, and
I can't download everything in the world, yet. :)
> >I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
> >keyboards.
>
I can't say the same... It seems as if the MS Mice are a bit more prone
to dust gunking up the inside. I had to clean mine out once a month or
so because it would get jerky. My Logitech MouseMan mouse (which I
admit, I bought it for Linux becuase I like the three-button mouse
concept) I have had for about six months now, and haven't had to clean
it at all. In fact.... ::opens mouse to check it out::..... It _could_
use a good ball cleaning, but...
> This is curious praise. And I don't find them at all impressive, myself.
>
> >I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
> >Win2k was NT and not 9x,
Bad idea, I think. But I haven't seen it yet, so I'll reserve my
opinion until then.
>
> I believe the next MS consumer OS will be based on win9x, though. I
> remember reading that the merge has been put of indefinitely.
I read that in an email someone sent me, but I never seen it confirmed
with a news provider. Even so, I hope that before they release it, they
really comb through it with their debugger programs and make sure that
the bugs are out.
>
> >but of course he hated "windoze". Being ill
> >informed and attacking MS blindly is just as stupid as blindly
> >attacking linux for being to hard or not having <insert game here>.
>
I agree. Blindly attacking anything does just about as much good as it
would do to put a screendoor on a submarine, and it should be ignored,
basically. In most cases, it will annoy the hell out of the poster that
s/he's being ignored.
> >Some of the most popular linux FUD:
>
> >-Windows98 crashes a million times a day:
>
> This is called a strawman argument.
>
> >Sure it crashes,
>
> Then it's not FUD to say so.
>
> Another thing you fail to realize is that Joe Schmo voicing an opinion on
> Usenet it is very different from Ed Muth making statements to the press.
>
> >-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
>
> Not FUD.
>
> >Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
> >available software and driver support for all their hardware.
>
> If it's preinstalled the OEM can make sure that there are drivers for all
> the hardware.
>
> Any new desktop OS will start off with fewer apps than the 20 year old MS
> application base. Unix is pretty new to the desktop (not counting high end
> graphics workstations). Even then, a lot of what casual users need is
> already there.
>
There may nnot be as many names out there of programs, but there are
just as many kinds of software that are available for Linux, and even
more. And, anything that's available for Linux can probably be easily
ported to DOS/Win32 EXE format.
> >-Linux isn't hard to configure:
>
> Opinion, not FUD.
>
> >-Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
>
> It is very imperfect. I've often seen it detect things I don't have. It
> will sometimes decide to detect something on the 5th reboot.
>
> It can be quite a challenge to fix hardware conflicts on a windows system,
> and installing drivers can be made very tricky by the plug-n-play system. I
> never did get windows to correctly work with my 3 button mouse.
>
I had to download and manually install the 3 button mouse drivers. In
fact, with the BIOS that I have, being a 486 pre-PnP BIOS, it tells
nothing to Windows, thank God. What I did is I configured everything
myself, and let Windows set up the PnP monitor, and the joystick port,
and other minute things like that. I didn't trust it with anything
major.
> >-Linux is perfect:
>
No OS is perfect, nor will any OS ever be, no matter how much it tries.
> Opinion, not FUD.
>
> >-If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
>
> No, just not a truly enlightened being ;}
>
> >-Windows NT crashes all the time:
>
> Now this one I wouldn't know about since where I work we turn of our NT
> machines every night as recommended by Microsoft. That makes it impossible
Gee, I wonder why they recommend that?
But, you know what? It's actually healthier for the computer hardware
to be on all of the time, and not be off/on on a daily basis.
> to judge long-term stability. But I have heard enough first-hand accounts
> from people I respect (professional admins that work with both NT and unix)
> about NT's relative instability compared to unix. And I did have a guy tell
> me that our file server is always going down (I'm the evening tech, so I
> don't have to deal with these things).
I didn't even get the server services started on my NT box before I
decided to pull it off due to the incessant crashing. I don't use
anything that will hamper me on the computer, basically, and if the
software and/or OS crashes, I won't use it. In fact, I was ready to
switch to the Macintosh and get rid of the 486 box that I'm typing this
on, until I heard of Linux. (I knew of UNIX, but I wasn't going to the
price of a commercial UNIX to try it.... In hindsight, I see that it
might have been worth it if I still didn't know about Linux, or if Linux
didn't exist.)
>
> >-If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
>
> Just as true of Linux as of windows. An app shouldn't be able to take down
> the OS.
Right. Here's one way to test if the OS goes down. Replace a single
shared library with another, and rename them. In Windows, if you
replace a DLL for just the user program (not a Windows system function),
the system doesn't know what to do and crashes.
In Linux, the program will crash, but you can *still* run the system
without rebooting. And if you switch the libraries back, the program
runs just fine-- without a reboot.
>
> >-Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
>
Uhm.... SCO, Sun, Microsoft, Be, and others are all evil? No. BTW,
Linux is free not as in beer, but as in speech. And I read somewhere
that under a certain technicality, Microsoft software becomes public
domain after the license has been instated for one year. But I'm not an
attorney so I can't say for sure.
> Not just Microsoft.
>
> >-Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
>
> Corporations are essentially amoral institutions, though the people in them
> are often nice folks.
>
> >Perfect example, Ms gives away computers to some schools. People
> >instantly claim MS knows they will need to be upgraded to a new
> >version of windows, hence making money. Folks, 10 computers cost a lot
> >more then 10 copies of 98
>
> That's not the problem. The problem is that MS expects something in return
> for that gift.
>
I'd think just advertising would be a big thing to get back, but the
System Administrators of one of the local schools got fed up with
Windows, maybe that wouldn't be such a good idea...
> >-You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
> >source:
>
Yes, you can, if you do it a certain way. But then you're viewed by the
Linux/BSD communities as being evil, because they demand that the
software be free as well as open source.
> Again, not FUD.
>
> I don't know of anyone who thinks that the same amount of cash can be
> generated by open source as by proprietary software. But I do think that
> consultants can make a comfortable living utilizing open source software.
>
> So where's the FUD you are complaing about?
>
> Dave Cook
--
- Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------
--- Michael B. Trausch, mtra...@wcnet.org. 100% MS Free! ---
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tagline for Wednesday, April 21, 1999:
Don't let school interfere with your education.
the_...@my-dejanews.com
> -Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
> -Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
> -You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
> source:
Not liking MS is not necessarily a consequence of 'how much an Operating
System sucks today', but fear of 'will it still be sucking tomorrow'. With
Open Source Software we are getting free competetion, with propriety software
we most likely aren't, and with a Monpolist like MS, we most definately wont.
Comparing Windows and Linux today isn't bringing anything, both have
weaknesses and strengths. But if you are just a bit visionary, looking into
the future, you will realize that Linux/OSS is a precious gift, with great
potential, to good to let it suffacate because of MS's stranglehold on most
desktop computers. And in the long run Linux is the OS with the best
posibilities because of the freedom it provides. So please forgive me, if I'm
a bit suspicious about MS's methods and intentions, and please bear in mind
that I'm concerned about the future of the (computer-)world.
M
Rene
Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote in
371cd40d...@news.supernews.com...
... interesting things
Give up, they won't listen. And if so, they won't react.
I found more programs crashing on Linux than ever crashed on Windows 9x.
Sure, the OS continues to run, which is nice because it boots so slowly. KDE
is an exception, it even halted my Linux computer twice recently, when I
rearanged icons. As to NT: Can't remember when it crashed the last time.
This is NOT to say, that Windows 98 is stable, because it is not.
Linux will change by and by, gradually supporting more hardware, more users
and get easier to handle applications. If anti-MS trust is needed to get
this done, then well, it has to be so.
Rene.
Tesla Coil
> Anything that has Microsoft's name on it is instantly bad, evil,
> stupid, etc. Even if windows 2000 turned out to be a great server
> platform, linux users would claim it crashed on them 30 times a day.
MS doesn't crash on *me* 30 times a day--I don't use it. I simply
find Microsoft's concept of computing completely *uninteresting*.
That it's otherwise a crock, I get that impression from the unbiased
reports of users who suffer with it...
> It's really to bad, because linux had a real chance of innovating
> on the desktop level OS.
In the past two years alone, Linux users have seen a greater variety
of new window managers introduced than Microsoft has offered users
in their entire company history. That statement can even afford claim
that Win98 is "variety" compared to Win95.
> Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only scaring MS into making
> better software.
I don't know that *fear* writes better code. Even if so, it isn't "rabid
linux advocates" responsible for scaring MS, but their own SNAFUs
(crashing at Comdex, "features" revealed to be security hazards, etc.)
and the mere existence of viable competition. Anyway, we're taking
the mission critical systems--internet servers, particle accelerators,
NASA, power plants, railways. MS can keep your little ol' desktop...
FM
> Well of course it depends on your background, but my point is most
> people could not setup linux (maybe open linux they could) but setup
> is just one part of it, configuring things is always needed.
Most people will have a hard time setting-up/configuring
Win95 as well. Besides, configuring Win9x doesn't get much
easier as you learn. How many Win9x experts still advocate
fdisk -> format -> reinstall everything -> more stable
Win9x routine, whenever encountered with a problem?
jedi
> +---- je...@dementia.mishnet wrote (Tue, 20 Apr 1999 18:00:46 -0700):
> | > +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (20 Apr 1999 23:58:47 GMT):
> | > | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
> | > | up and not fight the hype?
> | > +----
> | >
> | >Pot, kettle?
> |
The rest of which was conveniently snipped?
Much of the 'hype' you complain about is merely seting the record
straight with respect to the predominant vendor. My last personal
experience was the Hauppauge WinTV 401 install procedure trashing
the then current Win9x video driver (on the subject of PnP being
better than what creatures such as myself make it out to be).
...reminded me why the FAT partition got toasted to begin with...
> +----
>
>You are a working example. Full of hype, little content.
>Should someone like me shut up, or fight it?
It's certainly easy to get that impression when
people like you remove it for dishonest purposes.
>
>Not that you are unique in this regard, c.o.l.a is full of
>inane posts by prattlers that feel safe in knowning that
>GNU/Linux is better than Microsoft Windows. Which renders
>c.o.l.a useless as a source of timely or useful information.
>In that you serve Bill Gates well.
>
>Your failure, along with a few others so far, in addressing the
>valid points of the original post just goes to show that
Hardly. I provided a relevant example from my personal
experience. You just removed it as it would have
undermined your little tirade.
>Microsoft management is one up on you. They listen to
>criticism, they learn from their mistakes.
>
>Which is one reason why it is dangerous to throw rocks at
>Microsoft. They are as thick headed as you are, and stock
>cannons for just such events.
No, I just listen to useful criticism.
'its not as bad as you make it out to be'
or
'wheres my mirc'
aren't very useful.
jedi
>On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 14:18:52 -0700, je...@dementia.mishnet (jedi)
>wrote:
>
>
>:>-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
>:>Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
>:>available software and driver support for all their hardware.
>: How, precisely, does such a statement constitute fear uncertainty or doubt?
>:
>: Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself. 'their hardware' is accomodated
>: by having someone else deal with those issues initially.
>
>I think it classifies as doubt. The sole purpose of a statement like
>that is to say IF linux was preinstalled everyone would use it. That's
>anything but a sure bet.
It's as sure a bet as any preinstalled OS. One is always
dependent upon the manufacturer or VAR to get things right.
This no more or less an issue with an Anion from The Linux
Store as it is with a Gateway or a Macintosh.
The post installation issues are no different either. It's
the same old problem: anything !DOS perhaps not being
supported by any arbitrary item one might buy at CompUSA.
>
>
>:>-Windows NT crashes all the time:
>:>This one is simply untrue also. I use Nt a lot and yes, It does crash.
>:
>: It's all a matter of what your standards are really.
>
>I doubt many desktop users need a system that can stay up 24/7. Sure
They just need it to stay up long enough to get them to
that next save, or autosave as the case may be. A lower
crash incidence just makes it a lot less likely that a
particular quanta of work won't be trashd.
>it would be nice but NT has stayed up a long time for me in the past.
>i'm assuming an average desktop user does not need to run a server of
>any kind. Some people even like saving power by shutting down their
So. They certainly can benefit from systems that don't break
themselves quite as easily. That's what consumer devices are
all about afterall: being able to limp along without expert
intervention.
>system when they go to sleep. NT seems to be quite pickey about
>hardware (I assume it's drivers, but who knows for sure). On some
>hardware it runs great.
