[brlug-poly] thanks

Mon Oct 24 17:28:34 CDT 2005

On 10/24/05, Eric G Ortego <ericortego at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 10/24/05, Andrew Baudouin <andrewmb at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > ACPI and laptop hardware has been supported better on Windows since
> > before Linux distributions even thought about supporting it.
> >
>
> Are you actually going to give well-thought out examples or just continue
> to spew opinions?
>

Not an opinion. If you had read my reply to Will you would have realized it.
In 1998 I had a 300Mhz PII Thinkpad running Windows 98 which could suspend
and resume with opening and closing of the lid. Suse 6.2/Whatever 2.2 kernel
I was running side-by-side with it barfed. My statement was true. Historically,
Windows supports hardware and power management better than Linux
distributions do. I can come up with anecdotal evidence RIGHT NOW (TM) that
current Linux distros suck arse at hardware support and power management,
but that is what it is...anecdotal.

Of the laptop toting XP users I have met they are all amazed at how fast my
> desktop is ready, right where I left off I might add, when I open the lid. I
> have used XP on several laptops and in allot of instances(maybe caused by
> some human) the laptop won't sleep and wake as I expect, instead just
> "regular" shutdowns and starts ups, or worse the battery drains to death
> while "sleeping." When they do hibernate it takes considerably longer and
> that on machines about 3 times the speed of my own.
>

I wouldn't be surprised if 100% of those issues were human related (certain
drivers for hardware not playing nice). My IBM Thinkpad w/533E Celeron works
just dandy suspending and resuming under Windows 2000.

I won't make an argument about present day support for Linux suspending and
resuming...it's an historical one.

 This wins the made-up statistics award for 2005.
> >
>
> Aren't 99% of all statistics made up on the spot? But it is sad that
> generalizations are too often accepted at face value.
>

I wasn't the one making said generalizations.

You remind me of the LSU/Les Miles bashers who invent things like "LSU was
> > #1 in recruiting under Nick Saban....The defense never gave up this many
> > yards under Nick Saban"
> >
>
> O.o *beware* mud puddle, slippery when wet.
>

:D

> The application icons never change position. As you open more programs
> > they stack to the right.
> >
>
> Icons do change place when a domain computer abruptly dies reverting to an
> older copy of the profile, I see this every single day on multiple PC's. NT,
> 2000, XP on seperate networks.
>

He's not talking about that issue. Read the message. Besides, how is that a
problem? Different profiles have different application icon settings.

This is simply fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Name an open-source
> > application, and there is probably a windows build for it.
> >
>
> For the most you are correct, but doesn't that say something about the
> quality of those open source applications?
> The design surely must be more thought out. From the small differences
> like system logging, to the larger like drawing to the windowing system.
> They have to account for all types of systems they wish their code to run
> on.
>

Not really. It's a matter of standardizing on toolkits. All of those use GTK
(windows port is available). The toolkits handle all of the underlying
syscalls.

User applications shouldn't make a habit of writing to the syslog anyway.

GiMP, gaIM, OpenOffice, X-Chat....all have windows builds. Infact, the
> > X=Chat developers insidiously charge money for the windows builds.
> >
>
> Whats wrong with charging money for software? Build it yourself if you
> think paying the authors or the builders is insidious. Sheesh, I decry a
> hypocrite.
>

You are the champ at not reading messages. I was poking at Will because his
champion free software developers were *GASP* charging money for software!

Would you go as far as to say that those applications have trojans?
> >
>
> You can audit the code your self if you fear that there may be malware
> included. Not the case for closed source apps, or even closed source
> freeware.
>

Again, you aren't reading. He was saying he trusts the repositoires of
Debian and doesn't trust sourceforge.net <http://sourceforge.net> win32
builds of free software.

