| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 24.07.99 19:17l 175 Lines 6882 Bytes #-9785 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_171C
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/171C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<OE7XWR<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 990724/1348Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:41053 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_17
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA17805 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 13:08:33 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00014705 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:32:53 MET
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:26:37 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_171C>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/171C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
some tasks easier. For example, try renaming 50 files from filename.html
to filename.shtml. This is a task that can be done in a single Unix
command line. A Microsoft Windows consultant admitted the other day
that she knew of no easy way to do this task in the Windows environment.
Now on to your second question, why would hams choose to use Linux.
1: Thousands of users have found that Linux performs as well or
better than Microsoft Windows NT for many tasks and is more stable. I
suggest that you quit blaiming the OS for the performance problems and
examine why they are happening.
2: Linux works well on older 386 and 486 systems which can't handle
the demands of the currently support Microsoft OSs.
3: Almost everything about Linux is openly available including the latest
'beta' revisions to the source code.
4: There is a large number of both high-level and low-level programming
tools. If you don't like the contest logging programs other people
have developed, you can build your own in perl, Tcl/Tk, Python, C or C++.
> > Linux is also a modular system
> >which means that the core operating system comes only with a command-line
> >interface (and that interface is its self a program separate from the core
> >OS.) If one wishes to use a graphical user interface, one can choose from
> >a dozen window managers, about a half-dozen system administration tools,
> >more than two dozen email clients, and several word processing programs,
> >all of which are mostly independent from each other.
>
> - And few if any of which can compare to the freebee stuff given away with
> Win95/98.
I don't find the free stuff given away with Win95/98 to be that impressive.
The terminal programs do not offer full VT100 and will render screens
unreadable (there are at least 5 free terminal programs for X). The
text editor is very basic and contains the minimum of features necessary
to do actual work (the Red Hat distribution includes at least 4 text
editors). Internet Explorer is a good web browser but every OS comes
with a web browser.
If you wish to use Win95/98 go right ahead. You have the choice as a
consumer to do it your way.
> I like modular systems, but only ones that perform well. FlexNet would be an
> example of a modular system that provides significantly better performance
> than the non-modular stuff it replaces.
>
> LINUX is modular, but it's performance is not impressive. It's pretty sucky,
> in fact.
I would suggest that you look at why your experience in regards to
performance contradicts that of 1000s of other users who find that
it's performance is equal to, if not better than Windows NT.
> 73 DE Charles Brabham,
> N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
> http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>
>
>
>
--
Kirk Job Sluder
Personal Home Page (http://php.ucs.indiana.edu/~csluder/home.html)
Email (csluder@indiana.edu) Radio (KB9TUT)
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 17:43:48 -0400
From: "upandatum" <upandatum@webhart.net>
Subject: Linuxnet and xfbb?
What the heck has this to do with ALT. HAM-RADIO.PACKET besides sounding
like a pissing contest between you two ???????
(:-((((((
Kirk Job Sluder <csluder@indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:t29hfmv6zgn.fsf@steel3.ucs.indiana.edu...
> "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net> writes:
>
> > Kirk Job Sluder wrote in message ...
> > >>
> > >> Sorry, Bubba, but the old Commodore C-64 had LINUX's text interface
> > beaten
> > >> all to hell twenty years ago. I used a UNIX machine 15 years ago, and
> > firing
> > >> up LINUX takes me right back to that time. - I've gone a long way
since
> > >> then, and do not have patience with 1970's tech here in the late
90's.
> > >
> > >I suggest that if you judge an operating system by the bells and
whistles
> > >attached to the interface, that you would be much happier with Windows
98.
> >
> > It's true that I judge an operating system for it's basic functionality.
> > Perhaps you are so used to UNIX/LINUX that you think of basic
functionality
> > as a "bell 'n whistle", but most of the rest of us consider it as basic
as
> > ordering an icemaker with your refridgerator, or air-conditioning with
an
> > automobile.
>
> True, almost all of my design work involves designing web-based systems.
> In that regard 'functionality' centers around the following questions:
> 1: Can I install new tools without rebooting the system?
> 2: If my program crashes, will it take the rest of the system down with
it?
> 3: Can I run the system at %99 cpu capacity, 24 hours a day, 365 days a
> week with minimal unplanned system downtime.
> 4: Is there a body of software I can use without paying high license
fees,
> that will permit me to modify that software for my own use.
>
> So far I've found Unix in general and Linux in specific to be a very cost
> effective way of meeting four of these requirements.
>
> BTW, I don't have an icemaker in my refrigerator or air-conditioning in
> my car. These things are optional luxuries which are not necessary to
> the primary reasons I need a refrigerator and a car.
>
> > Like with "X-Windoze", for example: A full one-third of all the icons
in
> > the X-Windoze "Start" menu led precisely nowhere. Click them, then wait,
and
> > wait a bit more because nothing is going to happen. I got fooled by this
> > several times, because the ones that DO work typically take so long to
> > respond. It makes it hard to tell the nonfunctional ones from the ones
that
> > work, but like REALLY SLOW.
>
> My first question is what are you running X on? Many X applications
> require a fairly fast computer and a good amount of memory. However
> this is not unique to X. Microsoft Windows 95 and Windows 98 will
> also choke if you don't have enough power or memory under the hood.
>
> In regards to buttons not working. Most Window managers are extremely
> user configurable. If one is willing to take the time to configure them
> properly, the work wonderfully. If you are not willing to take the time
> to use the configuration tools to meet your needs, you would probably
> be better served by a Microsoft or Macintosh product.
>
> > - Just for the record; Has ANYBODY had something like this happen with a
new
> > Win95/98 install? I never have.
>
> Actually, I process perhaps 100 contacts a week from people who have
> problems with Win95/98. If you prefer Win95/98 so much, then buy it
> and quit whining.
To be continued in digest: pr_99_171D
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
