 |
BorlandTalk.com
Borland discussion newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rodolfo Frino
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 11:44 pm Post subject: Why Run Linux? |
 |
|
"Much of the success of Linux is due not only to its outstanding
performance, but also by the fact that it is a non-commercial,
non-proprietary, open source product. Much like the Internet, Linux brings
with it a freedom and openness that has not been seen in the computer
industry in many years. No longer are large, domineering companies like
Microsoft dictating what users can and cannot do with their computers. No
longer are computer users being treated as pawns in Microsoft's unethical
(and illegal) practices of predatory capitalism. No longer are computer
users the slaves of greed, aggregate wealth, or the whims of a single,
domineering software company whose only concern is the "bottom line". With
Linux, there is no "bottom line". Instead, success is measured by
performance and design excellence."
The full article can be found here:
http://www.qsl.net/kd2bd/linux.html
Rodolfo
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ed Mulroy [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:22 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
Oh yes, with Linux you no longer have to put up with an installation that
supports your hardware nor with the ability to merely click for an automatic
update of the OS.
If the manufacturer of your Linux distribution didn't make your machine's
video hardware what his configuration installs you will learn the enjoyment
of looking throught many MAN files, all of which can be found on the web (oh
my, the machine isn't running yet because of that, so you can't get to the
web - better find a friend or go pay to use the Windows based computer at
Kinko's). After finding out that your video board is number 32511 you can
then enjoy the satisfaction of locating in another MAN file where to put
that number to cause it to work.
So it then runs and shows the desktop. The desktop is of course not part of
Linux but rather one of several different mimics of the Windows desktop and
most of them actually come close to providing much of what the Windows
desktop provides, but of course with some quirks.
Of course most Linux distributions come with a browser that almost does what
you want and I have been told on good authority that somewhere in there is a
news reader that has most of the functionality Windows users are used to.
That doesn't matter if you use dialup access for the Internet because it
doesn't support most machine's modems, but they Linux community will give
you a good technical explanation of why winmodems can't be supported so you
should just accept it and be happy about that.
Linux as a server OS -excellent.
Linux as a desktop OS - someday.
.. Ed
| Quote: | Rodolfo Frino wrote in message
news:3f84a140 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com...
"Much of the success of Linux is due not only to its outstanding
performance, but also by the fact that it is a non-commercial,
non-proprietary, open source product. Much like the Internet, Linux brings
with it a freedom and openness that has not been seen in the computer
industry in many years. No longer are large, domineering companies like
Microsoft dictating what users can and cannot do with their computers. No
longer are computer users being treated as pawns in Microsoft's unethical
(and illegal) practices of predatory capitalism. No longer are computer
users the slaves of greed, aggregate wealth, or the whims of a single,
domineering software company whose only concern is the "bottom line". With
Linux, there is no "bottom line". Instead, success is measured by
performance and design excellence."
The full article can be found here:
http://www.qsl.net/kd2bd/linux.html
Rodolfo
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oscar Fuentes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:07 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> writes:
[snip]
| Quote: | Of course most Linux distributions come with a browser that almost does what
you want and I have been told on good authority that somewhere in there is a
news reader that has most of the functionality Windows users are
used to.
|
What? Is there a Linux news reader that acts as the best alley for
malware authorts? That's just the feature I was missing on Linux!
| Quote: | That doesn't matter if you use dialup access for the Internet because it
doesn't support most machine's modems, but they Linux community will give
you a good technical explanation of why winmodems can't be supported so you
should just accept it and be happy about that.
|
Linux doesn't support WinModems because hardware vendors keeps secret
the details needed for developing drivers.
| Quote: | Linux as a server OS -excellent.
Linux as a desktop OS - someday.
|
Yea, Linux is not a replacement for the typical Windows user. I'm
afraid that it will never be. That's what happens when you let
programmers run free: on a selfish way, they tend to create things for
themselves...
BTW, I think that there are Linux distributions that automatically
updates installed components.
