| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 24.07.99 19:31l 175 Lines 6555 Bytes #-9785 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_171F
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/171F
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<OE7XWR<DB0SHG<DB0SM<DB0ACC<PI8DRS<PI8ZWL<PI8APD<PI8WNO<
PI8VAD<PI8HWB<PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 990724/1351Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:41056 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_17
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA17808 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 13:27:25 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00014714 ; Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:33:20 MET
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 99 14:26:46 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_171F>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/171F
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
great.
>> 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
>some tasks easier.
X-Windows didn't look very good. Even if it had run properly, it still would
have been way behind what a MAC or and Win9x machine delivers. I understand
that a good GUI for LINUX does exist, but that it places a lot of demands
upon your system. By the time you approach the Mac or Win9x machine's look
'n feel, I think you will find that 100 MB HD space just won't cut it.
>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.
Sorry, but as a Ham Radio operator, I have never had occasion to rename 50
files from filename.html to filename.shtml... That kind of task just doesn't
present itself very often to Hams.
If it ever does though, I'll try to keep LINUX in mind.
>
>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.
I ran the install program, and got what I got. You betcha I'm blaming the
OS.
Like I mentioned before, even the old pre-warp OS/2 stuff installed better.
And no, I'm not willing to put in weeks of study just to massage poorly
crafted software into functionality. I'll give LINUX several more chances
just for fun, but I sure as heck won't DEPEND on it for anything.
>
>2: Linux works well on older 386 and 486 systems which can't handle
>the demands of the currently support Microsoft OSs.
Om my 486, Win95 does much, much better.
>3: Almost everything about Linux is openly available including the latest
>'beta' revisions to the source code.
I could care less about that.
>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++.
No thanks! I put programming behind me quite a while back, and don't have
the time or inclination to fool with it now.
>> > 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.
You are getting a bit confused here... If you are going to include all of
the freeware/shareware available for LINUX when enumerating it's
capabilities, then you need to do the same for Win9x. You statement above
assumes that no Win9x user could access the tons of freeware/shareware
that's out there for Win9x machines. That's a pretty silly assumption,
wouldn't you say?
>If you wish to use Win95/98 go right ahead. You have the choice as a
>consumer to do it your way.
Yep.
>> 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.
The other Ham in my area who is working with LINUX has been struggling for
more than a month to get it working right for him. And as I mentioned, I'd
be happy if I could get it to equal Win95's performance, and by
"performance" , I do not just mean speed. - I mean overall performance, ease
of use and functionality.
I've heard stories about "1000's of Hams" who testified about how wonderful
*NOS was, too, and now *NOS is widely recognized as a real dud. I'll bet you
are talking about that same "1000's of Hams", and you'll have to excuse me
if I doubt their ability to judge good software from bad.
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 21:02:39 -0700
From: Randy <rcarles@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Programs for Baycom Modem
Head to the Tigertronics page, they many programs for the Baycom modem.
http://www.Tigertronics.com/
Randy
Ron wrote:
>
> Hi All
> I have a baycom Tigertronics modem running TCP/IP but I am not
> getting out now that our local bbs closed.
> Any decent programs for this modem I only use Dos but can install windoz if
> nessary.
>
> thanks 73's Ron G6wxs
>.
------------------------------
End of Packet-Radio Digest V99 #171
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: packet-radio@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: praga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
