____/ Mark Kent on Tuesday 07 August 2007 12:18 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 06 August 2007 10:34 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> ____/ waterskidoo on Sunday 05 August 2007 18:51 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> On 2007-08-05, Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux is more secure, stable, and less expensive. Once you put KDE on
>>>>>> top of Windows, then you need to learn a new environment anyway. The
>>>>>> only advantage then might be the ability to run Windows applications
>>>>>> natively.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well said! Linux's claim to fame if you will is the infrastructure that
>>>>> it is built upon although I admit I am addicted to the eye candy.
>>>>
>>>> Really? I'm always afraid of installing /anything/ that might sip
>>>> resources, awn included. I'm still using a 1.8Ghz box and a lot of
>>>> resources are drained when indexing (in RAM) 120,000 USENET posts, running
>>>> Firefox with dozens of plugins, and using Thunderbird which can be made
>>>> equally 'fat'. At the moment, I maintain a fairly minimal KDE desktop. It
>>>> used to be the opposite, with lots of panels all over the place and
>>>> maximal eye candy.
>>>>
>>>>> Putting a Linux face on Windows is like building a mansion upon
>>>>> the sand. It will look good until it starts to sink due to
>>>>> the collapse of the underlying infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> The thought of running a KDE desktop with KDE apps and having Norton
>>>> anti-virus underneat is just bizarre (and resource-draining). Then you
>>>> have the system updates with forced reboots, WGA, and the rest of these
>>>> deficiencies. Registry bloat, defrag, and so forth...
>>>>
>>>> Weird...
>>>>
>>>
>>> And yet you were agreeing with Peter K regarding having binary-only
>>> portions to the Linux kernel...
>>
>> Huh? When? I would say that it's better than nothing at all, but like many
>> people whom I talk to, I know that open source drivers are the way to go.
>
> Okay, but then, back to the mac sat next to me, it currently has /nothing
> at all/ as its nvidia proprietary driver. It does, of course, have the
> open-source nv driver, which does a jolly good job of accelerated 2D
> graphics, but there's no 3D capability.
>
> Why? well, at least in part, there is the "divide and conquer" approach;
> because nVidia produce a driver for the x86 32-bit platform, which is
> certainly more popular (at the moment!) than the PPC, then they leave
> the PPC owners out in the cold, and we even get those who claim to be
> linux advocates genuinely arguing the "well, there aren't many people
> with PPC, so they don't matter"!
>
>> Predictable devices which operate in a way that their owner /understand/. We
>> should also be allowed to study the code that we run on our PC, especially
>> when computers are all connected, so there's room for spyware, not just
>> neglect and sabotage.
>
> Quite.
>
>>
>>> have you really considered just how
>>> risky this is? Once something is binary-only, you are completely at the
>>> mercy of the vendor, they can drop support at any time, force you to
>>> replace your card or your operating system or as nVidia do now, prevent
>>> you from using certain hardware combinations.
>>
>> nVidia is not much of an issue. Not a critical one anyway, unless you work
>> on rendering where Linux is a prime choice. To must people nVidia=multi-head
>> or games.
>
> A lot of people are gamers, though, so it's important for them.
>
>>
>>> The concept of free software is that people can do what they want with
>>> it, they are guaranteed their four freedom areas. This means that if
>>> they want to, they can port their code to Windows. We also know that,
>>> just like the nVidia drivers which only work with certain Linux/hardware
>>> combinations, Microsoft also have the power to prevent any top-end on
>>> Windows working properly, and have exercised that power many times, and
>>> will continue to do so.
>>
>> Yes, but that is not new. Microsoft (at least at the top) is just a bunch of
>> greedy criminals in suits. They are too *blind* to even see their crimes, as
>> Jason showed us some days ago when reacting to the Mass. fiasco.
>
> There have been several alternatives to Microsoft's own Windows shell
> over the years. PCTools probably produced the first one, which would
> replace the Wfw3.11 shell, it was okay, certainly more stable than the
> Microsoft shell, but never really caught on. PCTools disappeared not so
> long after that.
>
> There was a version of afterstep ported to the Win95/DOS7 version of
> Windows, but Microsoft had done so much to gain vertical integration by
> then that any shell replacement was a seriously risky business. Even
> just installing software required a switch back to the Microsoft shell,
> although the advantages of multiple desktops were significant, the
> overall effect was mostly just inconvenience.
>
> By far the most successful shell replacement work for years has been the
> Cygwin tools, which provide a neat KDE top end as well as the X-server,
> and it is possible to run most things from the Cygnus shell, however,
> the versions I was using were not aware of the windows menu system,
> paths, and so on, so even then, it wasn't all that well "connected" to
> the windows world. Other X-servers have been of limited use for the
> same reason (exceed hummingbird, say).
>
>>
>>> Freedom is not easy to come by, and it's very easy to give it up for
>>> some jam today - but don't be fooled.
>>
>> True, but one has to be cautious. I don't need to lose my jobs because I
>> refuse to do some things that are 'against then rules'.
>
> Other constraints always have to be considered, which is one area where
> Microsoft have excelled over the last two decades. The whole MCSE
> programme put in place a generation of Windows-only admins, many of whom
> have risen to senior posts (how about at the BBC, National Archives,
> British Library?), and are unable to do anything other than what
> Microsoft tell them, because they never did learn about computing, they
> learnt about installing and running Microsoft.
>
>> Leave that to Stallman, who
>> truly needs to serve as a role model in that respect (he doesn't play
>> computer games either, according to what I read earlier today).
>>
>
> I recall reading about his kids playing one of the early D&D games, so
> he's not entirely averse to games.
He has kids? I did not know that. His 'personal ads' says something along the
lines of I already have a child (GNU), so the woman whom he looks for is,
well... not intended to start an extended family. As for MCSEs, I watched the
most disgusting video on YouTube yesterday. It depicts a MCSEs as arrogant
bastrads who always get their way in the office. I don't know if this video
came from Microsoft because I didn't watch it until the end. I could not stand
it.
--
~~ Best of wishes
.oʍʇ sɐ buıɥʇ ɥɔns ou s,ǝɹǝɥʇ 'ɹǝpuǝq 'ʎɹɹoʍ ʇ,uop :ʎɹɟ
.oʍʇ ɐ ʍɐs ı ʇɥbnoɥʇ ı puɐ ...ǝɹǝɥʍʎɹǝʌǝ soɹǝz puɐ sǝuo .ɯɐǝɹp 1nɟʍɐ uɐ
ʇɐɥʍ 'ɥɥɥɐ :ɹǝpuǝq
|
|