Might as well run a Mac then. That one can be less picky
about hardware is one of the benfits of PC's. You have
all of that mess in CompUSA to choose from.
Besides, the novice end user shouldn't have the burden
of needing to know all of what works vs what doesn't in
gory detail.
>
>
>:>-If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
>:>Most linux users should know better then that. 9x is designed so a
>:>misbehaving application can take down the system. It's a horrible
>:
>: That's MS's fault. That's part of 'managing shared resources.
>: An OS is essentially just a 'shared resource manager'.
>
>How can MS be responsible for sloppy programming on a developers part?
They provide the ballpark and are the referees. If a
Dodger kills a Yankee, certainly it's the Umps' fault.
>Some applications skip using the registry all together and use basic
>inf files. Developers seem to rush products for windows, they are in a
>constant state of beta it seems.
In an age where desktop machines are essentially mini-computers,
that's no longer an acceptable excuse. The technology and the
computing power exist to do better than that. Other OSes have
been handling all sorts of skanky code for decades with little
problem.
>
>
>:>thing but if developers know this they should do better to make their
>:>applications cause problems. For some reason, in 9x a program doing
>:
>: Not having to depend upon any arbitrary developer to not fuck
>: over the system is the whole point of a real operating system
>: running on workstation/minicomputer class hardware.
>:
>: The excuse that it may not be economically feasable to deliver
>: a real OS to the conumer hasn't cut it for quite awhile.
>
>That's an interesting point, on the win2k site MS is suggesting users
>logon as administrator only when they absolutely must. Sounds like
>they have at least started to address this.
This is of course a conceptual burden on the end user.
Throwing an ease of use interface into the mix may or
may not help ease the culture shock.
>
>
>:>-Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
>:>MS wants to make money. MS sells software. MS has no obligation to
>:>give you anything. MS owns the source code to windows; they have no
>:>obligation to give it away to anyone.
>:
>: A corporation is amoral by definition. The whole point of
>: being a corporation is to limit one's legal responsibilities
>: and to make money at everyone's expense (except shareholders).
>
>So you're saying every single person in MS sets out out be amoral?
A corporation ultimately exists to enrich it's shareholders PERIOD.
If it won't, then if it's charter allows a plantiffs suit
on behalf of the shareholders then paper will fly. That's
simply the nature of things.
>when you say MS, you're talking about temps, programmers, managers,
>designers, artists, marketing people (okay they probably are amoral),
>and many others. Do you think Bill Gates has meetings to decide how
>he can do evil? Do you picture a Star Wars like good/evil battle? Bill
>Gates as Darth Vader of course. I just know we're gonna find out
>Linus is Bill's son.
Your allusions are irrelevant.
>
>:
>:>
>:>-Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
>:>Perfect example, Ms gives away computers to some schools. People
>:
>: He's a fairly immoral guy who has a moral history not
>: unlike some mobster. Such suspicions are not unjustified.
>
>Yes, that 100 mill for sick children was so they could maybe get
>better, and maybe grow up and buy Windows 98 for 89$. Or wait...He did
>it to trick everyone...yea that's it... mobster's have this nasty
>habit of killing people. I think comparing Bill Gates to a killer does
>nothing but prove my point.
That very likely is only a beneficial side effect of some
scheme that does Bill more good than it does anyone else.
That's no great revelation either.
>
>
>:>Sure, I'll believe that when I see it. Look at shareware authors, most
>:>of them can't even make a living off it. Sure it's not the same thing
>:>but many 30$ shareware programs are as good as their 100$-500$ big
>:>brothers. Still, people will not pay. Still people want cracks. Still
>:>people find serial numbers to unlock the program. If you think open
>:>source can change the world then you should look at human nature. Open
>:>source is a nice idea, but free software simply can't work.
>:
>: This is rich: the existence of rampant piracy undermines
>: the viabilty of free software? If anything, it merely
>: demonstrates how anti-natural to a free market extended
>: excessive artificial scarcity really is.
>:
>: Free software merely restores a balance between doing things
>: because they are useful and doing them because they are
>: profitable.
>
>I just don't see people who steal software ever needing tech support,
>or retail packages.
They don't enrich a commercial entity either. They most they
might do is give some prosecutor or the SPA an opportunity to
abuse the law and the courts.
>
>
>:>I'm sure there are more examples of this behavior, but that's all I
>:>can think of for now. It's become the "in thing" to hate MS. If you
>:>don't hate OS then you surely must be a loyal borg of the evil empire.
>:>Linux advocates would do themselves a favor by letting up on this evil
>:>empire bit
>:
>: It's evil by nature. It has to be. It's a corporation.
>: If it isn't, they'll get sued by the shareholders. That's
>: just the nature of the beast, even without Bill at the helm.
>
>
>So all corporations are evil? Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't corel
>corporation? ( I could be wrong, who knows, business stuff is
Sure.
>confusing) Aren't quite a few linux vendors/sellers/etc corporations?
>Does that make them evil too? Computer software is just that, there
It makes them amoral. There's a difference.
>is no evil and good or moral leaders. At some point in the future (or
>even now) Linus is going to make money. Already look at the fame he
>has gotten, it's not money but some would say it's just as good. Very,
>very, very rarely does anyone do anything for selfless reasons.
Certainly. The sooner people realize that the better.
jedi
> +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (21 Apr 1999 02:51:23 GMT):
> | : +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (20 Apr 1999 23:58:47 GMT):
> | : | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
> | : | up and not fight the hype?
> | : +----
> | : Pot, kettle?
> |
> | supposed to not dare to talk about it lest you come off sounding like
> | a zealot? What is worse? Letting a lie go unaswered, or argue against
> | it and in so doing look like a kook?
> +----
>
>To be honest I was thinking of someone else in particular when
>I posted that, and the poster I was thinking of replied. But
Except when I replied, you cut out my substantiation
entirely and only responded with more of your empty
rhetoric.
Darren Winsper
> :>-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
> :>Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
> :>available software and driver support for all their hardware.
> :
> : How, precisely, does such a statement constitute fear uncertainty or doubt?
> :
> : Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself. 'their hardware' is accomodated
> : by having someone else deal with those issues initially.
>
> I think it classifies as doubt. The sole purpose of a statement like
> that is to say IF linux was preinstalled everyone would use it. That's
> anything but a sure bet.
"People" does not mean everyone. However, quite a lot more people would
probably use Linux if it was preinstalled. No configuring is required.
If any is, I'm sure something like YaST or the RedHat control panel would
handle it. None of the basic stuff is difficult to configure.
--
Darren Winsper
Use the source Luke.
Darren Winsper
> Also, MS does not make winmodems. If
> linux drivers were written for them they would work just fine.
Such modems should not exist in the first place.
> :uh, ok... you just proved the phrase "Windows98 crashes a million times
> :a day" to be true with that paragraph... where was the "why this is fud
> :and is not true" part?
> I wouldn't use 9x myself, although I do at work some. It's more then
> fine for most people. The fud is because most people are fine with 9x
> and have no reason to switch.
My friend had to wipe and reinstall Win98 JUST to get IPX working. This
is stupid, that should not be required. My friend lost his ISP settings
and couldn't remember them so he resorted to creating a new account
(Freeserve). Neither of these would happen with Linux.
> :
> :> -People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
> :> Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
> :> available software and driver support for all their hardware.
> :>
> :> -Linux isn't hard to configure:
> :> Yes...Yes it is.
> :
> :for some people it is, for others it isn't... it depends! linux is, for
> :me, not hard to configure at all
> Well of course it depends on your background, but my point is most
> people could not setup linux (maybe open linux they could) but setup
> is just one part of it, configuring things is always needed.
If it was preinstalled people would not need to configure it. Many, many
Windows users do not know how to configure Windows, they don't have to.
Why doesn't anybody pay attention to that fact?
> :well, 85% of the windows users are newbies or complete idiots
> :
>
> You're joking I'm sure. Back that number up.
Well, out of personal experience, only 5% of my friends/people I know who
own computers cannot configure Windows. Hell, even my Clait teacher
couldn't configure Windows.
> :yeah... the truth is 98 crashes all the time, 95 crashes almost all the
> :time and nt crashes half of the time. unix-based os's almost never
> :crash. a crash on a unix-based os is usually due to operator failure...
>
> If nt crashes for you half the time you use it you should seriously
> consider learning how to configure it properly. Lots of nt crashes are
> due to video drivers. You wouldn't believe how many times people buy
> cheap video cards and find out the drivers cause massive problems.
A video card should not be able to bring the OS down full stop. When X
dies on my machine, I do not lose my proxy server, sendmail or any other
things like that. I lose Netscape, Wordperfect and Stars! (A game running
on Wine) i.e. only apps which require X. The only thing I have which
takes down X is Stars! funnily enough.
> :but they DID do it to kill netscape...
>
> So? All's fair in love, war, and software. I can't believe someone
> would complain about getting something for free.
Can you say illegal? Or maybe you could try saying "why are they in court
if all's fair in love, war, and software?" By the way, I do not agree
with that statement, and neither does NATO for that matter...
> :well the posers who hate m$ because it's the 'in thing' are dumb. i
> :don't hate them because it's the 'in thing', i hate them due to previous
> :personal experiences (which caused rather large holes in my wall, btw)
>
> I get upset with Ms now and again as well, but then again I use so
> many Ms products it's just logical I would run into more problems then
> I do with company X of which i use maybe one program. The thing that
> upsets me the most is installing linux and having it not even come
> closing to living up to the hype.
When I first tried Linux, I thought it was a pain, but I kept going.
Before long I loved it and concluded for myself it did live up to the
hype. Hell, the only time I've seen a kernel panic was when I lost the
partition table of my hard disk...
> I predict linux has the same exact
> impact os/2 did. It will scare MS, it will gain popularity in the
> server market and maybe some in the desktop market.
I doubt that. MS backed OS/2 until Windows 3 became a success. Then they
screwed IBM. Linux is gaining momentum in spite of MS. Big difference,
no?
Reality is a point of view
| The rest of which was conveniently snipped?
If you ever manage to post something worth reading twice I'll
try to rememeber to leave it in, assuming you post anything
worth following up. Given todays pile of prattle I'd say it's
unlikely, but you never know.
But please try to understand; you are helping Mr. Gates more
than anyone else with your spewage in c.o.l.a (and crossposts).
Michael B. Trausch
>
> Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote in
> 371cd40d...@news.supernews.com...
> ... interesting things
>
> Give up, they won't listen. And if so, they won't react.
>
> I found more programs crashing on Linux than ever crashed on Windows 9x.
Don't use development versions. That's a given. There is *tons* more
software for Linux that is released using Linus' theory: Release early,
release often. (I _think_ Linus said that, anyway.) If it's not a
development release, it runs.
And ensure that your hardware is fine. Just because Windows runs in it
doesn't mean it's OK. Linux stresses the hardware to the fullest
extent, really utilising it. If something happens under Linux, it may
be because of hardware. SIG 11 problems are the most common w/ computer
hardware, but there may be others that creep up, too. Depends on one's
run of luck.
> Sure, the OS continues to run, which is nice because it boots so slowly. KDE
Double check your configuration... My Linux box is totally loaded w/
programs and such (and programs installed have no relevance to the boot
up process), and my linux box comes up within 2 minutes on my 486 DX/4
100MHz (AMD). Windows 95 (no lie) takes about 7 minutes to boot on a
fresh install.
I won't wait that long. I'm an impatient person when it comes to
getting my computer online when I want it online.
> is an exception, it even halted my Linux computer twice recently, when I
> rearanged icons. As to NT: Can't remember when it crashed the last time.
> This is NOT to say, that Windows 98 is stable, because it is not.
Don't look at KDE, investigate the whole chain of programs. It might
just be X. A Linux system never completely locks up unless there's
faulty hardware. You can't use the console to determine if it's frozed
or not. If you're on a network with your Linux computer, then you can
telnet into it and reboot it, which will fix the console.
I've had to do this with SVGALib, but not X at all.
>
> Linux will change by and by, gradually supporting more hardware, more users
> and get easier to handle applications. If anti-MS trust is needed to get
> this done, then well, it has to be so.
>
It's getting there... It seems to me that development on Linux is
actually going faster than development in a corporate project would be
doing. That's something that I like-- the code is there for the users,
and you can change it if you want. And new features are brought into
the OS at the same time. There is no, "Wait for six months for a
patchkit or new release" stuff that goes on with Linux. If you want,
you can patch the kernel YOURSELF to add new features.
