Linux-Advocacy Digest #378, Volume #25 Thu, 24 Feb 00 14:13:10 EST
Contents:
Re: Distribution comparison-Final thoughts (long) (SamIam)
Re: IE on UNIX (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: LINUX = COMUNISM (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: How does the free-OS business model work? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience) (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SamIam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Distribution comparison-Final thoughts (long)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 12:08:45 -0600
Too bad you left out one of the best distros for ease of installation
and use, Mandrake 7.0.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This is my final post on the little experiment I embarked on 2 weeks ago.
> There have been some moments of frustration for me, but overall my opinion
> of Linux as a viable alternative to Windows for the average, non game
> addicted, Joe Sixpack has been changed.
>
> To re-cap a bit, my goal was to try out several Linux distributions from a
> newbie point of view, focusing on install and basic setting up of the OS.
> The system is a PII-450 ABIT BH6, 128meg, Matrox G200 8meg, Maxtor DMA-66
> 27 gig drive, Adaptec 2940UW SCSI card with a ton of SCSI Ultra devices.
> Peripherals include an IBM Proprinter-X24e dot matrix (dug that one out of
> the closet), a Logitech Mouseman WheelMouse, SBlive card and a Canon
> parallel port Scanner. Monitor is an IBM 17p which is really a Nokia with a
> Sony tube. There is also a Linksys Ethernet card.
>
> The distributions I tried were:
> Caldera 2.3
> SuSE 6.2
> Redhat 6.1
> TurboLinux 4.0 Workstation
> Corel 1.0 Deluxe edition.
>
> The experiment was NOT designed to fail as some folks in this group seem to
> believe. These are the major distributions and my hardware is hardly
> unusual. I did not expect the Canon Scanner to work so it was not
> mentioned. SBlive has drivers out there so I considered it in my
> evaluations.
>
> Here are some excerpts from the notes I took:
>
> Corel had the slickest install and in fact installed perfectly on 2 out of
> the 3 machines I tried it on. It failed on a Thinkpad and I suspect the
> CDROM drive may be to blame.
>
> With the system above install was about 10 minutes or so and it installed a
> nice boot manager as well.
> Potential problems are: If it does not work properly you are SOL as I do
> not believe there is a way to command line it.
> Like someone else in the group pointed out, the partitioning system leaves
> a lot to be desired in terms of control. Also if you use XF86Setup to tweak
> things Corel seems to want to put it's own settings in there and may go out
> to lunch (blinking screen).
> But again, this system seems to be designed around the "install it and use
> it" philosophy and it does work quite nicely on supported hardware.
>
> One other thing is that although Corel is based on Debian, there are a lot
> of things that seem to be missing (libraries and so forth) and this
> provides frustration when you go to the Debian site and try to download
> *.deb files. Some work and some don't.
>
> I could not get any of the Emu10k1 SBLive drivers to compile on this
> system. I had unresolved symbols and all sorts of other weird stuff. Even
> after following the instructions on the Official SBLive web page, It still
> did not work.
> The Commercial OSS drivers included did NOT include a driver but Mr. Bilk
> did point out that one is available now. I didn't get a chance to try it
> but based upon my past experience with OSS it will most likely work right
> out of the box. Seeing as Corel has signed with Creative to provide all
> types of support etc they should be ashamed for not having a *.deb file on
> their site.
> One other thing is that it seems that the Corel Bootmanager is required to
> use Corel. It would not boot using PQmagic.
>
> This is the perfect package however for someone who just wants to boot it
> up and get some work done. All the tools are there, newsreader,email,
> Wordperfect, Themes for kde (a nice touch) and so forth.
> Real nice help system which links everything together and uses url's in
> Netscape to put it all together. I had several questions answered by the
> help system.
> For the tinkerer who is new at tinkering, I would suggest another
> distribution. An experienced Linux person would have no trouble modifying
> Corel to act more like a standard Debian system.
> Corel has done a fine job!
>
> Caldera 2.3
> In some ways the installation is better than Corel because you
> are given more control of things. I didn't need to do anything special and
> it installed on every machine i tried including the Thinkpad.
> Caldera's help site is quite good and the people in the groups are friendly
> and helpful.
>
> The SBlive driver compiled perfectly and worked fine.
> So did IMWheel, but Pan (agent clone) failed due to Gnome libs being
> needed.
>
> I had several of the known bugs, the un-initalized swap file being one of
> them. The web site had an errata list and I was on my way.
>
> Nice distribution.
>
> Redhat 6.1
> Decent install program with lot's of help screens and good
> advice. Partitioning was fully functional, meaning you better know what you
> are doing. I like the look of Gnome better than kde but I kept getting core
> dumps in various applications. The Gnome dialer, an apparent GUI front end
> to WVDial would not connect properly to ATT despite ATT being one of the
> ISP options in the install box!
> Weird since the CLI version of WVDial worked perfectly for me.
> Redhat's default Path statement seems to be lacking some paths.
