Is Linux at fault?

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Ryan Mallo » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 05:51:28



I am only relatively new to this newsgroup but have noticed recently
that much of the antiLinux postings here have absolutely nothing to do
with Linux as an operating system.

People have expressed their hatred for Linux based on things such as:
   Horrible fonts,
   Application crashes,
   Configuration issues,
   Hopeless GUIs,
   Poor distros,
   Driver problems,
   etc, etc, etc.

None of these things are actually Linux's fault. All of these issues
arise from applications that are run on top of the Linux kernel.
Applications can have awful fonts, be completely unconfigurable and
crash all by themselves under any operating system.

Linux does not have a native GUI either. X-windows with either GNOME or
KDE has become a popular choice for many distributions and users and
runs in user, not kernel mode. If a user has a problem with their
particular GUI, they are free to change it, or remove it completely. Any
bugs, problems and configuration issues with the GUI is not the fault of
Linux.

Linux machines can be setup in a number of ways, you can download all
the source and build your own kernel and applications, or go with the
more popular choice of buying/downloading a distribution. Blaming
trouble with a particular distribution on Linux is pointless, if you
dont like it, try a different one. Same goes for applications, if you
dont like IE, try Opera or Netscape.

Driver problems occur for all operating systems, if you have a piece of
hardware and your operating system doesnt support it then of course you
will have trouble. Many Microsoft users are still Windows 95 and 98 for
home use, newer hardware is rarely supported in these OSs by Microsoft.

The great thing about Linux as an operating system is that it is fully
customizable, right down to having the source code to the kernel. If
some application, GUI or distribution doesnt suit your needs, try a
different one. But blaming Linux for problems that *every* operating
system has is foolish. No OS is without its buggy applications or
glitches in the GUI.

Thats my 3 cents anyway.
Ryan Mallon
RH Linux / Windows 98 user.

--
Help! Windows has fallen and it can't get up!

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by timeOda » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 05:58:22


I think lack of applications and drivers is perfectly fair game for
criticism.  It was a fatal flaw for BeOS.

Luckily, as a developer, Linux has a plethora of the types of applications
I want (except a decent de*), and drivers aren't the problem they used
to be.  (Maybe I shouldn't say that since I wasted all last weekend NOT
getting my all-in-wonder card to work - but other than that :)

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Charlie Eber » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 06:13:02



> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:51:28 +1200, Ryan Mallon

>>I am only relatively new to this newsgroup but have noticed recently
>>that much of the antiLinux postings here have absolutely nothing to do
>>with Linux as an operating system.

> It has everything to do with Linux.

>>People have expressed their hatred for Linux based on things such as:
>>   Horrible fonts,
>>   Application crashes,
>>   Configuration issues,
>>   Hopeless GUIs,
>>   Poor distros,
>>   Driver problems,
>>   etc, etc, etc.

>>None of these things are actually Linux's fault. All of these issues
>>arise from applications that are run on top of the Linux kernel.

> Yes they are.

> Redhat, Mandrake and SUSE are not a kernel, they are an OS, with as
> you say

> Horrible fonts,
> Application crashes,
> Configuration issues,
> Hopeless GUIs,
> Poor distros,
> Driver problems,
> etc, etc, etc.

>>Applications can have awful fonts, be completely unconfigurable and
>>crash all by themselves under any operating system.

> Fonts are handled by the OS or desktop, not applications.

>>Linux does not have a native GUI either. X-windows with either GNOME or
>>KDE has become a popular choice for many distributions and users and
>>runs in user, not kernel mode. If a user has a problem with their
>>particular GUI, they are free to change it, or remove it completely. Any
>>bugs, problems and configuration issues with the GUI is not the fault of
>>Linux.

> Yes it is, "Linux" is an OS not a kernel.

>>Linux machines can be setup in a number of ways, you can download all
>>the source and build your own kernel and applications, or go with the
>>more popular choice of buying/downloading a distribution. Blaming
>>trouble with a particular distribution on Linux is pointless, if you
>>dont like it, try a different one. Same goes for applications, if you
>>dont like IE, try Opera or Netscape.