Pretty cool stuff. =)
> Rene.
--
- Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------
--- Michael B. Trausch, mtra...@wcnet.org. 100% MS Free! ---
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tagline for Wednesday, April 21, 1999:
Women do come with instructions; ask them.
Michael B. Trausch
>
> > source:
>
> Not liking MS is not necessarily a consequence of 'how much an Operating
> System sucks today', but fear of 'will it still be sucking tomorrow'. With
> Open Source Software we are getting free competetion, with propriety software
> we most likely aren't, and with a Monpolist like MS, we most definately wont.
I personally agree that Microsoft is a monopolist. However, I must
request that people here give the company the respect that it deserves.
The company is called "Microsoft," not "MS" or "M$" or anything like
that. They're not to be hated-- if it weren't for Microosft, Linux
wouldn't be so popular.
"Don't bite the hand that feeds you." And think about it.... Microsoft
is doing a really good job of feeding us.
But many of us are rejecting that, and shoving newer users away.
> Comparing Windows and Linux today isn't bringing anything, both have
> weaknesses and strengths. But if you are just a bit visionary, looking into
> the future, you will realize that Linux/OSS is a precious gift, with great
> potential, to good to let it suffacate because of MS's stranglehold on most
> desktop computers. And in the long run Linux is the OS with the best
Good.... I believe that Linux is strong enough to endure whatever wrath
that Microsoft would like to throw onto it. However, it would seem that
even if it weren't strong enough to publicly endure it, there will still
be many users about it. People will eventually realize that Linux is
somewhat better than Windows.
Don't force it upon them. Please. Thet will only push them to say to
other people, "You don't want to use Linux, because the people that use
it are mean."
Seriously.
> posibilities because of the freedom it provides. So please forgive me, if I'm
> a bit suspicious about MS's methods and intentions, and please bear in mind
> that I'm concerned about the future of the (computer-)world.
The computer world will unravel itself in time. The thing is, is that
we all need to be adaptable. There are some people who will hate UNIX
and/or Linux. There are some people who will hate Windows, for one
reason or another. Yet still, there will be some people who will choose
to remain ignorant and not try one of the operating systems, or the
other. It doesn't matter. To each their own.
This group is just a bit too forceful, and I'm kinda glad that I'm
sitting behind a computer screen and not in a room with everyone here,
becuase I'm a real weakling. :)
>
> M
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
--
- Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------
--- Michael B. Trausch, mtra...@wcnet.org. 100% MS Free! ---
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tagline for Wednesday, April 21, 1999:
Beam me aboard Scotty. <> Aye, will a 2x4 do, Captain?
Rob S. Wolfram
>Sure it crashes, 9x is a horrible OS based on years and years of
>patches of already unstable code. Its very design makes it unreliable.
>9x is good for only a very few people, mostly new users, kids, casual
>computer users, and gamers.
Not a million times a day, but it DOES crash. It crashes on the same
hardware that other OSes do not crash on. That tells me the OS is
not robust. I wonder why people accept this as normal.
>-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
>Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
>available software and driver support for all their hardware.
And most of this software _is_ available. Not everything is free, but
neither are most applications for Windows.
Speaking of preloads, why do I have to pay a Microsoft tax when I
buy a new system even if I won't use it?
>-Linux isn't hard to configure:
>Yes...Yes it is.
Agreed.
>-Windows PnP is at best "plug and pray":
>No....No it isn't.
I think it is. YMMV.
>-Linux is perfect:
>No...No it isn't. On the server level it's probably a better choice
>then NT in some cases, but on the desktop there is very little reason
>to use it.
No OS is perfect, but your last statement is BS. I have no reason to
use anything else on *my* desktop.
>-If you use Windows you must be a newbie or a complete idiot:
>Untrue.
Agreed. Everyone should use the OS that best fits their own purpose.
>-Windows NT crashes all the time:
I can't argue on this one. My NT experience is limitted.
>-If something bad happens running "Windoze" It's "M$"s fault:
>Most linux users should know better then that. 9x is designed so a
>misbehaving application can take down the system. It's a horrible
>thing but if developers know this they should do better to make their
>applications cause problems.
Their concept is wrong to begin with. An application in user space
should not be able to bring the whole system down. Period.
>-Windows isn't free so that makes "M$" evil:
>MS wants to make money. MS sells software. MS has no obligation to
>give you anything. MS owns the source code to windows; they have no
>obligation to give it away to anyone.
What they *should* give is specifications for other applications or
OSes to be able to interact with them, especially if they want to
push these as standards. Things like the Office document formats,
MAPI, the *complete* windows API etc come to mind.
>-Everything Bill Gates or MS does is in someway bad:
>Perfect example, Ms gives away computers to some schools.
I don't mind charity, as long as there are no strings attached. If the
guy wants to donate hardware, fine, as long as there is no demand on
how to use it and what software to use with it. Otherwise it might
be classified as an advertisement.
>-You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
>source:
>Sure, I'll believe that when I see it.
You can. http://www.redhat.com
>Look at shareware authors, most
>of them can't even make a living off it. Sure it's not the same thing
>but many 30$ shareware programs are as good as their 100$-500$ big
>brothers. Still, people will not pay. Still people want cracks. Still
>people find serial numbers to unlock the program.
This has *nothing* to do with Open Source. Do your homework and come
back.
>If you think open
>source can change the world then you should look at human nature. Open
>source is a nice idea, but free software simply can't work.
Now THIS is FUD.
I do hope that Microsoft will finally take Vinod Villilopil's words for
granted and acknowledge that FUD won't work against Linux. This goes
for you too. You're just a very big troll. Go read the FUD 101 and
you will see why your balloon bursted.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <qwe...@hamal.xs4all.nl> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
COBOL:
An exercise in Artificial Inelegance.
hellraiser
<snip>
> Well what about the people who use windows based software? I do lots
> of work for small business that use quickbooks and/or act. There isn't
> even a linux program close to those is there?
why should there be??
<snip>
> As long as I am part of that newly found 1% I may agree. Although lets
> not but the compete idiots in a negative tone, There are lots of
> people who just want to use it. No thinking, no configuring, just sit
> down, look up a record for a customer, hit print and leave.
got nothing against them (kindof)
they can be annoying...
<snip>
> Opps, I was talking about NT and the person replying was talking about
> 9x. He's right about 9x thoug..sometimes it just crashes without
> warning.
yeah it does!! heh
<snip>
> Rats will do anything to get ahead, within the last few months linux
> as officially started running in this race. Media/business has a way
> of killing anything, no matter how well off it started.
linux hasn't been doing it... it's those stupid big companies investing
in linux that's getting linux involved. also, redhat is really pissing
me off.
like i said, i would rather linux take over the server market and stay
as a small community of elite computer users, heh
<snip>
> "Penguin in bondage" by Frank Zappa would be the perfect theme song to
> linux..
never heard it, but heard of the artist i think
i would say 'rise' by pantera is the best song about linux (read the
lyrics... linus would agree with them!)
David M. Cook
<fix.thi...@no.spam.ku-eichstaett.de> wrote:
>Give up, they won't listen. And if so, they won't react.
React to what? I didn't see anything worth reacting to in Jeff's post. I
don't spread FUD, and I have no control over anyone that does.
>I found more programs crashing on Linux than ever crashed on Windows 9x.
>Sure, the OS continues to run, which is nice because it boots so slowly.
What are you loading at startup? Make sure you're not starting a bunch of
unneeded services.
Dave Cook
hellraiser
> to be on all of the time, and not be off/on on a daily basis.
true!! most of the windows users i know turn their comp off every time
their done using it!! what the hell? i try to tell them that it can
disrupt their mbr and also it wastes WAY more electricity when turning
it off and on. computers use virtually no electricity. bastards...
they don't believe me
David M. Cook
>Well what about the people who use windows based software? I do lots
>of work for small business that use quickbooks and/or act. There isn't
>even a linux program close to those is there?
Just a quick search finds the following links:
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/5022.html
http://linuxtoday.com/stories/3576.html
http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/finances.html
Dave Cook
jedi
> +---- je...@dementia.mishnet wrote (Wed, 21 Apr 1999 12:51:24 -0700):
> | The rest of which was conveniently snipped?
> +----
>
>If you ever manage to post something worth reading twice I'll
>try to rememeber to leave it in, assuming you post anything
>worth following up. Given todays pile of prattle I'd say it's
>unlikely, but you never know.
>
>But please try to understand; you are helping Mr. Gates more
>than anyone else with your spewage in c.o.l.a (and crossposts).
Yup, posting about configuration problems with 2 PCI devices
(shoulda just been 1 PCI device but that's M$) certainly helps
Gates. Suuuure.
The acknowledge that many of us, even myself, have formed our negative
opinion of M$ OS products via direct personal experience would
interfere with your silly little tirade.
jedi
>On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 01:56:34 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> :>-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
>> :>Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
>> :>available software and driver support for all their hardware.
>> : How, precisely, does such a statement constitute fear uncertainty or doubt?
>> :
>> : Furthermore, you're contradicting yourself. 'their hardware' is accomodated
>> : by having someone else deal with those issues initially.
>>
>> I think it classifies as doubt. The sole purpose of a statement like
>> that is to say IF linux was preinstalled everyone would use it. That's
>> anything but a sure bet.
>
>"People" does not mean everyone. However, quite a lot more people would
>probably use Linux if it was preinstalled. No configuring is required.
>If any is, I'm sure something like YaST or the RedHat control panel would
>handle it. None of the basic stuff is difficult to configure.
The real issue is hardware support. Without a working driver,
the prettiest inferface on the planet isn't gonna do you a
damn bit of good.
jedi
gmc and gnome-help were still antfarms on the 1.0 release.
Gnome 1.0 plain wasn't up to it's version number. We really
have to need to engage in such BS.
Reality is a point of view
No, it is your 'my way which is the best way even if it is
crappy' prattling that turns people away, old and potential
users. It is your denial of blatant flaws that lots of other
people acknowledge, including trade press, distributers, users,
and even Linus, that make your statements seem like Microsoft
spin. It is your lack of knowledge about the industry that
makes your sweeping misstatements embarrassing.
It is your flood of useless posts that help render c.o.l.a
useless. Well, not just you, and you seem unlikely to catch a
clue any time soon, but hopefully other posters will. I'll do
my part and stop wasting bandwidth trying to educate you.
hellraiser
> computing skills. if you can't remember simple commmands then i guess a
> nice, point-and-click interface is just the thing for idiots like you"
hey that was mine!! lol
boob...@my-dejanews.com
: makes your sweeping misstatements embarrassing.
hehehe.. at this moment at time there are over 40,000 simultaneous users on
microsoft gaming zone. But to jedi, 'multiplay gaming' is overrated and a
nintendo with a hard drive and plenty of memory and a specialized video card
and a mouse and a keyboard and and a modem and a usb port should be the
future of gaming, not a PC that everybody has anyway. Perhaps open-source
cartrige games, too?
The guy is just a envious idiot--bashing him is fun though. Of the other two
prominent posters here,
MLW is this guy with a 'software company' who
a) claims to be a windows video driver writer (perhaps in the days when
a trident 8900 card cost $250), but doesn't realize that today's games
run at high resolutions.
b) advertises various programming services, including web software, but
whose cgi programs on his web site appear to come directly out of "Learn CGI
programming in 7 days"
c) every now and then slips out of character and makes this post criticizing
linux and is very open minded, but then, as if The Entity had
reestablished its datalink with the chip they implanted in his head,
starts spewing out zealous technobabble.
Matthias
is the prototypical Angry European Young Man. Envious of America and Bill
Gates to the point of hatred, as opposed to the previous two, he can make
sense at times and probably knows a thing or two both about computers and the
wider world. The problem is that his rage is so fanatical and transparent,
all of his posts reek of it. If this were 1938, this would be a guy you'd be
afraid of.
Honorable Mention:
the "No Linux For You" guy--happily setting linux back a week with every
.signature. Probably aspiring to one day join the ranks of
suspendered-and-bearded unix wizards of smug.
darren aka the "you've got a brain?" guy -- his posts are typical linux fud
and baiting, but his tagline is so memorable as it comes accross as so
obviously true to the linux groupthink crowd and so obviously b***s*** to the
rest of the world that he gets into the pantheon.
