| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 24.07.99 19:18l 159 Lines 6926 Bytes #-9785 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_171B
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/171B
Path: DB0AAB<DB0PV<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0SHG<DB0SM<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 990724/1347Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:41052 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_17
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA17804 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 13:01:30 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00014702 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:32:44 MET
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:26:31 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_171B>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/171B
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
>> systems.
>
>True, that is one of the good things about consumer choice. If you
>prefer a different operating system, then you can buy a different
>operating system.
I already had a copy of Win95 on hand. Sure enough, after I reformatted the
HD to rid it of LINUX and loaded up DOS 'n Win95 on the same computer, I
found that it took up less room on the HD, loaded up and ran faster, and the
software for it ran much faster as well. Every Icon on the START menu
actually caused a functioning program to run, and those programs looked and
functioned better than their LINUX counterparts.
I installed the Win95 version of FlexNet, and ended up being able to run any
of the Win95 tcpip apps over amateur tcpip or AX25. Telnet, Netscape, FTP,
you name it.
In less time than it took to get the basic LINUX OS installed, I was able to
install DOS, Win95, FlexNet, and BBS software.
I'm glad you enjoy working with LINUX. You are most welcome to it! ;-)
For my part, LINUX will have to wait until I get a CD ROM drive on my old
386. I'm not going to waste a perfectly good 486 or Pentium on it. Any time
I get nostalgic for the latest in 1970's computing, I'll fire up LINUX. When
I want to get something done, I'll use more comptetent software such as DOS
or WinDoze.
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: 23 Jul 1999 12:35:52 -0500
From: Kirk Job Sluder <csluder@indiana.edu>
Subject: Linuxnet and xfbb?
"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.
> >Quite simply, Unix and Linux was not designed to have a nifty user
> >interface (although one can certainly install KDE, CDE, GNOME, Windowmaker,
> >Afterstep or E as a user interface.) Instead Unix and Linux were designed
> >to be extremely stable multi-user systems capable of squeaking the maximum
> >performance out of minimal hardware.
>
> Well, if that's what they were after, they better get back to the drawing
> board. LINUX is SLOW. A real dog. - And it regularly froze up when in
> "X-Windoze". - Not exactly what I would call "extremely stable".
That's not been my observation or the observation of just about any
of the system administrators I know who use Linux on a regular basis.
Indeed my first Linux install was on a used 386SX with 8MB ram and X was
leaving Windows 95 on Pentium 150s in the dust.
> It takes up WAY too much room on the HD, it takes up WAY too much time to
> load up and run, then it takes WAY too much time to load 'n run programs,
> then it takes WAY too long to get out of.
Full installtion fo Linux is 100MB with distributions capable of of
being run on a single floppy. (The minimal install is only 40MB.) Windows
98 requires at a minimum 175MB of disk space with a full installtion
cocking in at 295MB.
In addition Windows 98 recommends a minimum of a 200MHz CPU while X for Linux
runs comfortably on a 486. If you are experiencing such extreme performance
problems, I would suggest that there is something wrong with your system.
> This is in addition to the fact that it takes WAY too long to learn that
> archaic command set, taken straight out of the 1970's. Why should Hams take
> a giant step backward, just to use difficult, poorly performing software?
If you don't like shell commands, there are a number of graphical
alternatives (as opposed to a single graphical alternative for
Microsoft Windows or Macintosh.) In addition, the CLI does make
To be continued in digest: pr_99_171C
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