--
Oscar
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Mulroy [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 2:44 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
| Quote: | What? Is there a Linux news reader that acts
as the best alley for malware authorts? That's
just the feature I was missing on Linux!
|
I had trouble finding a newsreader under Linux. I figured that I'd have to
suffer through Netscape Communicator but I couldn't even find that -
probably my fault.
| Quote: | Linux doesn't support WinModems because
hardware vendors keeps secret the details
needed for developing drivers.
|
Beautiful details to know, but after learning that, the modem still doesn't
work.
| Quote: | BTW, I think that there are Linux distributions that
automatically updates installed components.
|
That's great news. Do you remember which one?
Interesting though that Linux does not automatically do that. In fact it
doesn't even have other than a command line interface. That's why the GUI
and the bulk of what users lured from Windows in the hopes that Linux is a
good desktop OS are add-ons which vary among distributions, meaning that
there is not a Linux. There are many, some of which do this, and some of
which do that, and some of which do almost none of the above - no
standardization, one more reason Linux has to grow a bit more before it's a
desktop OS.
| Quote: | Yea, Linux is not a replacement for the typical Windows user. I'm
afraid that it will never be. That's what happens when you let
programmers run free: on a selfish way, they tend to create things for
themselves...
|
My reply was to a message touting Linux and posting a link to a rabidly
anti-Windows pro-Linux site whose tone is more commonly found in the
diatribes of politicians on the eve of an election they are about to loose.
I am a programmer. I don't want a jackleg OS that I must mess around with
to make it work. I want to install it and it works. I may like modifying
or customizing it later, but the base installation should have what I need
without problems and without having to purchase other hardware. Basic modem
communications are missing in Linux.
It is ironic that the GUI's seem to be mostly a ripoff of Windows - the
Linux crowd constantly disses Windows yet copies it. In fact there are many
MS ripoffs shipped with what I tried. For instance, Open Office (which BTW
has a long way to go to replace MS Word - I didn't try the spread sheet so
can't speak about it).
This message is posted from a machine running XP Pro mostly because the
Linux distributions I have, Knoppix (a Debian variant) and Mandrake, do not
support the modem. It is of little help to know this is because nobody has
taken the time to code up a dsp module. Rail against Microsoft all you
want, but what they shipped did the job and Linux didn't. Linux as a
desktop OS still has a way to go.
.. Ed
| Quote: | Oscar Fuentes wrote in message
news:7k3fi5g0.fsf (AT) wanadoo (DOT) es...
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:02 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> writes:
| Quote: | Oh yes, with Linux you no longer have to put up with an installation that
supports your hardware nor with the ability to merely click for an automatic
update of the OS.
|
Exactly right.
[snip]
| Quote: | Of course most Linux distributions come with a browser that almost does what
you want
|
You've never used Mozilla? It does everything I want.
| Quote: | and I have been told on good authority that somewhere in there is a
news reader that has most of the functionality Windows users are
used to.
|
Correct. The only functionality lacking on linux that is widely
available on windows is the virus-friend bugs in the software.
--
Chris (TeamB);
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
Oscar Fuentes <ofv (AT) wanadoo (DOT) es> writes:
| Quote: | BTW, I think that there are Linux distributions that automatically
updates installed components.
|
And RedHat's up2date feature is really easy. Click to start, then
select some (or all) of the patches to install, click ok and sit back
and it takes care of it all.
apt-get is really, really good too.
--
Chris (TeamB);
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oscar Fuentes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:22 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> writes:
[snip]
| Quote: | Linux doesn't support WinModems because
hardware vendors keeps secret the details
needed for developing drivers.
Beautiful details to know, but after learning that, the modem still doesn't
work.
|
How could anybody code a driver when the details about the device are
keep secret by the vendor? Even if you reverse engineer it, the vendor
will sue you.
| Quote: | BTW, I think that there are Linux distributions that
automatically updates installed components.
That's great news. Do you remember which one?
|
Mandrake and RedHat.
| Quote: | Interesting though that Linux does not automatically do that.
|
From where should it download the updates?
| Quote: | In fact it doesn't even have other than a command line interface.
That's why the GUI and the bulk of what users lured from Windows in
the hopes that Linux is a good desktop OS are add-ons which vary
among distributions, meaning that there is not a Linux. There are
many, some of which do this, and some of which do that, and some of
which do almost none of the above - no standardization, one more
reason Linux has to grow a bit more before it's a desktop OS.
|
'Standardization' is a very convenient thing for those of us who
create, distribute and support software, but it means restrictions of
choice for the users. Obviously, the average computer user doesn't
notice that restrictions, as he would never think that things could be
done differently. But power users do. Linux is for power users and
geeks.