(that is, unless the two above people are equivalent)
Posts to remember:
"well it seems linux is too complex for you, and is far above your
computing skills. if you can't remember simple commmands then i guess a
nice, point-and-click interface is just the thing for idiots like you"
boob...@my-dejanews.com
: So saying "Microsoft Gaming Zone has 40,000 user on it right now" is not
: nearly as impressive as it sounds.
I didn't mean to imply from a technical perspective that it's that
phenomenal-- though no matter what's going on technically, even the minimum
of grouping people together that the zone does or does not do (actually, it
does a little bit more than that) isn't chump change.
My point was that there were 40,000 people at any point in time who want to
play multiplayer games. And if somebody retorts that yesbut those 40,000 are
probably primarily wives of truckers from towns like oklahoma city and yuma
playing euchre--well, that proves the point even more. Multiplay is no
longer the domain of a couple of geeks trying to get Linewars going at 1200
bps. It's accepted, established, and canned-able.
(give yourself a dork point if you remember "linewars" and several more if you
know what the term "bower" means in respect to a term used in this message.)
Steve Mading
: : It is your lack of knowledge about the industry that
: : makes your sweeping misstatements embarrassing.
: hehehe.. at this moment at time there are over 40,000 simultaneous users on
: microsoft gaming zone. But to jedi, 'multiplay gaming' is overrated and a
: nintendo with a hard drive and plenty of memory and a specialized video card
: and a mouse and a keyboard and and a modem and a usb port should be the
: future of gaming, not a PC that everybody has anyway. Perhaps open-source
: cartrige games, too?
Note: I'm not taking sides on Jedi's statements, not having heard
the start of this, but you should note that '40,000' simultaneous users
on a gaming site is a bit deceptive. Those kinds of sites are used to
negotiate the *establishing* of the connections, but once the connections
are up, the site that did the negotiating doesn't have a lot of work to
do anymore. Most online games are a client-to-client sort of affair
with no intervening server. (Quakeworld being an exception).
the_...@my-dejanews.com
> >-You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
> >source:
> >Sure, I'll believe that when I see it.
>
> You can. http://www.redhat.com
You can????? Wow!!!! So when did RedHat shares outperform Microsoft shares???
They didn't?!? Well, then something is wrong with stating that you can!!!
The thing is that under free competetion, You can make as much money on Open
as on closed source. But closed source is an invitation to inhibit free
market mechanisms and develop a monopoly (MS!).
Therefore: If all software vendors are playing fair and not inhibiting free
market mechanisms, Open and closed source can make equally much money. Closed
source is, however, hazardous for free markets.
M
FoulDragon
> a) claims to be a windows video driver writer (perhaps in the days when
> a trident 8900 card cost $250), but doesn't realize that today's games
> run at high resolutions.
Not really. I do my productive work at 1024x768; I play games at 640x480 or
less or they're unplayable. Go ahead and play-- more exactly, try to play--
Quake II at 1024x768 unaccelerated on a K6/250. See if you can stand the 'high
resolution' option. Resolutions are *higher* than when I played Wing Commander
II at 320x200, but they're not *high* compared to non-game uses.
>the "No Linux For You" guy--happily setting linux back a week with every
>.signature. Probably aspiring to one day join the ranks of
>suspendered-and-bearded unix wizards of smug.
.signatures have little actual meaning. Example: I have used one that says
something like "I love humans... especially the soft-centre ones". Does that
mean I'm a cannibal? Will it impede my causes? I picked it because it was
funny and reflected me.
>"well it seems linux is too complex for you, and is far above your
>computing skills. if you can't remember simple commmands then i guess a
>nice, point-and-click interface is just the thing for idiots like you"
After the fiftieth time you get asked how to perform a trivial task-- wether
it's setting a VCR, or logging in, or setting something under Win9x, you won't
want that person using that device either.
>not a PC that everybody has anyway
Sometimes, special purpose hardware makes sense. I can take my machine, add a
new USD300 processor+mainboard, and a USD100 video card, and now I can run
games as well as a USD150 PlayStation. It's just not cost-effective in that
situation.
>But to jedi, 'multiplay gaming' is overrated
Popular != not overrated. As they say, 40,000 people can be wrong. And it is
not an ideal solution. I want to play games alone at times; also, it's
expensive in some locales [sure-- everyone with cheap 'net access and free
local calls can play, but what about the rest of us] and it includes more
elements [phone line and remote server quality] out of the user's control to
the enjoyment factor. of the game
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii Dra'torrinah(Clan Nightwings)
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
"If the darkness and hellfire within were made flesh, all dragons would be
black with red eyes."
the_...@my-dejanews.com
"Michael B. Trausch" <mtra...@wcnet.org> wrote:
> the_...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> I personally agree that Microsoft is a monopolist. However, I must
> request that people here give the company the respect that it deserves.
> The company is called "Microsoft," not "MS" or "M$" or anything like
> that. They're not to be hated-- if it weren't for Microosft, Linux
> wouldn't be so popular.
Doesn't Microsofties use 'MS' themselves from time to time??? And by the way
calling Microsoft is not disrespectful I think. I respect 'Gnus Not UNIX', but
mostly i refer to them as 'GNU'. And who doesn't know what RH means...
>
> "Don't bite the hand that feeds you." And think about it.... Microsoft
> is doing a really good job of feeding us.
>
> But many of us are rejecting that, and shoving newer users away.
David M. Cook
>>What are you loading at startup? Make sure you're not starting a bunch of
>>unneeded services.
> gmc and gnome-help were still antfarms on the 1.0 release.
> Gnome 1.0 plain wasn't up to it's version number. We really
> have to need to engage in such BS.
Huh? I was talking about services like snmpd, apache, nfs, etc. You seem
to have GNOME on the brain.
Dave Cook
Jeff Szarka
Mading) wrote:
:Reality is a point of view (gjoh...@dream.season.com) wrote:
:: +---- mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu wrote (20 Apr 1999 23:58:47 GMT):
:: | But what are you supposed to do when it *really is* that bad? Shut
:: | up and not fight the hype?
:: +----
:
:: Pot, kettle?
:
:I raised a valid point. If something really *does* suck badly, are you
:supposed to not dare to talk about it lest you come off sounding like
:a zealot? What is worse? Letting a lie go unaswered, or argue against
:it and in so doing look like a kook?
If something sucks then it's fair to point it out. The main point is
something may very well suck for you and be more then fine for someone
else. Trying to get the whole world to use linux is insane. MS set out
to do this with windows and it has seemed to turn them into blood
thirsty liar's. I can see this happening to the linux community right
now.
How much longer before we see a print add that belittles windows
users, so of course User X who has been using Windows 98 for the last
year thinks: "Whoa...I have to use linux. I wouldn't be cool if I
didn't use linux..." and happily buys himself a redhat CD, he installs
it (if he gets that far) most likely trashing his windows partition by
mistake during the install. Half way through he finds out his sb live
and video card won't work correctly under linux and is stuck and a
command line. He desperately types "dir" and "help" or maybe "/?" none
of which do him a bit of good. He can read any how-to's because he
can't use X and he just trashed windows. He can't even come to a linux
news group because he has no clue how to setup PPP. At this point User
X has started to realize linux is more P.H-T.W-T.H (Promises, half
truths, wishful thinking, and hate)
So User X reinstalls windows 98, at this point he feels like he is to
stupid to use linux.. so of course he feels "uncool" because linux is
so much better then 'M$" Yes, User X is aligned with "THE EVIL EMPIRE"
(not evil enough to keep around to dual boot into for games though) AT
this point User X has invested many hours of his time installing
linux, installing windows 98, installing software, installing drivers,
all because some rabid linux users made him think linux was the answer
to all his problems (which he didn't even know he had before they told
him) He ends up thinking, sure windows 98 crashes quite a bit but it's
better then being stuck at a command prompt.
Tragic really, but it happens quite often.
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:>Thanks to rabid advocates linux is only
:
:"Rabid" is a pretty loaded, don't you think? Perhaps we should all avoid
:loaded language like that.
Honestly, I know a few times I might have used stronger words then
needed but I think rabid fits a lot of linux advocates _very_ well. I
notice this on IRC a lot news groups, and web pages. If it has the
words linux on it in anyway most of the time there is some hateful
statement towards MS, a joke about windows users, or put downs in
general of anyone who does not use linux.
:>The saddest part is it's the same thing that happened with OS/2.
:
:OS/2 failed because of "rabid" users? And I thought it was IBM's fault.
I remember OS/2 users did this very same thing. "Our os is the best.
You's is stupid. You are stupid for using it. You must have no clue
about computers if you'd use windows" It's one of the big reasons I
never used OS/2 that much. IBM didn't help of course, but rabid os/2
users did quite a bit of harm.
:
:>I don't think I've ever seen a MS mouse fail, they make great mice and
:>keyboards.
:
:This is curious praise. And I don't find them at all impressive, myself.
I have a MS wheel mouse and it's not only a good idea but it's taken
some falls from high places without a problem. I've never had much
luck with cheap keyboards or mice.
:
:>I read a post here earlier from someone who didn't know
:>Win2k was NT and not 9x,
:
:I believe the next MS consumer OS will be based on win9x, though. I
:remember reading that the merge has been put of indefinitely.
From what I've heard there will be 98 SE and at least one more
consumer 9x release. Win2k will be pitched to quite a few people. 98
will remain for older systems or people who need it's compatibility.
:Then it's not FUD to say so.
:
:Another thing you fail to realize is that Joe Schmo voicing an opinion on
:Usenet it is very different from Ed Muth making statements to the press.
Yes but these days the walls between the press and information are
always shifting. A group of advocates can do just as much harm as a
press release. It spans more then just c.o.l.a. Rabid linux advocates
are everywhere, they pop up and get ready to start making "EVIL
EMPIRE" jokes or start justifying why you should use linux too. It's
_VERY_ annoying.
:
:>-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
:
:Not FUD.
Sure, and when they stopped by staples to pick up quicken or Need for
speed 3 they'd bring it home and find out they need to install
windows. If linux was preinstalled right now people would end up
bringing their computers to a local shop to get windows installed on
it.
:
:>Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
:>available software and driver support for all their hardware.
:
:If it's preinstalled the OEM can make sure that there are drivers for all
:the hardware.
And reduce the consumer's hardware choice? The user is then stuck with
using only specific hardware that is known to work under linux. what
if that user happens to want a web cam? or maybe he wants a cheap
scanner, maybe he wants to use a digital camera. There is a lot more
to it then just what comes OEM...
:
:Any new desktop OS will start off with fewer apps than the 20 year old MS
:application base. Unix is pretty new to the desktop (not counting high end
:graphics workstations). Even then, a lot of what casual users need is
:already there.
:
:>-Linux isn't hard to configure:
:
:Opinion, not FUD.
It's FUD because linux users say: "you edit whatever.conf and then
edit whatever_else.conf, what's so hard about that?" For some it may
be easy, I don't even think it's _that_ hard myself. The thing is
these rabid linux advocates have two main lines of FUD:
"If you can't set it up you're just to dumb"
"RTFM"
Jeff Szarka
<fix.thi...@no.spam.ku-eichstaett.de> wrote:
:
:Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote in
:371cd40d...@news.supernews.com...
:... interesting things
:
:Give up, they won't listen. And if so, they won't react.
:
:I found more programs crashing on Linux than ever crashed on Windows 9x.
:Sure, the OS continues to run, which is nice because it boots so slowly. KDE
:is an exception, it even halted my Linux computer twice recently, when I
:rearanged icons. As to NT: Can't remember when it crashed the last time.
:This is NOT to say, that Windows 98 is stable, because it is not.
My biggest problem with linux was that you can get applications but
most of the time it requires getting Libthis or Lib that and then
editing this.conf of that.conf to even make a simple change. I also
found KDE and afterstep to cause X to crash quite a bit. I was just
trying linux out so when I was done I simply booted back into windows.
I was getting a X crash at least once per session. That was with 2
entirely different systems too. Lots of people admit KDE and other
WM's cause crashes, that's fine but don't claim linux is so stable and
also say 'but with KDE it's just as easy as windows". Because
linux+KDE isn't very stable.
:Linux will change by and by, gradually supporting more hardware, more users
:and get easier to handle applications. If anti-MS trust is needed to get
:this done, then well, it has to be so.
Maybe, but I don't now, and never really have had anything against
linux itself. I think things can be improved a lot, I think sometimes
are done in a stupid way but the big problem is with the users. If I
see "M$" or "windoze" one more time I'm going to go nuts.