> That seems to be the major time waster with Linux, The fruitless
> search for the perfect distro.

>>Driver problems occur for all operating systems, if you have a piece of
>>hardware and your operating system doesnt support it then of course you
>>will have trouble. Many Microsoft users are still Windows 95 and 98 for
>>home use, newer hardware is rarely supported in these OSs by Microsoft.

>>The great thing about Linux as an operating system is that it is fully
>>customizable, right down to having the source code to the kernel. If
>>some application, GUI or distribution doesnt suit your needs, try a
>>different one. But blaming Linux for problems that *every* operating
>>system has is foolish. No OS is without its buggy applications or
>>glitches in the GUI.

>>Thats my 3 cents anyway.
>>Ryan Mallon
>>RH Linux / Windows 98 user.

> I see you can't do everything with Linux.

> Sam

Sam,

Mandrake, Suse, RedHat, and now Debian all use fonts downloaded
from Microsoft site.

If our font's suck so do Windows.

As far as the rest of the list of problems shown,
the only one which might come close to being a problem
is the driver one.  And in that case, I've found that
either the driver will load or it won't, but it doesn't
crash the system.

This is a multi-threaded kernel here.

Charlie

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Donn Mille » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 06:17:59



> Fonts are handled by the OS or desktop, not applications.

Actually, they're handled by the windowing system, which in this case is
X11 (XFree86).  XFree86 and Linux aren't the same thing.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Simon Cook » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:04:44





>> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:51:28 +1200, Ryan Mallon

>>> I am only relatively new to this newsgroup but have noticed recently
>>> that much of the antiLinux postings here have absolutely nothing to
>>> do with Linux as an operating system.

>> It has everything to do with Linux.

>>> People have expressed their hatred for Linux based on things such
>>> as:   Horrible fonts,
>>>   Application crashes,
>>>   Configuration issues,
>>>   Hopeless GUIs,
>>>   Poor distros,
>>>   Driver problems,
>>>   etc, etc, etc.

>>> None of these things are actually Linux's fault. All of these issues
>>> arise from applications that are run on top of the Linux kernel.

>> Yes they are.

>> Redhat, Mandrake and SUSE are not a kernel, they are an OS, with as
>> you say

>> Horrible fonts,
>> Application crashes,
>> Configuration issues,
>> Hopeless GUIs,
>> Poor distros,
>> Driver problems,
>> etc, etc, etc.

>>> Applications can have awful fonts, be completely unconfigurable and
>>> crash all by themselves under any operating system.

>> Fonts are handled by the OS or desktop, not applications.

>>> Linux does not have a native GUI either. X-windows with either
>>> GNOME or KDE has become a popular choice for many distributions and
>>> users and runs in user, not kernel mode. If a user has a problem
>>> with their particular GUI, they are free to change it, or remove it
>>> completely. Any bugs, problems and configuration issues with the
>>> GUI is not the fault of Linux.

>> Yes it is, "Linux" is an OS not a kernel.

>>> Linux machines can be setup in a number of ways, you can download
>>> all the source and build your own kernel and applications, or go
>>> with the more popular choice of buying/downloading a distribution.
>>> Blaming trouble with a particular distribution on Linux is
>>> pointless, if you dont like it, try a different one. Same goes for
>>> applications, if you dont like IE, try Opera or Netscape.

>> That seems to be the major time waster with Linux, The fruitless
>> search for the perfect distro.

>>> Driver problems occur for all operating systems, if you have a
>>> piece of hardware and your operating system doesnt support it then
>>> of course you will have trouble. Many Microsoft users are still
>>> Windows 95 and 98 for home use, newer hardware is rarely supported
>>> in these OSs by Microsoft.

>>> The great thing about Linux as an operating system is that it is
>>> fully customizable, right down to having the source code to the
>>> kernel. If some application, GUI or distribution doesnt suit your
>>> needs, try a different one. But blaming Linux for problems that
>>> *every* operating system has is foolish. No OS is without its buggy
>>> applications or glitches in the GUI.