[snip]
| Quote: | I am a programmer. I don't want a jackleg OS that I must mess around with
to make it work. I want to install it and it works.
|
Yea, please name the OS that does that <g>
| Quote: | I may like modifying or customizing it later,
|
Windows is *extremely* restrictive wrt customization. While it allows
you to easily customize some things, with Linux you can customize
almost anything. The problem is that it is not so simple as
Windows.
Let's not talk about modifications. I can hardly think about Windows
as a 'modifiable' piece of software at all.
| Quote: | but the base installation should have what I need without problems
and without having to purchase other hardware. Basic modem
communications are missing in Linux.
|
A winmodem is not a modem and you know that. Linux works fine with
real modems.
| Quote: | It is ironic that the GUI's seem to be mostly a ripoff of Windows - the
Linux crowd constantly disses Windows yet copies it.
|
That sounds similat to what the Mac folks says: the Windows interface
is a ripoff of the Mac.
Some developers tries to attract the masses to Linux by producing
something that makes people say "Gee, is like Windoze! is gratis! I
want one!". But the reality is that the window managers lots of Linux
people use is anything but Windows-like.
| Quote: | In fact there are many MS ripoffs shipped with what I tried. For
instance, Open Office (which BTW has a long way to go to replace MS
Word - I didn't try the spread sheet so can't speak about it).
|
If you consider OpenOffice a ripoff of MSOffice, what was Wordperfect?
Or is the other way around? Was MSWord a ripoff of WP? I think that
the market agreed on the "one right way" of doing word processing and
spreadsheets and everybody ships that.
| Quote: | This message is posted from a machine running XP Pro mostly because the
Linux distributions I have, Knoppix (a Debian variant) and Mandrake, do not
support the modem. It is of little help to know this is because nobody has
taken the time to code up a dsp module.
|
Nobody, except the vendor, *is* *allowed* to make the driver.
| Quote: | Rail against Microsoft all you want, but what they shipped did the
job and Linux didn't.
|
Microsoft did nothing. It was the modem vendor.
| Quote: | Linux as a desktop OS still has a way to go.
|
I say again that I agree with you here.
--
Oscar
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edward Diener
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:24 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
| Quote: | "Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> writes:
Oh yes, with Linux you no longer have to put up with an installation
that supports your hardware nor with the ability to merely click for
an automatic update of the OS.
Exactly right.
[snip]
Of course most Linux distributions come with a browser that almost
does what you want
You've never used Mozilla? It does everything I want.
|
It is good now but the process by which it became decent was nasty in the
extreme.
| Quote: |
and I have been told on good authority that somewhere in there is a
news reader that has most of the functionality Windows users are
used to.
Correct. The only functionality lacking on linux that is widely
available on windows is the virus-friend bugs in the software.
|
I can't run Linux then. If there are no viruses and no Svens attacking my
system, my computer feels too lonely to want to go on. I will have to stick
with Windows until Linux lets lots of viruses through.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dennis Landi
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:25 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
"Oscar Fuentes" <ofv (AT) wanadoo (DOT) es> wrote
| Quote: | That's great news. Do you remember which one?
Mandrake and RedHat.
|
and SuSe 8.2...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dennis Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:24 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
"Edward Diener" <eddielee (AT) tropicsoft (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> writes:
I can't run Linux then. If there are no viruses and no Svens attacking my
system, my computer feels too lonely to want to go on. I will have to
stick
with Windows until Linux lets lots of viruses through.
|
The reason viruses don't plague Linux isn't because it is such a great OS
that it doesn't let them through. Viruses don't plague Linux simply because
virus writers don't target Linux. And even if they did, how much could they
gloat about their viruses if almost nobody (because almost nobody uses
Linux) was infected by it?
- Dennis
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Mulroy [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 4:51 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
| Quote: | I am a programmer. I don't want a jackleg OS
that I must mess around with to make it work.
I want to install it and it works.
Yea, please name the OS that does that
|
DOS 1.1 through 7, Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups, Windows 95, Windows
98, Windows 98SE, Windows XP Pro
| Quote: | A winmodem is not a modem and you know that.