You better stop now while you're ahead.
> >
>
> Heh
>
> Out of the box, XP does not
> > > even include a spell checker. I need the red letters kmail and most
> > > other
> > > free text editors give me. I also want tools like a spreadsheet, iso
> > > writer,
> > > compiler and so on. I was amazed to learn that XP Home does not
> > > include
> > > programs, like flash, Real, Xine, xmms, noatum and so on, for watching
> > > movies
> > > or listening to music the way that Mepis does. The average person who
> > > really
> > > uses their computer for work and play will have to dig up dozens of
> > > extra
> > > applications. It would cost me hundreds of dollars to duplicate what
> > > Debian
> > > provides at no cost.
> >
> >
> > This is an outright lie.
> >
>
> How is that a lie?
>

"It would cost me hundreds of dollars to duplicate what Debian
provides at no cost." is a lie.

Real and Flash are free. WMP/Winamp is a free replacement for xmms, xine,
and noatun. You can get XP Home for under a hundred dollars and all of the
rest for free.

It is a lie.

Debian provides nothing.
> >
>
> Debian provides package management tools. Pretty good ones.
>

Way to quote edited parts of my sentence. Mature.

First of all, Winamp is free and that takes care of all of the
> > aforementioned needs.
> >
>
> But Winamp doesn't come with XP either.
>

WMP does...and that destroys your argument. Besides, winamp is a free piece
of software, and I was arguing that end. He was saying he has to pay
hundreds of dollars to get equivalent versions of noatun, xmms, and xine.

It is actually easier to download the Winamp installation build from their
> > website than use Debian's apt-get utility.
> >
>
>
> Maybe so, maybe as easy, maybe not... if you put 2 computer-ignorant
> people on PC's (XP & mepis) telling one to install Winamp and the other to
> install xmms I would put my nickle on the mepis luser to finish first. If
> you show them how to do it then ask them a week later to do it again, I
> would still put my nickle on the mepis luser.
>

Then you would lose.

Why do you feel the need to make up things to support your argument?
> >
>
> Aren't 99% of all statistics made up on the spot? Its sad that often
> generalizations can actually work to convince others.
>

No generalization would convince anyone to switch from Windows.

 Let's say you sold widgets and competed with a lot of other companies who
> > also sell widgets. WOuld you not do everything legally and ethically
> > possible to make sure everyone buys your and ONLY YOUR widgets?
> >
>
>
> I would not, because there is nothing ethical about doing everything
> legally possible to make sure everyone buys *only my* widgets. What you
> describe sounds allot like Communism, and a bit like the essence of
> Microsoft. In a free market I should do everything legally and ethically
> possible to try to convince you that you want to buy my widget and make sure
> you know if you have bought the widget which I sell. To suggest that I(or my
> company) should do everything legally & ethically possible to eliminate the
> choice of which widget everyone can buy sounds socialist.
>

There sure is. Businesses everywhere do it all of the time. Undercutting
price and adding value is one way. Making sure your support of widgets is
superior is another way. How is that communist?

Microsoft beat Unix and high-dollar software vendors by undercutting price.
They are trying to beat Linux right now by adding value and usabillity. They
are losing on price and Linux is steadily gaining, IMO.

Forcing everyone to share and freely give away all of the software they
write is what is communist.

People who rant about this show their absolute lack of understanding of all
> > things business-related.
> >
>
> Ranting does not show lack of understanding, maybe lack of self control
> and maybe overzealous conviction.
>

I'll potentially agree with you on there.

By the way, what do you make of all of the bugs and insecurities that have
> > showed up in Firefox now that it has reache dcritical mass?
> >
>
> Disclosed, therefore avoidable & likely to be fixed.
>

Yet common arguments that OSS is better due to number of bugs alone doesn't
hold water.

No "Linux" "has" ssh.
> >
>
> No windows has a mouse.
>
> All require you to download from an internet repository.
> >
>
> Most *nix distributions come with openssh installed just like most PC's
> come with a mouse.
>

Good point.

However, that's at least considering that openssh is a requirement to do
work, which it isn't.

Free softare is all about sharing, non free is all about sucking money. The
> > > net result is that non free software is expensive and difficult to use
> > > where
> > > free software is cheap and easy.
> >
> >
> > You are a liar.
> >
>
> lol, you are a funny.
>

omgwtfbbq?

_______________________________________________
> Politics mailing list
> Politics at brlug.net
> http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/politics_brlug.net
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://brlug.net/pipermail/politics_brlug.net/attachments/20051024/e0a2a9eb/attachment-0001.htm