>>> Thats my 3 cents anyway.
>>> Ryan Mallon
>>> RH Linux / Windows 98 user.

>> I see you can't do everything with Linux.

>> Sam

> Sam,

> Mandrake, Suse, RedHat, and now Debian all use fonts downloaded
> from Microsoft site.

> If our font's suck so do Windows.

Repeat after me, Charlie:

My Name Is Charlie Ebert, and I don't know ANYTHING about how True Type
font Grid-Fitting or Hinting algorithms.

There's more to a font these days than a bitmap or a curve.

Info on hinting:

http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/tthints.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/hinting/hinting.htm?fname=%20&fsize=

Now, if you read through all this you realize that a naive
implementation of true-type can quite happily use the raw glyph data,
and a very simple grid-fitting (rasterization) algorithm, and give
readable (but very sloppy) results. When printed, the results will be
fine, by virtue of the high resolution of the printer device, but on
screen you'll see errors.

Amusing how you're willing to leech off Microsoft though. I thought they
were your enemy.

Simon

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Donn Mille » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:07:04



> My Name Is Charlie Ebert, and I don't know ANYTHING about how True Type
> font Grid-Fitting or Hinting algorithms.

> There's more to a font these days than a bitmap or a curve.

Yeah, and I guess fonts are just so extremely important, that you can't
run an OS if the fonts aren't good looking?

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by cybea » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:26:48




> On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 15:51:28 +1200, Ryan Mallon

>>I am only relatively new to this newsgroup but have noticed recently
>>that much of the antiLinux postings here have absolutely nothing to do
>>with Linux as an operating system.

> It has everything to do with Linux.

>>People have expressed their hatred for Linux based on things such as:
>>   Horrible fonts,
>>   Application crashes,
>>   Configuration issues,
>>   Hopeless GUIs,
>>   Poor distros,
>>   Driver problems,
>>   etc, etc, etc.

Because a bunch of closed minded MS kiss *sses CLAIM that linux has:

Horrible fonts,
Application crashes,
Configuration issues,
Hopeless GUIs,
Poor distros,
Driver problems,
etc, etc, etc.

Does NOT make it so. The people who make these claims never seem to be
able to back up thier claims. They try silly tricks like posting screen
shots that have been resized making the fonts look bad. But when
Linvocate ask for post of the full size image we get back "why bother".

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Simon Cook » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:37:41




>> My Name Is Charlie Ebert, and I don't know ANYTHING about how True
>> Type font Grid-Fitting or Hinting algorithms.

>> There's more to a font these days than a bitmap or a curve.

> Yeah, and I guess fonts are just so extremely important, that you
> can't run an OS if the fonts aren't good looking?

No, but it's annoying as all hell. As ever, it depends on what you're
using the OS for.

Simon

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Simon Cook » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:46:28



> I am only relatively new to this newsgroup but have noticed recently
> that much of the antiLinux postings here have absolutely nothing to do
> with Linux as an operating system.

The problem is that the definition of what Linux is shifts in the wind.
People recommend Linux as an alternative to Windows, the conclusion
being that Linux is equivalent to Windows -- ie. they are both
*applications platforms*.

Unfortunately, the whole concept of Linux-as-kernel is something that
only exists in the entrenched Linux community. It's similar to hacker
vs. cracker.

Joe Schmoe sees a complete package marketed as "Linux" by advocates. To
them, it doesn't matter if it's KDE, Gnome, or even TWM. Heck, it could
be running Aqua for all they know.

I don't think this problem is going to ever go away though; so you have
two choices; you either start referring to Linux the way the rest of the
world does, or try to get everyone to change. I think it's easier to
qualify whether you're speaking about the GUI or not than to get
everyone else to change though.

Just a thought.

Simon

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Kenneth Down » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:37:02



> I am only relatively new to this newsgroup but have noticed recently
> that much of the antiLinux postings here have absolutely nothing to do
> with Linux as an operating system.

Welcome Ryan!  

Quote:

> People have expressed their hatred for Linux based on things such as:
>    Horrible fonts,
>    Application crashes,
>    Configuration issues,
>    Hopeless GUIs,
>    Poor distros,
>    Driver problems,
>    etc, etc, etc.