Rene
David M. Cook <dave...@home.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
slrn7hshae....@sputnik.escnd1.sdca.home.com......
> >I found more programs crashing on Linux than ever crashed on Windows 9x.
> >Sure, the OS continues to run, which is nice because it boots so slowly.
>
> unneeded services.
Nothing spectacular. It just takes two minutes to check my hardware and come
up with the console prompt. Then I still have to log in and wait for X to
appear. Admittedly, Windows NT takes it time too (but is just as stable as
Linux). So please do not overstress this point, it was just a side remark.
Don't get me wrong: I like Linux. Especially since there is now Java
available. It is only, that I find most things I have to do are easier done
on Windows. If you have some time, read the list:
- Java development. I am using UltraEdit and MS jvc (I admit it - YOU can
use jikes) on Windows. Compiling hundreds of classes is just a matter of a
few seconds (maybe five). The editor is just as I like it (I paid 40$ or so
for the shareware registration). I tried xemacs, but still don't like it.
Also, java on Linux is 2-3 times slower (Yes, I tried kaffe already).
- Web page design. I am a fan of WYSIWYG here. So I use VisualPage for 90$
(there are others). Maybe you give me a hint as to what to use on Linux
(must support frames, easy upload, wysiwyg and not too expensive).
- TeX. I know, there are Linux implementations, which are very good. You
just have to become a friend of postscript though (instead of the windows
metafiles, which can be generated with almost any Windows program, including
the ones I wrote myself).
- Application development. I have a bunch of large C++ programs, using a the
Windows API via a self made class library (using Borland's IDE). I have also
developped for Linux, but with far more troubles (graphics export,
clipboards, sounds, system dialogs for color, file seletion etc.). This may
be due to my lack of education or hesitation to use Motif. But it is also
due to user demand to have the program for Windows.
There are some others, and I do not mention gaming and multimedia (I can
reboot for this). But I do like to mention things like printer or scanner
support. It's just a bit easier with the mainstream.
I am still looking for a reason to use Linux as a workstation PC, besides
the support for a great idea.
Rene.
Jeff Szarka
<mtra...@wcnet.org> wrote:
:> :> :
:> :> :well, 85% of the windows users are newbies or complete idiots
:> :> :
:
:This would be my experience in repairing computers (going on my sixth
:year now....)
:
:Windows seems to have been created for the idiot user, so that they
:really don't have to think about what they're doing. Everything is at
:hand, and Microsoft is tripping over the code to ensure that a user will
:*know* how to use Windows just by sitting down and looking at it.
And that's a bad thing? Making computers easier to use for the masses?
Most people don't work with computers all day at work like most of us
here probably do. Easy to use, being able to use by sitting down and
looking at it are good things not bad.
:Sad to say, this really lowers the standards for software, now doesn't
:it? Think about this, though... Linus Torvalds started developing Linux
:in 1991. The system now, in 1999, is in version 2.2.6. The core to the
:operating system is released as the next version number whenever there
:are a substantial amount of changes. Lately, the developers have been
:optimising the code and adding drivers to the codebase.
:
:In their development process, there is a "Stable" source tree and there
:is a "Development" source tree. This is a *MAJOR* strength, because
:they add features fast as HELL to the development version. And bugs
:show up (No surprise, it's the development version.) Many people like
:living on the edge, and they use the development version. When they
:find a bug they whip out their compiler, whip out an editing program,
:fix the bug, make a patch file, and send it to the developers.
:
:That's over and above their call of duty, but they do it anyway.
:
:A Windows user will simply bitch on and on and on. I"ve seen it many
:times. Linux gives something that Windows could only aspire to: a sense
:of accomplishment because the computer actually DOES what you want it to
:do. There are many taglines out there that make fun of Microsoft's
:brainchild. I'll admit, my tagline file holds quite a few of them.
:But, there is a serious aspect to it all.
:
:Do we just sit here and let Windows lower the standards of the computer
:industry? Well, right now, we're forced to. But Linux *IS*, no matter
:how much some people dislike it, crawling slowly into places like
:business and even some homes. (It crawled into this sixteen year old's
:computer April, 1997).
:
:Admittedly, Linux isn't for all people, just yet. My hope is that the
:UI in Linux will be developed to the point that it will prove to be
:effective for many "idiot" users that use Windows. In fact, there is
:one already out that I have seen, and it is truely impressive, IMHO...
:GNOME + Enlightenment (that's two programs). I've seen it demo'd at a
:local Linux user meeting and it was absolutely wonderful (we had people
:new to Linux there that were oohing and aahing over it, and saying that
:it was sweet themselves... now THAT tells you something).
:
:Now, one last thing. I support in troubleshooting/repair/customer
:support, Windows 3.x - 98, Windows NT, Macintosh, and, you guessed it,
:Linux. All of them. And I've found something: I make more money from
:calls on Windows 95/98/NT problems than I do on *ANY* other operating
:system.
Well with 90% market share it does kind of make sense. Plus Macs are
designed by apple to run an apple OS. If MS made computers and
installed windows I would bet setting them up would always be easy.
Darren Winsper
<boob...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> darren aka the "you've got a brain?" guy
Slating someone's signature is kind of shallow isn't it?
> -- his posts are typical linux fud
> and baiting,
Care to quote me where I FUD and bait?
> but his tagline is so memorable as it comes accross as so
> obviously true to the linux groupthink crowd and so obviously b***s*** to the
> rest of the world that he gets into the pantheon.
Oh dear, so desperate for something to say, he has to resort to slating my
tagline. I bet he'll find something to say about my new one too.
--
Darren Winsper
Use the source Luke.
Darren Winsper
Please...
> I found more programs crashing on Linux than ever crashed on Windows 9x.
> Sure, the OS continues to run, which is nice because it boots so slowly. KDE
> is an exception, it even halted my Linux computer twice recently, when I
> rearanged icons.
Try telnetting into the box.
> As to NT: Can't remember when it crashed the last time.
> This is NOT to say, that Windows 98 is stable, because it is not.
Compared to Linux et al. NT isn't stable. Hell, a video driver should not
be able to crash the whole system.
Darren Winsper
> >> I think it classifies as doubt. The sole purpose of a statement like
> >> that is to say IF linux was preinstalled everyone would use it. That's
> >> anything but a sure bet.
> >
> >"People" does not mean everyone. However, quite a lot more people would
> >probably use Linux if it was preinstalled. No configuring is required.
> >If any is, I'm sure something like YaST or the RedHat control panel would
> >handle it. None of the basic stuff is difficult to configure.
>
> The real issue is hardware support. Without a working driver,
> the prettiest inferface on the planet isn't gonna do you a
> damn bit of good.
True, but preinstalling Linux on unsupported hardware isn't going to do
your reputation much good.
Darren Winsper
> My biggest problem with linux was that you can get applications but
> most of the time it requires getting Libthis or Lib that
That can be a pain at times, but it does result in smaller tarballs/RPMs
hence faster downloads.
> and then
> editing this.conf of that.conf to even make a simple change.
I find that often isn't needed if you use RPM.
> I also found KDE and afterstep to cause X to crash quite a bit.
I've never been a fan of KDE itself, but it is doing good things. As for
Afterstep, just out of interest, what video card and what version of
Afterstep are you using? I've got Afterstep 1.7.90 and it only falls over
when Stars! is running via Wine.
I do experience a lot of Netscape crashes (I'm tempted to join the
'port IE5 to Linux' crowd, and that's scary), but it never takes down X.
I hope Netscape 5 is a major improvement. I'll definately be downloading
a beta as soon as it comes out.
> I was just
> trying linux out so when I was done I simply booted back into windows.
> I was getting a X crash at least once per session. That was with 2
> entirely different systems too.
Nasty. Have you tried the latest version of KDE? KDE 1.0 kept doing all
sorts of whacky things which did put me off it quite a bit. I really
should give it another go.
> Lots of people admit KDE and other
> WM's cause crashes, that's fine but don't claim linux is so stable and
> also say 'but with KDE it's just as easy as windows". Because
> linux+KDE isn't very stable.
Have you ever killed the kernel with KDE running?
> :Linux will change by and by, gradually supporting more hardware, more users
> :and get easier to handle applications. If anti-MS trust is needed to get
> :this done, then well, it has to be so.
>
> Maybe, but I don't now, and never really have had anything against
> linux itself. I think things can be improved a lot, I think sometimes
> are done in a stupid way but the big problem is with the users. If I
> see "M$" or "windoze" one more time I'm going to go nuts.
M$ is evil, Windoze sucks ;)
Steve Mading
: And that's a bad thing? Making computers easier to use for the masses?
: Most people don't work with computers all day at work like most of us
: here probably do. Easy to use, being able to use by sitting down and
: looking at it are good things not bad.
It depends on if they manage to preserve expert-friendliness in the
process or not. Microsoft's policy seems to me to be "increase
newbie-friendliness at the expense of expert-friendliness".
While the experts are only a minority of users, and the newbies are the
real point of having home computers exist in the first place, the experts
are just as important as the newbies. This is because without experts,
software doesn't get made. This, more than anything else, is what hurt
the Mac. In the early days, their attitude of "you evil experts are
the reason computers are so hard in the first place, we don't need you!"
alienated too many programmers.
hellraiser
perfectly for them? they end up loving it, spreading the word, becoming
addicted, etc. if linux works for you it can the best os out there.
windows usually installs fine (but very slowly) and works, but do users
become addicted to it and advocate it? what is there about windoze that
makes it so special?? nothing!! the reason you see linux users acting so
ferocious and obsessed is because linux is truely an awesome os that is
very addictive and gives you this blood-thirst i guess you could say...
what other os does that?? not windows... i guess windows is just too
plain and boring, or doesn't have something that linux does (well, alot
of things). there is certainy a reason behind linux and it's rabid
advocates. windoze doesn't have fans anywhere near what linux has.
linux is the only os that has ever has such fans, as far as i know.... i
don't ever hear anyone going "windows is SOOOO awesome!! install it!!" i
usually hear them complaining about another BSOD.
by the way, why do you keep on coming in here and starting these flame
wars? it's not like your actually going to convince any linux advocates
to stop using linux
Jeff Szarka
Winsper) wrote:
:On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:22:24 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
:> My biggest problem with linux was that you can get applications but
:> most of the time it requires getting Libthis or Lib that
:
:That can be a pain at times, but it does result in smaller tarballs/RPMs
:hence faster downloads.
Yea it is, but that's the problem of there being no one common distro.
If distro X offers this lib and distro Y doesn't you're screwed. You
end up finding and downloading that lib. (most of the time more then
one)
:
:> I also found KDE and afterstep to cause X to crash quite a bit.
:
:I've never been a fan of KDE itself, but it is doing good things. As for
:Afterstep, just out of interest, what video card and what version of
:Afterstep are you using? I've got Afterstep 1.7.90 and it only falls over
:when Stars! is running via Wine.
At the time I was using a Matrox Mill. 1. It was supported by X but
there was constant crashes. Mostly when switching between a console
widow and X.
:
:I do experience a lot of Netscape crashes (I'm tempted to join the
:'port IE5 to Linux' crowd, and that's scary), but it never takes down X.
:I hope Netscape 5 is a major improvement. I'll definately be downloading
:a beta as soon as it comes out.
That's one really annoying thing about lots of linux users, if you say
"ie5 is a better browser" (which it is) people instantly claim you are
stupid for using a "M$" browser. At least MS is innovating, IE5 has
features netscape doesn't. Quite a few of them, auto compete, search
bars, a radio bar, you can right click on text and do a search for it.
It crashed for me once under nt4 (because of bad video drivers, all
fixed though).
:
:> I was just
:> trying linux out so when I was done I simply booted back into windows.
:> I was getting a X crash at least once per session. That was with 2
:> entirely different systems too.
:
:Nasty. Have you tried the latest version of KDE? KDE 1.0 kept doing all
:sorts of whacky things which did put me off it quite a bit. I really
:should give it another go.
I haven't yet, I tried though. My banshee card doesn't have a X
server. I downloaded the source to one but when trying to compile it I
needed 4 (or maybe 3) different libs. I didn't have the time to find
them. Also I found out my sblive won't work under linux so it really
put me off to putting to much time into a lost cause.
:
:> Lots of people admit KDE and other
:> WM's cause crashes, that's fine but don't claim linux is so stable and
:> also say 'but with KDE it's just as easy as windows". Because
:> linux+KDE isn't very stable.
:
:Have you ever killed the kernel with KDE running?