Linux works fine with real modems.
|
I have designed modems for a living, both the hardware and the software and
I can assure you that a winmodem is a modem. The software accompanying a
winmodem is for higher speed and protocol but the hardware is still a modem.
As for "Linux works fine with real modems", when I last looked it was
incapable of handling several US Robotics models whose operating
characteristics as viewed by the OS, other than communication speed have
been essentially unchanged since 1986 so have been around long enough that
even Linux folks should have noticed them. No, I don't remember the model
numbers.
| Quote: | How could anybody code a driver when the details
about the device are keep secret by the vendor? Even
if you reverse engineer it, the vendor will sue you.
|
It doesn't matter why. If Linux doesn't support normal PC hardware then it
is not an OS for normal PC hardware. It isn't a desktop OS.
As for reverse engineering, the GUI is reverse engineered, Open Office is
commonly bundled in and it is reverse engineered, communications code is
reverse engineered and I feel confident that a lot of other things in it are
reverse engineered.
| Quote: | ...Linux is for power users and geeks....
|
As I said, not a desktop OS. An erector set with often hidden directions
and pieces missing.
How can you argue with me when you say the same thing in different words in
the same message where you argue?
| Quote: | It is ironic that the GUI's seem to be mostly a ripoff
of Windows - the Linux crowd constantly disses Windows
yet copies it.
That sounds similat to what the Mac folks says: the
Windows interface is a ripoff of the Mac.
|
The Mac folks went to court about that and lost. The interface came from
Xerox PARC and Apple, HP and Microsoft all are licensed for it. Apple tried
to claim MS overlapped windows and Xerox did not, however Xerox' code did,
it was just that their demo system did not (and back when OS/2 was very new
and Windows was still a text mode file manager style program running in DOS
the windows overlapped, prior art to the Mac, easily invalidating any of
Apple's claims had they in fact claimed overlapping windows in a patent
which news reports said they did not claim).
| Quote: | If you consider OpenOffice a ripoff of MSOffice, what was
Wordperfect? Or is the other way around? Was MSWord a
ripoff of WP? I think that the market agreed on the "one
right way" of doing word processing and spreadsheets and
everybody ships that.
|
It is not that Open Office is said to be capable of importing and/or
exporting in MS Word format such as WordPerfect claimed. Open Office is
touted as working natively with MS Word formats as an MS Word equivalent and
replacement.
| Quote: | support the modem. It is of little help to know
this is because nobody has taken the time to
code up a dsp module.
Nobody, except the vendor, *is* *allowed* to make the driver.
|
I don't know the laws in all countries so enlighten me, in what country is
this true?
.. Ed
| Quote: | Oscar Fuentes wrote in message
news:y8vvgknj.fsf (AT) wanadoo (DOT) es...
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Mulroy [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:03 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
| Quote: | You've never used Mozilla? It does everything I want.
|
You are either easily pleased or have a different version than I received
with the Knoppix distribution. It has style sheet rendering problems which
stacks things on top of each other and, the item I most dislike, can only
back up one page at a time so if a web site pops you two or more pages as
you enter it, you can't get out because when you get back to the entry page,
pop you go forward again. IE and Netscape have a drop down list arrow next
to the back button (well, the Netscape version I played with, the one on
someone else's computer didn't have it) which lets you jump back a few steps
and escape such sites. Konqueror (sp?) was superior in that its
shortcomings were more benign. You could at least read what it was
rendering oddly and you could escape a web page.
| Quote: | Correct. The only functionality lacking on linux that is widely
available on windows is the virus-friend bugs in the software.
|
Ok Chris. Then tell me how that can be when Linux does not support a normal
PC, the kind you get from Dell or other computer manufacturers. I can't
dial out - linux does not support the modem. Why it doesn't work is
immaterial. The fact is that it doesn't work.
While we are at it, where are the help files? Don't do the "MAN pages are
equivalent" cop out. They aren't. As a desktop OS for normal users, Linux
has a major lack of documentation.
.. Ed
| Quote: | Chris Uzdavinis wrote in message
news:j5oewrw1t4.fsf (AT) explicit (DOT) atdesk.com...