> None of these things are actually Linux's fault. All of these issues
> arise from applications that are run on top of the Linux kernel.
> Applications can have awful fonts, be completely unconfigurable and
> crash all by themselves under any operating system.

So the answer to your question is NO!  

There are recurring discussions here over the theory that these anti-Linux
people are actually being paid to post this stuff.  People generally wonder
how they can be present for so many hours of the day, how they seem to have
so much technical information/ability yet report so many problems with
linux, and so forth.  Especially how they are so eager to jump on any
problem and declare Linux a "waste of time" and so forth.

The clear intention seems to be:

-> To soil COLA so that nice people won't come here, where they
   might gain a positive impression of Linux, and <gasp> try it out.

-> For those who stay here despite the noise, to prevent by any means
   having these people even *try* Linux.  

It is a fact that if you have never used any unix, then Linux takes a
little getting used to.  Once you have gotten past a small hump, the payoff
is far beyond what the "other popular brand" can offer.  The intent seems
to be to prevent people from making that small investment of time, because
after they grasp the power, flexibility, and stability, they are lost for
good to Linux.

You can't prove anybody is being paid without holding the check in your
hand, but the theory tends to pretty much explain everything.  It is kind
of uncanny.

Welcome again, and excellent analysis.  Here is hoping you stick around and
share some more.

<snip>
--
Ken
Linux, the more you learn, the more you love

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Terry Por.. » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:52:39


Ryan Mallon threw some tea leaves on the floor

Quote:> I am only relatively new to this newsgroup but have noticed recently
> that much of the antiLinux postings here have absolutely nothing to do
> with Linux as an operating system.

<snip>

I've been here since 1996 Ryan and your observations are correct, ie
Cola is infested with many anti-Linux spammers (Wintrolls) who use all
manner of devices to try and make Linux look inferior in *any* way to
Windows.

Cola has many ways of dealing with these posters and they in fact
provide most of our entertainment.

To reduce the noise from anti-Linux posters, I advise you to killfile
1/ Flatfish+++
2/ Erik Funkenbusch
3/ Pete Goodwin
4/ Simon Cooke
5/ Freefall
6/ Mark Hall
7/ Subzero
8/ Rich Bell
9/ Mr Grant
10/ Joe the Aroma

Just killfiling these posters will cut the noise down by around 30%
each day.

Cheers.
--
              Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Sorcerer kernel 2.4.17  
Free Micro burner: http://w3w.arafuraconnect.com.au/~tp/burn.html          
 ** Linux Registration Number: 103931,  http://counter.li.org **

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Charlie Eber » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 07:59:34




> Repeat after me, Charlie:

> My Name Is Charlie Ebert, and I don't know ANYTHING about how True Type
> font Grid-Fitting or Hinting algorithms.

> There's more to a font these days than a bitmap or a curve.

> Info on hinting:

> http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/tthints.htm

> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/hinting/hinting.htm?fname=%20&fsize=

> Now, if you read through all this you realize that a naive
> implementation of true-type can quite happily use the raw glyph data,
> and a very simple grid-fitting (rasterization) algorithm, and give
> readable (but very sloppy) results. When printed, the results will be
> fine, by virtue of the high resolution of the printer device, but on
> screen you'll see errors.

> Amusing how you're willing to leech off Microsoft though. I thought they
> were your enemy.

> Simon

Yeah, thanks Simon.

Like I said, if the fonts suck on Linux then they suck on Microsoft
as they ARE the same fonts.

And we also have a wide set from Adobe in here to use.

Charlie

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Simon Cook » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:06:11





>> Repeat after me, Charlie:

>> My Name Is Charlie Ebert, and I don't know ANYTHING about how True
>> Type font Grid-Fitting or Hinting algorithms.

>> There's more to a font these days than a bitmap or a curve.