Maybe..Once kde locked up and wouldn't let me switch to a console.
Maybe it was just KDE but I had to reboot. Plus an X crash is just as
bad when all the applications you are using are x based.
:
:> :Linux will change by and by, gradually supporting more hardware, more users
:> :and get easier to handle applications. If anti-MS trust is needed to get
:> :this done, then well, it has to be so.
:>
:> Maybe, but I don't now, and never really have had anything against
:> linux itself. I think things can be improved a lot, I think sometimes
:> are done in a stupid way but the big problem is with the users. If I
:> see "M$" or "windoze" one more time I'm going to go nuts.
:
:M$ is evil, Windoze sucks ;)
AHHHHHHHHHH
AHHHHH
AH
hellraiser
> Maybe it was just KDE but I had to reboot. Plus an X crash is just as
> bad when all the applications you are using are x based.
all the applications running being x based? uhh, no. what about the
processes that were ran before x was initialized? are they killed?
no! if windows freezes, you and all your processes are screwed
Lou Grinzo
mad...@baladi.nmrfam.wisc.edu says...
> Jeff Szarka (Trad...@concentric.net) wrote:
>
> : And that's a bad thing? Making computers easier to use for the masses?
> : Most people don't work with computers all day at work like most of us
> : here probably do. Easy to use, being able to use by sitting down and
> : looking at it are good things not bad.
>
> It depends on if they manage to preserve expert-friendliness in the
> process or not. Microsoft's policy seems to me to be "increase
> newbie-friendliness at the expense of expert-friendliness".
>
I think this is the key point that everyone involved with Linux has
to keep in mind. There are times when you can indeed make something
much easier without dumbing it down or taking away anything from the
experts (as in having an "Aunt Gertie" install mode that the experts
can turn off if they want to do things the old way). But it has to
be done carefully.
I was one of the people who complained bitterly when MS brought out
Win95 and Explorer didn't show the attributes for files a directory at
a time, as is now an option in Win98's Explorer. That was clearly a
case of dumbing down, IMO.
Lou
Craig Kelley
> : It is your lack of knowledge about the industry that
> : makes your sweeping misstatements embarrassing.
>
> hehehe.. at this moment at time there are over 40,000 simultaneous users on
> microsoft gaming zone.
To be fair, a "gaming zone" doesn't do much work. It just hooks people
together and then leaves them alone.
I would hardly call this "simultaneous users" -- How many webservers
does Microsoft have today? Like 96? I suppose that's *one*
definition of scalable. :p
[snip]
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- kell...@isu.edu
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger i...@inconnu.isu.edu for PGP block
Reality is a point of view
| My biggest problem with linux was that you can get applications but
+----
How is that different than .DLL this and conflicting .DLL that?
David M. Cook
>Honestly, I know a few times I might have used stronger words then
>needed but I think rabid fits a lot of linux advocates _very_ well.
Like who?
>I notice this on IRC
Oh, please.
>a lot news groups,
Which ones?
>and web pages.
Which ones? Are you referring to content created by the web page
maintainers or opinions on message boards?
>If it has the
>words linux on it in anyway most of the time there is some hateful
>statement towards MS,
Oh, my. Perhaps we should protect corporations in our hate crime laws.
Tell me, why do you care if people say "hateful" things about Microsoft? Do
you have MSFT stock? Do you identify with them somehow? I couldn't think
of anything sadder than identifying with a soulless corporation.
>:Another thing you fail to realize is that Joe Schmo voicing an opinion on
>:Usenet it is very different from Ed Muth making statements to the press.
>Yes but these days the walls between the press and information are
>always shifting. A group of advocates can do just as much harm as a
>press release.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
>It spans more then just c.o.l.a. Rabid linux advocates
>are everywhere, they pop up and get ready to start making "EVIL
>EMPIRE" jokes or start justifying why you should use linux too. It's
>_VERY_ annoying.
What's wrong with "justyfing why you should use linux, too"? Do you feel
invalidated by that? I'm sorry, but other people are not obligated to
validate your choices, and that appears to be what you want.
>:>-People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
>:
>:Not FUD.
>Sure, and when they stopped by staples to pick up quicken or Need for
It's not FUD, Jeff.
>And reduce the consumer's hardware choice?
Somewhat, yes. But if the number of companies preinstalling grows they'll
have the muscle to get OEMs to include Linux drivers (or at least release
specs).
>:>-Linux isn't hard to configure:
>:
>:Opinion, not FUD.
>It's FUD
It's not FUD, Jeff. FUD refers to creating fear, uncertainty or doubt about
a competitors product, not having an opinion of ones own, however inflated.
Dave Cook
David M. Cook
<fix.thi...@no.spam.ku-eichstaett.de> wrote:
>- TeX. I know, there are Linux implementations, which are very good. You
>just have to become a friend of postscript
You can also generate pdf and rtf.
Dave Cook
Rob S. Wolfram
>wouldn't be so popular.
Can you explain this? AFAIK Linux got its spin of Minix, not Microsoft
{windows,dos}. And I think the fact that it got this popular is directly
due to the Bazaar model that was effectively introduced by Linus.
I for one don't hate Microsoft, but I do hate their business tactics,
and of most other monopolies I know. Also Linux opened my eyes about
what I put up with during many years of using MS DOS and Windows 3.x
I know better now. YMMV.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <qwe...@hamal.xs4all.nl> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
"... being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more
than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer."
-- Eric S. Raymond
Rob S. Wolfram
>> >-You can make just as much money doing open source as you can closed
>> >source:
>> >Sure, I'll believe that when I see it.
>> You can. http://www.redhat.com
>You can????? Wow!!!! So when did RedHat shares outperform Microsoft shares???
>They didn't?!? Well, then something is wrong with stating that you can!!!
He was talking in general here, not specifically about a monopoly, let alone
Microsoft. I think *you* and *I* could make just as much money on free
software as we could on proprietary software.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <qwe...@hamal.xs4all.nl> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
`Anyone who says you can have a lot of widely dispersed people hack
away on a complicated piece of code and avoid total anarchy has never
managed a software project.' - Andy Tanenbaum in 1992 on comp.os.minix
Jeff Szarka
<hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
:what about all the people who install linux and it ends up working
Of course not, but those points were quite valid. linux FUD is just as
bad as MS fud. I don't like having linux crammed down my throat, I
don't like the way most linux advocates put down 'windoze" users. I
don't like how the media makes linux look like the best thing since
sliced bread. In the last 3 weeks i have done 5 windows reinstalls for
people who "thought linux was spose to be better then windows" Who
bought into the hype that linux was perfect for everyone and if you
think different you must be an GUI, MS loving idiot.
The empire strikes back? nahhh, more like a single person who gets
sick of seeing people blindly buy into hype trying to defuse it
somewhat. The more linux users realize linux is for X, Y but not the
best choice for A,B everyone would be better off.
Jeff Szarka
Mading) wrote:
:Jeff Szarka (Trad...@concentric.net) wrote:
:
:: And that's a bad thing? Making computers easier to use for the masses?
:: Most people don't work with computers all day at work like most of us
:: here probably do. Easy to use, being able to use by sitting down and
:: looking at it are good things not bad.
:
:It depends on if they manage to preserve expert-friendliness in the
:process or not. Microsoft's policy seems to me to be "increase
:newbie-friendliness at the expense of expert-friendliness".
:
:While the experts are only a minority of users, and the newbies are the
:real point of having home computers exist in the first place, the experts
:are just as important as the newbies. This is because without experts,
:software doesn't get made. This, more than anything else, is what hurt
:the Mac. In the early days, their attitude of "you evil experts are
:the reason computers are so hard in the first place, we don't need you!"
:alienated too many programmers.
Well it sounds like the linux postilion is 'you stupid new users, you
are what makes computer bad, we don't need you"
I would even say 75% of the linux advocacy I ever hear involves put
downs of windows users and people who like GUI's.
Jeff Szarka
<hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
:Jeff Szarka wrote:
:
:<snip>
:
:> Well what about the people who use windows based software? I do lots
:> of work for small business that use quickbooks and/or act. There isn't
:> even a linux program close to those is there?
:
:why should there be??
Linus himself has said he wants linux to be a desktop OS. That's a
very important thing for lots of users.
:<snip>
:
:> As long as I am part of that newly found 1% I may agree. Although lets
:> not but the compete idiots in a negative tone, There are lots of
:> people who just want to use it. No thinking, no configuring, just sit
:> down, look up a record for a customer, hit print and leave.
:
:got nothing against them (kindof)
:they can be annoying...
Yea they can, but I have to deal with them so often somehow I have
started looking out for them. I wish they wouldn't come to me and ask
"why does my computer do illegal things?" or "I downloaded a file but
I can't install it". It gets so very annoying, i'm amazed sometimes
that I'm able to deal with it.
:
:<snip>
:
:> Opps, I was talking about NT and the person replying was talking about
:> 9x. He's right about 9x thoug..sometimes it just crashes without
:> warning.
:
:yeah it does!! heh
Yes, that's the main thing we can agree on. 9x crashes at a rate that
would be embarrassing to a Apple II. I feel happy I've been running 9x
(old system) for 2 days without a single crash. Is that a record of
some kind?
:
:<snip>
:
:> Rats will do anything to get ahead, within the last few months linux
:> as officially started running in this race. Media/business has a way
:> of killing anything, no matter how well off it started.
:
:linux hasn't been doing it... it's those stupid big companies investing
:in linux that's getting linux involved. also, redhat is really pissing
:me off.
I respect your opinion on this. How much of the current MS Os
problems are to blame on big company's? Media hype can be a horrible
thing. 90% market share and trying to keep everyone happy can be a
horrible thing.
:like i said, i would rather linux take over the server market and stay
:as a small community of elite computer users, heh
I wish more linux advocates would take this position. Although looking
at comments from Linus himself and company's who make linux distro's
the key to making money is getting linux on the desktop. If it does
succeed expect it to be just as bad as MS software in 5-10 years. Look
at KDE already, it's crash prone where as other WM's (much less
pretty/easy to use ones) are very stable.
:<snip>
:
:> "Penguin in bondage" by Frank Zappa would be the perfect theme song to
:> linux..
:
:never heard it, but heard of the artist i think
:
:i would say 'rise' by pantera is the best song about linux (read the
:lyrics... linus would agree with them!)
http://info.wins.uva.nl/~heederik/zappa/albums/Roxy_And_Elsewhere/01.html
It even includes a great guitar solo, although the lyrics don't apply
very well to linux... except maybe:
"Just like the mighty Penguin
Flappin' her eight ounce wings
Lord, you know it's all over
If she comes atcha on the strut & wrap `em
all around yer head "
Although that would depend on your point of view...
hellraiser
>
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:21:35 -0400, hellraiser
> <hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
>
> :what about all the people who install linux and it ends up working
> :perfectly for them? they end up loving it, spreading the word, becoming
> :addicted, etc. if linux works for you it can the best os out there.
> :windows usually installs fine (but very slowly) and works, but do users
> :become addicted to it and advocate it? what is there about windoze that
> :makes it so special?? nothing!! the reason you see linux users acting so
> :ferocious and obsessed is because linux is truely an awesome os that is
> :very addictive and gives you this blood-thirst i guess you could say...
> :what other os does that?? not windows... i guess windows is just too
> :plain and boring, or doesn't have something that linux does (well, alot
> :of things). there is certainy a reason behind linux and it's rabid
> :advocates. windoze doesn't have fans anywhere near what linux has.
> :linux is the only os that has ever has such fans, as far as i know.... i
> :don't ever hear anyone going "windows is SOOOO awesome!! install it!!" i
> :usually hear them complaining about another BSOD.
> :
> :by the way, why do you keep on coming in here and starting these flame
> :wars? it's not like your actually going to convince any linux advocates
> :to stop using linux
>
> Of course not, but those points were quite valid. linux FUD is just as
> bad as MS fud. I don't like having linux crammed down my throat, I
> don't like the way most linux advocates put down 'windoze" users. I
well, if you'd stay out of linux newsgroups and not create stupid
threads like this, it wouldn't really be crammed down your throat as
much, would it?
> don't like how the media makes linux look like the best thing since
> sliced bread. In the last 3 weeks i have done 5 windows reinstalls for
quit whining to us about it... just don't use it. we help people who
couldn't get linux to work and want it to work, but not the ones that
come in saying that it didn't work and give lists of reasons as to why
we shouldn't be using it, etc. and why they hate linux
> people who "thought linux was spose to be better then windows" Who
> bought into the hype that linux was perfect for everyone and if you
> think different you must be an GUI, MS loving idiot.