> After compiling and installing several programs, they didn't work from the
> command line because paths were not there. I HATE IT when the instructions
> say "simply add /x/y/z to your Path statement. Where is this path? I can
> echo $PATH and see it but where do I change it? I could find no .profile
> file, at least not for a root user. I ended up adding an export statement
> to the bash profile file.
> The book Running Linux briefly mentions the environment variables but does
> not tell specifically where they live. Stupid question, but frustrating
> anyway.
> XFConfig file is in a non-standard place also. Not /etc/XFconfig.
>
> EMU10k1 would not compile under 6.1 complaining about symbols again.
>
> Overall, I didn't like Redhat although I have high hopes for Gnome in the
> future.
>
> TurboLinux 4.0
> Didn't last on my system long enough to try. Turbodesk
> scrambled the screen and I could not get out of it. Dumped it. Real funky
> looking Borland Turbo-C IDE looking install program.
>
> SuSE 6.2
> In my opinion the overall winner of the group. SuSE seems to do
> things right the first time from the start. It seems like they actually try
> out the distro before releasing it, unlike RH which to ME seems to have
> many gotcha's for a newbie.
> The install program took a LONG time, longest of the bunch by far. It found
> all of my hardware (except SBLive) and worked from the start.
> The first time I installed it I had some problems, but I believe It was
> pilot error. The second time things were flawless. every program I threw at
> it compiled perfectly including the EMU10k1 driver and IMWheel, as well as
> SLRN, KRN and Wine. Perfectly. Menu's got updated in kde and YaST did a
> fine job of setting things up.
> One minor complaint is that going to the web site and trying to find things
> is a little confusing for me.
> The deb package manager seemed easier.
> SuSe is great for the tinkerer as well as the complete newbie because
> things just seem to work. I don't have the technical reasons, but I can say
> that when I type in ./configure, make, make install, make clean I have a
> fully functioning program at the end. That was not the case with some of
> the other distributions. Corel in particular.
>
> Anyway that's all folks! I sincerely hope that I have helped at least one
> person sort through the various Linux options.
>
> Overall, Linux is a formidable opponent to Windows on the desktop, even for
> Joe Sixpack. It has come a long way in a year and I have no doubt it will
> grow in popularity the more Microsoft continues to extort money for bug fix
> upgrades.
> Is it ready to replace Windows? No I don't think so, not yet anyway. For
> some users it has always been a Windows replacement, but for CompUSA Joe,
> it will depend on his particular needs. Linux is an excellent alternative
> to Windows and is superior in some ways and lacking in others.
>
> A year ago I never would have made that statement, but things are really
> changing in both the Linux and Windows worlds.
>
> To newbies thinking of trying Linux, all you have to lose is $1.99 from
> CheapBytes and maybe some time. Give it a whirl and decide for yourself.
>
> My comments apply to Win98 only as I don't use NT and I have no intention
> of wasting money on Win2k unless I am forced to.
>
> Sincerely,
> Steve
>
> P.S. Please ignore my "fragmentation killing Linux" post. I was frustrated
> at that point and I was trying to say that all the different distributions
> and their way of doing things may hurt Linux. It is certainly confusing the
> support issue, where a program compiles perfectly under one but dies on
> another and so forth.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IE on UNIX
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:10:17 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 01:47:16 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >But we find that even this is split up. Lots of people still like using
>> >fvwm or whatever. It wasn't until RedHat and others started
>automatically
>> >installing Gnome that it's useage started really going up.
[deletia]
>So, they're volunteers? Is it trying to be a business class professional OS
>or a hobbyist Toy OS? If the answer is the former, then volunteer status
>has little to do with anything.
>
>My argument is that Microsoft has not been "holding back" the development of
>the computer industry, as some people have suggested, it's this duplication
>of effort that has.
How are you going to progress? Obviously you're going to have
to build on what has already been done. Allowing for a diverse
collection of different ways to approach a particular problem
is far more likely to yield progress than a 'one true way'.
Microsoft has had effective control over consumer computing
technology for over 10 years. They could have chosen to do
great things with that power but chose not to. Instead they
would rather wait for others to come up with good ideas and
then swipe those ideas and then run the inventor out of
business.
This certainly encourages technology to stagnate.
HELL, they haven't even completely gotten rid of XT DOS yet
and it's been 15 years since the introduction of the 386.
They've even go so far as to actively discourage users from
switching to their own relatively clean alternative.
That's truely sad.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 24 Feb 2000 18:13:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 10:24:56 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When MS does migrate hotmail to W2K - will you suddenly decide that that was
> the only critieria you needed satisified to prove how powerful and wonderful
> W2K is?
I can *hear* your sarcasm through the ASCII-encoding. Especially
on the "powerful and wonderful" part.
> Suddenly you will drop your false pretenses and rush to embrace it?
> If not, what other than trolling is the point of your post?
Rubbing salt in the festering wounds. M$ has tried to make
Hotmail run on NT, but their enterprise class operating system
failed to scale. Hmmm.
Now, if *they* do *not* manage to get it to run under w2k (i.e.
having so little thrust in their *own* products ability) and
still tout it as the best thing since sliced bread, what should
I think about the rest of their claims?