>> Info on hinting:

>> http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/tthints.htm

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/hinting/hinting.htm?fname=%20&fsize=

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>> Now, if you read through all this you realize that a naive
>> implementation of true-type can quite happily use the raw glyph data,
>> and a very simple grid-fitting (rasterization) algorithm, and give
>> readable (but very sloppy) results. When printed, the results will be
>> fine, by virtue of the high resolution of the printer device, but on
>> screen you'll see errors.

>> Amusing how you're willing to leech off Microsoft though. I thought
>> they were your enemy.

>> Simon

> Yeah, thanks Simon.

> Like I said, if the fonts suck on Linux then they suck on Microsoft
> as they ARE the same fonts.

Yet again proving your inability to read.

Simon

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Charlie Eber » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:26:49





>> I am only relatively new to this newsgroup but have noticed recently
>> that much of the antiLinux postings here have absolutely nothing to do
>> with Linux as an operating system.

> The problem is that the definition of what Linux is shifts in the wind.
> People recommend Linux as an alternative to Windows, the conclusion
> being that Linux is equivalent to Windows -- ie. they are both
> *applications platforms*.

> Unfortunately, the whole concept of Linux-as-kernel is something that
> only exists in the entrenched Linux community. It's similar to hacker
> vs. cracker.

> Joe Schmoe sees a complete package marketed as "Linux" by advocates. To
> them, it doesn't matter if it's KDE, Gnome, or even TWM. Heck, it could
> be running Aqua for all they know.

> I don't think this problem is going to ever go away though; so you have
> two choices; you either start referring to Linux the way the rest of the
> world does, or try to get everyone to change. I think it's easier to
> qualify whether you're speaking about the GUI or not than to get
> everyone else to change though.

> Just a thought.

> Simon

Now I'll agree with everything he said this time.

Linux is a kernel, true.

But when refering to Linux we are talking *ANY* of the *MANY*
operating systems begin sold which uses the Linux kernel.

And I agree that we should flow with the world.

Charlie

 
 
 

Is Linux at fault?

Post by Charlie Eber » Sun, 23 Jun 2002 08:29:58







>>> Repeat after me, Charlie:

>>> My Name Is Charlie Ebert, and I don't know ANYTHING about how True
>>> Type font Grid-Fitting or Hinting algorithms.

>>> There's more to a font these days than a bitmap or a curve.

>>> Info on hinting:

>>> http://www.truetype.demon.co.uk/tthints.htm

> http://www.microsoft.com/typography/hinting/hinting.htm?fname=%20&fsize=

>>> Now, if you read through all this you realize that a naive
>>> implementation of true-type can quite happily use the raw glyph data,
>>> and a very simple grid-fitting (rasterization) algorithm, and give
>>> readable (but very sloppy) results. When printed, the results will be
>>> fine, by virtue of the high resolution of the printer device, but on
>>> screen you'll see errors.

>>> Amusing how you're willing to leech off Microsoft though. I thought
>>> they were your enemy.

>>> Simon

>> Yeah, thanks Simon.

>> Like I said, if the fonts suck on Linux then they suck on Microsoft
>> as they ARE the same fonts.

> Yet again proving your inability to read.

> Simon

No, not really Simon.

I can type apt-get install XFSTT just as well as the next man can.

We are just debating an issue which isn't an issue again.

Charlie

 
 
 

1. I've read/am reading the faq's - but what is a Segmentation fault?

I am reading the faq's as fast as I can, but I would really appreciate a
pointer to information about Segmentation faults.  Every time I try to run
Pico (among others) the system responds with "Segmentation fault".  What
does it mean?  How can i fix it?  Is it in a FAQ?  Which one?

THANKS!!!
Dana
----------



----------
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 \ The above does not represent OIT, UNC-CH, laUNChpad, or its other users. /
   ------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Help needed with auditing setup

3. as seg faults - am I toast?

4. uugetty?

5. This clone thing...am I stupid, or am I right?

6. Firewall rules for NFS and SMB

7. NIC is not be recognized....

8. I am with the following error, when i am running lilo...

9. Am I touchy? Or am I right?

10. Am I seeing IPv5, or am I hallucinating?

11. I am buying an Ultra 5 but am lost in part numbers ....

12. I am in text mode, what browser am I running....