>
> The empire strikes back? nahhh, more like a single person who gets
> sick of seeing people blindly buy into hype trying to defuse it
> somewhat. The more linux users realize linux is for X, Y but not the
> best choice for A,B everyone would be better off.
well, i guess linux isn't for you then! you don't have to use it... but
stop coming in here and complaining and giving reasons, lists etc about
linux and you won't be engaged in arguments such as this!! can't you
see that your threads accomplish absolutely nothing? you're not gonna
convince any linux advocates to not use linux.
Jeff Szarka
:Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
:
:> Well of course it depends on your background, but my point is most
:> people could not setup linux (maybe open linux they could) but setup
:> is just one part of it, configuring things is always needed.
:
:Most people will have a hard time setting-up/configuring
:Win95 as well. Besides, configuring Win9x doesn't get much
:easier as you learn. How many Win9x experts still advocate
:fdisk -> format -> reinstall everything -> more stable
:Win9x routine, whenever encountered with a problem?
9x yes, NT no. Most of these small business in my area I have setup
systems and software for, only when they really need to save money do
I install 9x. (even then I'd rather cut back somewhere else and go for
NT) Once I set them up and setup a basic account for them I rarely get
called back. If I do it's mostly because they want to upgrade either
software or hardware.
Using 9x for anything important is risky at best. May it die a quick
and painful death as soon as possible.
Jeff Szarka
Winsper) wrote:
:> :
:> :> -People would use linux if it was preinstalled:
:> :> Sure maybe but they are still going to want a rich selection of widely
:> :> available software and driver support for all their hardware.
:> :>
:> :> -Linux isn't hard to configure:
:> :> Yes...Yes it is.
:> :
:> :for some people it is, for others it isn't... it depends! linux is, for
:> :me, not hard to configure at all
:> Well of course it depends on your background, but my point is most
:> people could not setup linux (maybe open linux they could) but setup
:> is just one part of it, configuring things is always needed.
:
:If it was preinstalled people would not need to configure it. Many, many
:Windows users do not know how to configure Windows, they don't have to.
:Why doesn't anybody pay attention to that fact?
Yes but they do install software, they do install new devices, they do
need to know how to configure things. Linux setup it's very hard,
getting everything else to work is.
:
:> :well, 85% of the windows users are newbies or complete idiots
:> :
:>
:> You're joking I'm sure. Back that number up.
:
:Well, out of personal experience, only 5% of my friends/people I know who
:own computers cannot configure Windows. Hell, even my Clait teacher
:couldn't configure Windows.
He couldn't hit Start->Settings->Control Panel->Mouse to change his
pointer speed? god knows how to do this under linux..editing text
files I'm sure using vi or <insert text editor here>.
With windows he needs to know how to point and click, with linux he
needs to:
Know where whatever.conf is to edit it.
What line to edit
what the range of speeds are
:> :yeah... the truth is 98 crashes all the time, 95 crashes almost all the
:> :time and nt crashes half of the time. unix-based os's almost never
:> :crash. a crash on a unix-based os is usually due to operator failure...
:>
:> If nt crashes for you half the time you use it you should seriously
:> consider learning how to configure it properly. Lots of nt crashes are
:> due to video drivers. You wouldn't believe how many times people buy
:> cheap video cards and find out the drivers cause massive problems.
:
:A video card should not be able to bring the OS down full stop. When X
:dies on my machine, I do not lose my proxy server, sendmail or any other
:things like that. I lose Netscape, Wordperfect and Stars! (A game running
:on Wine) i.e. only apps which require X. The only thing I have which
:takes down X is Stars! funnily enough.
Yes but what if your everyday user doesn't have a proxy server, or
sendmail or an ftp server running? what if he just wants to run
wordperfect? Those X crashes are just as bad as a full system crash.
:> I predict linux has the same exact
:> impact os/2 did. It will scare MS, it will gain popularity in the
:> server market and maybe some in the desktop market.
:
:I doubt that. MS backed OS/2 until Windows 3 became a success. Then they
:screwed IBM. Linux is gaining momentum in spite of MS. Big difference,
:no?
I don't think so. Remember, if linux really does start scaring MS
(more so then now) they have LOTS of money to put into advertising for
Windows 98 SE or whatever they may want to pitch. Could redhat do
that? MS has a lot of influence, if they want to fight linux like they
fought os/2 they'd most likely win. IBM even tried to fight back and
still lost. Linux won't go away, but it may very well never reach
desktop users.
hellraiser
> pointer speed? god knows how to do this under linux..editing text
> files I'm sure using vi or <insert text editor here>.
xset m <integer>
hellraiser
> at comments from Linus himself and company's who make linux distro's
> the key to making money is getting linux on the desktop. If it does
> succeed expect it to be just as bad as MS software in 5-10 years. Look
> at KDE already, it's crash prone where as other WM's (much less
> pretty/easy to use ones) are very stable.
that's what's really upsetting me... people trying to make linux
user-friendly and giving it stuff like kde and gnome. i don't want
linux to be like that at all!! hell, i have fvwm2 and do almost all my
tasks on the command line. i think the linux shells are one of it's
most powerful features... these point-and-click desktop enviornments are
taking linux nowhere. they're trying to make a serious os primarily
built for doing complex server management into a desktop-ready os ready
for the average user. i can't stand it.
Martin Ozolins
David M. Cook wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:12:52 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net>
wrote:
>
>>Honestly, I know a few times I might have used stronger words then
>>needed but I think rabid fits a lot of linux advocates _very_ well.
>
>Like who?
>
Ed Thorne, Derek Currie, Joe Ragosta - MAC
Infinity Rising - OS/2
Steven Edwards, Myself - Windows
>
Plus others
>>:
>
>>Sure, and when they stopped by staples to pick up quicken or Need for
>
>It's not FUD, Jeff.
>
>>And reduce the consumer's hardware choice?
>
>Somewhat, yes. But if the number of companies preinstalling grows they'll
>have the muscle to get OEMs to include Linux drivers (or at least release
>specs).
>
>>:
Martin Ozolins
David M. Cook wrote in message ...
><Martin....@cwusa.com> wrote:
>
>>Jedi, Chris Smith - LINUX
>
>
Rabid. If you disagree with him, or ask him to support his position. BTW
also fun to bait(;-)
>Dave Cook
¿-Infinity Rising-?
> I think this is the key point that everyone involved with Linux has
> to keep in mind. There are times when you can indeed make something
> much easier without dumbing it down or taking away anything from the
> experts (as in having an "Aunt Gertie" install mode that the experts
> can turn off if they want to do things the old way). But it has to
> be done carefully.
Aye.
> I was one of the people who complained bitterly when MS brought out
> Win95 and Explorer didn't show the attributes for files a directory at
> a time, as is now an option in Win98's Explorer. That was clearly a
> case of dumbing down, IMO.
>
> Lou
Very patronising, yes. There is a lot of file-related things about Win95 (and
probably 98 and definitely NT) which I can't stand. Hiding the file extension
is probably the worst one...
--
This message is for entertainment value only. It has not been tested or
approved by the
FDA, nor has it clinically been tested for safe use.
All characters portrayed in this message are fictional. Any actual characters
or events
which parallel this post are coincidental and should be treated as such.
http://www.geocities.com/~timanov --> New and improved, with only 68 percent
recycled material!
Matthias Warkus
..and Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
> On 22 Apr 1999 17:08:35 GMT, darren....@easynet.co.uk (Darren
> Winsper) wrote:
>
> :On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:22:24 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
> :> My biggest problem with linux was that you can get applications but
> :> most of the time it requires getting Libthis or Lib that
> :That can be a pain at times, but it does result in smaller tarballs/RPMs
> :hence faster downloads.
>
> Yea it is, but that's the problem of there being no one common distro.
> If distro X offers this lib and distro Y doesn't you're screwed. You
> end up finding and downloading that lib. (most of the time more then
> one)
Yes. If you want to diddle with Linux and bang on the distribution,
expect to make heavy use of your Net connection. It's normal. Do you
expect all those fine enthusiasts working at free software projects
shipping you service pack CDs?
There are three main possibilities:
- Stick to what ships with your distribution.
- Diddle with it and download stuff in order to do so.
- (Corporate users) Let your admin build and install packages for the
whole shop.
> :> I also found KDE and afterstep to cause X to crash quite a bit.
> :
> :I've never been a fan of KDE itself, but it is doing good things. As for
> :Afterstep, just out of interest, what video card and what version of
> :Afterstep are you using? I've got Afterstep 1.7.90 and it only falls over
> :when Stars! is running via Wine.
>
> At the time I was using a Matrox Mill. 1. It was supported by X but
> there was constant crashes. Mostly when switching between a console
> widow and X.
Probably it only looked like a crash to you.
> :I do experience a lot of Netscape crashes (I'm tempted to join the
> :'port IE5 to Linux' crowd, and that's scary), but it never takes down X.
> :I hope Netscape 5 is a major improvement. I'll definately be downloading
> :a beta as soon as it comes out.
>
> That's one really annoying thing about lots of linux users, if you say
> "ie5 is a better browser" (which it is) people instantly claim you are
> stupid for using a "M$" browser. At least MS is innovating,
Blech, MS don't innovate much, and they invent even less.
> IE5 has
> features netscape doesn't. Quite a few of them, auto compete,
Auto compete? Yes, they automatically install it with Win98, thus
eliminating potential competition. Right.
> search
> bars, a radio bar, you can right click on text and do a search for it.
> It crashed for me once under nt4 (because of bad video drivers, all
> fixed though).
Well, let's state it this way: however innovative it is, I simply
don't like it. Subjective. Not just because it's MS shovelware, but
because the general feel of Netscape is better IMAO.
[schnibble]
> :> Lots of people admit KDE and other
> :> WM's cause crashes, that's fine but don't claim linux is so stable and
> :> also say 'but with KDE it's just as easy as windows". Because
> :> linux+KDE isn't very stable.
> :
> :Have you ever killed the kernel with KDE running?
>
> Maybe..Once kde locked up and wouldn't let me switch to a console.
> Maybe it was just KDE but I had to reboot. Plus an X crash is just as
> bad when all the applications you are using are x based.
It wasn't KDE crashing; how could KDE possibly "crash" your system in
a way as to lock it up? It probably was an X lock-up.
mawa
--
- Guten Tag, mein Name ist Greiser, von der Hamburg-Alzheimer. Ich
wollte Ihnen etwas verkaufen... hm...
- Eine Lebensversicherung?
- Richtig, eine Lebensversicherung. Welcher Tag ist heute eigentlich?
Reality is a point of view
| that's what's really upsetting me... people trying to make linux
| user-friendly and giving it stuff like kde and gnome. i don't want
When you build kernels do you edit .config by hand? Or maybe
build each file by hand, skipping the make file completely?
Use toggle switches to enter the kernel, byte by byte, on every
boot?
Arguing for stopping ease and automation at any level isn't
very bright. Don't worry, with source you can always get under
the hood.
David M. Cook
>Of course not, but those points were quite valid.
The majority of your points had nothing to do with FUD.
>linux FUD is just as bad as MS fud.
Linux is not a multi-billion dollar corporation with 90% of the PC OS
market.
>I don't like having linux crammed down my throat, I
Again, who is cramming Linux down your throat?
>don't like the way most linux advocates put down 'windoze" users. I
>don't like how the media makes linux look like the best thing since
>sliced bread.
But you don't have a problem with the media having it's nose up MS's bum?
Dave Cook
David M. Cook
>Linus himself has said he wants linux to be a desktop OS.
I agree with Linus, but there's no reason for anyone else needs to. He's an
authority on the kernel, not on user-space issues.
Dave Cook
Grant Fischer
><hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
>
>:like i said, i would rather linux take over the server market and stay
>:as a small community of elite computer users, heh
>
>at comments from Linus himself and company's who make linux distro's
>the key to making money is getting linux on the desktop. If it does
>succeed expect it to be just as bad as MS software in 5-10 years. Look
>at KDE already, it's crash prone where as other WM's (much less
>pretty/easy to use ones) are very stable.
Why would I expect that? That ignores Linux's history.
The server side is maturing nicely, and provides excellent continuity
into larger UNIX systems -- if your application grows out of Linux's
current capabilities, there are options.