Ed Mulroy writes:
Oh yes, with Linux you no longer have to put up with
an installation that supports your hardware nor with
the ability to merely click for an automatic update of the OS.
Exactly right.
[snip]
Of course most Linux distributions come with a browser
that almost does what you want
You've never used Mozilla? It does everything I want.
and I have been told on good authority that somewhere in there is a
news reader that has most of the functionality Windows users are
used to.
Correct. The only functionality lacking on linux that is widely
available on windows is the virus-friend bugs in the software.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ed Mulroy [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:07 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
Don't worry, were Linux to become a viable desktop OS it would increase in
popularity until it was common enough that the virus folks would target it.
You put your correct email address in newsgroup messages for viruses to
collect. How are you avoiding the SVEN virus emails?
.. Ed
| Quote: | Edward Diener wrote in message
news:3f84d4ca$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com...
I can't run Linux then. If there are no viruses and no
Svens attacking my system, my computer feels too
lonely to want to go on. I will have to stick
with Windows until Linux lets lots of viruses through.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benny Hill
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:12 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:22:03 -0400, Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
* snip Ed's post *
Hi Ed,
I take it that you've had some truly un-satisfactory experiences with
linux. I'm not one of those linux zealots so I'll "share" my experiences
(rather than threaten to burn you at the stake).
OS updates: RedHat has a little icon in the lower left hand side of
the screen that is blue when everything is ok. Whenever an update is
available, it turns red. You click on it, enter the root password and then
select what updates you want to install. One more click and you're all
done. I *really* like this so much better than Windows. The method of
being notified of updates and installing them is almost identical BUT with
linux I can specify what updates I want. I ran an unpatched Windows 2000
box for over a year because something in SP1 broke some software that I
used every day.
Hardware not supported: "winmodems" aren't modems, they're just a
place to plug the phone cord in  Other than not being able to use
winmodems I've had no hardware problems at all (RedHat 6.2 - RedHat 9 and
SuSE  . There have been ATi, S3, and some other "generic" video cards.
SoundBlaster and generic/onboard sound cards. PCI and on-board LAN
connections. They've all worked flawlessly for me.
Desktops: I myself don't care if I'm using KDE, Gnome, etc. I just
need to be able to get my work done. However since one of linux's goals is
to give end users as much choice as possible I think it's a good idea.
Standardization: I'm definitely in agreeance with you on that one. I
hate that different distributions put things in different places. RedHat
is particularly bad about spreading stuff all over the darn place. I don't
see this ever really changing though since linux is not centrally
controlled. There is something called the Linux Standardization group or
something though so maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
Newsreaders:
I use Pan as my newsreader on linux. I admit though that I don't do
anything but read messages and type new ones. I know that Pan handles
binaries ok because I've had a few images pop up when I wasn't expecting
them (I hit a binary group one afternoon while selecting groups to
subscribe to). I have a bunch of filter options I've never used and a
"bozo bin" I've only had to use once. Honestly, Pan does just as good a
job for me on linux as Gravity did for me on Windows.
So it sounds like I'm perfectly happy with linux right? Not quite. My
scanner doesn't work "out-of-the-box". I fooled with some configuration
stuff for about 5 minutes one day and then just said "screw it". I don't
think my webcam works either but I haven't actually tried to use it so I
don't know for sure.
Open Office does everything *I* will ever need to do but holy moly is
it slow! If I need to fire up a text editor I will use Kate or gEdit.
For C++ programming I use KDevelop as my editor and I use wxWindows as
my GUI library. Since it has makefiles and such anyway, I don't need an
IDE, I just need a decent editor (so KDevelop is overkill for me).
So anyway, I guess my whole point is that I'm having almost no problems
(and neither of them serious) running RedHat 9 as a desktop on a daily basis.
If it doesn't work for you, you can try it out again in 6 months when a
new release comes out if you want to. At least it doesn't cost you
anything but some of your time.
Benny
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oscar Fuentes
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2003 5:35 am Post subject: Re: Why Run Linux? |
|
|
"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" <dont_email_me (AT) bitbuc (DOT) ket> writes:
[snip]
| Quote: | How can you argue with me when you say the same thing in different
words in the same message where you argue?
|
Ed,
I agree with your conclusion. I disagree with your premises, and with
some of your facts.
[snip]
--
Oscar
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