However, if I had heeded the advice of Windows advocates years ago,
I'd never have believed it possible that Linux would get this far.
UNIX was going the way of the dodo, it seemed to them.
The desktop has made large strides. There's much potential in the
KDE & GNOME efforts to bring the desktop to ordinary users; although
the releases may have bugs, the OS foundation and layered architecture
seems sound. I would expect the stable releases to generally improve
the bug situation, rather than bog down into a hopeless quagmire.
However, this is just my own opinion...
--
Grant Fischer (gfischer at hub.org)
David M. Cook
<Martin....@cwusa.com> wrote:
>Jedi, Chris Smith - LINUX
Christopher Smith is an NT guy. Is Jedi rabid or just persistent?
Dave Cook
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:12:52 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
:
:>Honestly, I know a few times I might have used stronger words then
:>needed but I think rabid fits a lot of linux advocates _very_ well.
:
:Like who?
It's everywhere, you haven't noticed the "M$" or "windoze" or
"Microshaft" and so on comments? It's quite immature, OS choice is
not a religion. If I choose to use Nt then I shouldn't have linux
users instantly making comments about how I must love "M$" software.
And how I must love pretty little interfaces more then a real OS. As
you can guess, this gets annoying VERY quickly.
:>I notice this on IRC
:
:Oh, please.
Please what? IRC, people I work with, people I talk to at computer
shows.
:
:>a lot news groups,
:
:Which ones?
Most (if not all) linux groups have Ms conspiracy theory's. I hardly
count this group since it's purpose is to talk about linux as compared
to other operating systems.
:
:>and web pages.
:
:Which ones? Are you referring to content created by the web page
:maintainers or opinions on message boards?
Both, check out slashdot's message boards.. Those are rabid linux
users in the truest sense. Check out the one about the new MS mouse.
Check out any story about MS. The whole Bill Gates as a borg thing is
pretty immature too. I could go on for quite a while....
:
:>If it has the
:>words linux on it in anyway most of the time there is some hateful
:>statement towards MS,
:
:Oh, my. Perhaps we should protect corporations in our hate crime laws.
:
:Tell me, why do you care if people say "hateful" things about Microsoft? Do
:you have MSFT stock? Do you identify with them somehow? I couldn't think
:of anything sadder than identifying with a soulless corporation.
I don't identify with MS. I use their software. I just think it's
immature for people to act like MS is the cause of all evil in the
world. If people made fun of Linus like that I would feel the same
way. There is a fine line between harmless joking and serious
dilutions of conspiracy. I don't now, nor have I ever, owned stock in
MS.
I think linux can become more then an OS you stick in a back office as
a file server. It's clear though rabid linux users will make this
quite hard. People will get scared away by the fact they can't ask a
question with out someone telling them to read the fucking manual or
be called stupid for deciding linux isn't right for them. You must see
these kinds of posts to... like the 'why i am switching back to 98'
and a bunch of rabid linux advocates attacking the person assuming he
was to dumb to set things up.
It happens more then you might think, I should start taking notes of
my rabid linux advocate encounters. They may surprise you...
:
:>:Another thing you fail to realize is that Joe Schmo voicing an opinion on
Jeff Szarka
is a point of view) wrote:
: +---- Trad...@concentric.net wrote (Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:22:24 GMT):
: | My biggest problem with linux was that you can get applications but
: | most of the time it requires getting Libthis or Lib that and then
: +----
:
:How is that different than .DLL this and conflicting .DLL that?
None that I can tell. Although I don't have the DLL problems that much
with windows. Most of the time they have the common sense to include
what you're going to need. Except for vb*.dll are sometimes not
included, which is just as annoying as finding whatever lib you might
need. If linux is going to become a desktop OS this has to be taken
care of. If you own a computer, at some point you will install
software. Doing this can not include:
Compiling
Using a CL
Downloading various libs
Downloading the whole damn thing, star office is what? 50 megs?
Making your own start menu/WM shortcuts
Reality is a point of view
| On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:06:26 GMT, gjoh...@dream.season.com (Reality
| is a point of view) wrote:
| : +---- Trad...@concentric.net wrote (Thu, 22 Apr 1999 08:22:24 GMT):
| : | My biggest problem with linux was that you can get applications but
| : | most of the time it requires getting Libthis or Lib that and then
| : +----
| :
| :How is that different than .DLL this and conflicting .DLL that?
|
| None that I can tell.
And yet it hasn't stopped Microsoft Windows. I'd say your
assessment of the severity of this prolem is overstated, and
only serves your (flawed) rhetorical purpose. It would be nice
if it weren't a problem, but it isn't a show stopper.
David M. Cook
>It's everywhere, you haven't noticed the "M$" or "windoze" or
>"Microshaft" and so on comments?
That it is "everywhere" should tell you something about how people feel
about Microsoft. If you don't like these sorts of comments, I suggest
avoiding the newsgroups where people make them.
>Both, check out slashdot's message boards.. Those are rabid linux
>users in the truest sense.
I don't take the slashdot forums very seriously. If you don't like them, I
suggest not reading them.
Dave Cook
Jeff Szarka
<hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
:Jeff Szarka wrote:
:>
:> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 14:21:35 -0400, hellraiser
:> <hellr...@linuxfreak.com> wrote:
:>
:> :what about all the people who install linux and it ends up working
:> :perfectly for them? they end up loving it, spreading the word, becoming
:> :addicted, etc. if linux works for you it can the best os out there.
:> :windows usually installs fine (but very slowly) and works, but do users
:> :become addicted to it and advocate it? what is there about windoze that
:> :makes it so special?? nothing!! the reason you see linux users acting so
:> :ferocious and obsessed is because linux is truely an awesome os that is
:> :very addictive and gives you this blood-thirst i guess you could say...
:> :what other os does that?? not windows... i guess windows is just too
:> :plain and boring, or doesn't have something that linux does (well, alot
:> :of things). there is certainy a reason behind linux and it's rabid
:> :advocates. windoze doesn't have fans anywhere near what linux has.
:> :linux is the only os that has ever has such fans, as far as i know.... i
:> :don't ever hear anyone going "windows is SOOOO awesome!! install it!!" i
:> :usually hear them complaining about another BSOD.
:> :
:> :by the way, why do you keep on coming in here and starting these flame
:> :wars? it's not like your actually going to convince any linux advocates
:> :to stop using linux
:>
:> Of course not, but those points were quite valid. linux FUD is just as
:> bad as MS fud. I don't like having linux crammed down my throat, I
:> don't like the way most linux advocates put down 'windoze" users. I
:
:well, if you'd stay out of linux newsgroups and not create stupid
:threads like this, it wouldn't really be crammed down your throat as
:much, would it?
It's everywhere you might find a linux user, I've just happened to
become interested in why anyone would promote something so strongly.
It really makes no difference to me, I do think there is a place for
linux, I just wish it would stay there instead of trying to invade the
desktop where it doesn't belong.
:> don't like how the media makes linux look like the best thing since
:> sliced bread. In the last 3 weeks i have done 5 windows reinstalls for
:
:quit whining to us about it... just don't use it. we help people who
:couldn't get linux to work and want it to work, but not the ones that
:come in saying that it didn't work and give lists of reasons as to why
:we shouldn't be using it, etc. and why they hate linux
Who's whining? I'm pointing out the truth as it applies to me. I could
very easily get linux installed within a hour or less. i'm no expert
but I can find my way around quite well.
:> people who "thought linux was spose to be better then windows" Who
:> bought into the hype that linux was perfect for everyone and if you
:> think different you must be an GUI, MS loving idiot.
:>
:> The empire strikes back? nahhh, more like a single person who gets
:> sick of seeing people blindly buy into hype trying to defuse it
:> somewhat. The more linux users realize linux is for X, Y but not the
:> best choice for A,B everyone would be better off.
:
:well, i guess linux isn't for you then! you don't have to use it... but
:stop coming in here and complaining and giving reasons, lists etc about
:linux and you won't be engaged in arguments such as this!! can't you
:see that your threads accomplish absolutely nothing? you're not gonna
:convince any linux advocates to not use linux.
I have no problem with the argument, that's the point to a group such
as this one. Seeing the valid flaws of linux is important though. You
sometimes wonder if people even realize they are there. linux
interests me, so I follow it. i visit linux news sites and newsgroups
quite a bit. If/when the day comes linux is a better choice for me I'd
use it. I want to be aware of that day when it happens. As of right
now, it doesn't suite my needs. Advocacy groups are by far the best
place to go to find out what users of an OS think. You can get first
hand experiences of why linux is better in certain situations. As far
as I can tell I use this news group for the exact purpose it was
created.
the_...@my-dejanews.com
qwe...@hamal.xs4all.nl wrote:
> Michael B. Trausch <mtra...@wcnet.org> wrote:
> > They're not to be hated-- if it weren't for Microosft, Linux
> >wouldn't be so popular.
>
> Can you explain this? AFAIK Linux got its spin of Minix, not Microsoft
> {windows,dos}. And I think the fact that it got this popular is directly
> due to the Bazaar model that was effectively introduced by Linus.
>
Yup! But the story has a higher level. Please read my posting 'Microsoft is
Divine intervention' in this group (comp.os.linux.advocacy).
> I for one don't hate Microsoft, but I do hate their business tactics,
> and of most other monopolies I know. Also Linux opened my eyes about
> what I put up with during many years of using MS DOS and Windows 3.x
> I know better now. YMMV.
>
That's my story, too.... Amen, brother, Amen!
> Cheers,
> Rob
> --
> Rob S. Wolfram <qwe...@hamal.xs4all.nl> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
> "... being able to break security doesn't make you a hacker any more
> than being able to hotwire cars makes you an automotive engineer."
> -- Eric S. Raymond
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Reality is a point of view
| It really makes no difference to me, I do think there is a place for
| linux, I just wish it would stay there instead of trying to invade the
| desktop where it doesn't belong.
Get ready to be disappointed.
| quite a bit. If/when the day comes linux is a better choice for me I'd
| use it. I want to be aware of that day when it happens. As of right
+----
Hmmm, maybe it's a forked tongue thing.
How can something not belong somewhere, yet you actively watch
for its arrival? Isn't that a little FUDdy of you? Certainly
there are flaws that need to be addressed. But saying it
doesn't belong is a little rabid, isn't it? There are a number
of people doing desktopish things, some have for years.
Microsoft platforms lagged behind Mac's in usability, for
years, does that mean they don't belong on the desktop either?
Just because stability and server capabilities are already
available doesn't mean the party stops there. Just as
stability or net awareness weren't Microsoft or Apple strong
points in the past doesn't mean they couldn't be in the future.
And workstations rarely have attractive price points for most
uses. Does that mean they aren't welcome either?
Of all likely to have it all it's becoming obvious which is
likely to . . .
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 22:42:50 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
:
:>Of course not, but those points were quite valid.
:
:The majority of your points had nothing to do with FUD.
I think they did, as did others. To me they are more P.H-T.W-T
(promise, half truths and wishful thinking) but FUD works just as
well.
:>linux FUD is just as bad as MS fud.
:
:Linux is not a multi-billion dollar corporation with 90% of the PC OS
:market.
I'm aware of that. Linux users and linux media (web sites and so on)
can spread FUD just as easily as one person/company.
:>I don't like having linux crammed down my throat, I
:
:Again, who is cramming Linux down your throat?
I've explained this a lot of times in other posts, I'll save some bulk
by referring you to them..
:>don't like the way most linux advocates put down 'windoze" users. I
:>don't like how the media makes linux look like the best thing since
:>sliced bread.
:
:But you don't have a problem with the media having it's nose up MS's bum?
Yes I do, but I don't see it happen that often. I don't read print
magazines that much anymore, I get most reviews and such from friends
or by seeing demo's of the programs. I've stopped relying on the media
for anything.
Jeff Szarka
wrote:
:On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 23:07:24 GMT, Jeff Szarka <Trad...@concentric.net> wrote:
:
:>Linus himself has said he wants linux to be a desktop OS.
:
:I agree with Linus, but there's no reason for anyone else needs to. He's an
:authority on the kernel, not on user-space issues.
:
:Dave Cook
Linux users seem to be spilt though over weather to keep linux a
server only type OS or get it on the desktop. Redhat and suse and
corel have a big reason for wanting it on the desktop (software
sales). I am going to get the new version of open linux pretty soon
to try out. I know it might not seem that way sometimes but I really
do like linux, why else would I keep coming back?