No, Hotmail on w2k does not make w2k a winner. But failing to be
able to makes it a sure loser when it comes to Hotmail-style
computing needs. And wasn't NT already hyped to be able to do
that kind of stuff?
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: LINUX = COMUNISM
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:13:30 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 05:09:31 -0500, Stephen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If capitalism is invariably so much more efficient than communism, tell
>> us why, after ten years of capitalism, and after ten years of economic
>> support from the West, Russia now is very much poorer than it was ten
>> years ago? And why has the life expectancy in Russia gone down at least
>> five years since the advent of a "free-market" economy there? Just
>> wondering.
>
>Russia by no means is an honest capitalist society. The term repeatedly
>used to describe them is "Kleptocracy" , the government gave sweetheart
Rusia was the same way before. That's the real problem:
pervasive institutionalized graft and corruption.
This is even reflected on the individual level in education:
students were expected to cheat and to assist others in cheating
for the sake of the class such that the class average wouldn't suffer.
>deals to excommunists and mafia, who bought the businesses for a song and
>sold them for a high prices and then sent the money overseas.
Even with all that, the Russian standard of living is still better
these days. Decentralized graft is much more likely to ensure that
there is kielbasa in the stores.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 18:19:30 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:42:38 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 24 Feb 2000 08:50:17 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Assuming that *everyone* can make these copies of the product, it is the
>>case. The reason why MS Word and MS Dos did OK is that fortune 500 companies
>>and the government have a hard time getting away with using pirated software.
>
> That sort of falls flat for the games and the music artists.
No it doesn't. Reputable record dealers cannot afford to sell illegitimate
copies.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux Demo Day a letdown
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:16:58 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 05:00:03 -0500, Stephen Voss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Why did I have **no** trouble getting RH4.2 installed in 4 hrs in 1997 ?
>> Why did Linux find my net card then, when Windows couldnt ?
>> Why did my second machine network almost straight away after I also
>> installed Linux on it in 1997, via NFS, from the first machine ?
>
>Because your a linux geek thats why!
I was a Windows user the first time I installed Slackware.
I never had done any Unix admin, although I had done a fair
amount of PC level futzing courtesy of Uncle Bill.
>
>> Hang on, why did Yggdrassil install *no* problems for me in 1993 ?
>> Found the soundblaster pro etc,
>
>I still have problems with my AWE 64
Redhat picked up the pnp AWE64 on this machine that I'm typing
on just fine actually.
>
>> No I think it may be you ?
>
>Perfect Microsoft style...its never our fault its always the users fault.
Some users are rather lazy and unwilling to put forth any
effort, not a herculean effort, but any effort. Such a
user would likely complain about an iMac not being enough
like Windows.
You may be just that sort of user... or not.
>
>> Coyotebert, Linux IS NOT Windows, we dont care what Microsoft does, Microsoft
>> has NO impact on us. Maybe it does on Redhat or Suse, who are both commercial
>> companies, however Linux enthuisasts such as myself, will continue to use it
>> continue to learn about it, and continue to write software, tech manuals
>> design equipment, and work the net with it, regardless of Microsoft.
>
>You dont think commercial distrubitions have an effect on the quality and
>quantity
>of software available???
Nope. Linux is still driven by the developers. The distros just
package up what others have done and put a nice bow on it. Infact,
it is better this way. Redhat's old admin tools are a really good
demonstration of this.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:21:25 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 16:59:34 GMT, Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>>My theory, which is mine, that I made, is that Piracy is bad because
>>it aggravates the whining, possesive and spoiled brat, Bobby, the
>>ur-child of The Enlightenment.
>
>Quite possibly. On the other hand, as long as we're talking about all
>crime only in terms of observable physical harm, most of the things we
>generally agree to be "wrong" are not really wrong, and therefore shouldn't
>be criminal.
>
>Do you think it should be illegal to point spy cameras in people's bedrooms?
>If so, you have just invented yet another kind of IP law. :)
That would just be the extension of common law regarding one's residence.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 18:26:45 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:52:29 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 24 Feb 2000 08:38:26 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 24 Feb 2000 06:54:57 GMT, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> An entire OS was started by a 'home user'.
Nonsense. It was started by a graduate student in a University. Linus
was not and is not "Joe user" by any stretch of the imagination.
> Some VERY useful shareware and the orginal PC 'killer app' were
> created by small groups of people or individuals with an 'itch
> to scratch'.
And more yet were not. Oh, and what, they're shareware, and not
"Open Source" ?
>>> Individuals
>>>will still write programs to "scratch their itch". Groups will come
>>>together to create programs that are useful to them, or even just
>>>for the sake of a good hack.
>>
>>This isn't much help for people who don't know how to program.
>
> Even if FreeBSD and Linux didn't exist, this would still
> be flatly contradicted by what was available in the
> previous computing culture.
No it wouldn't. Not everyone is happy using Latex and emacs. Not everyone
has the time and inclination to become a Linux systems administrator. Yet again,
you prove to the group that you have little or no idea what the average
home user wants or needs.
>>The problem is that there is a very real audience of people who do not
>>know how to program, but are willing to pay for the right to use a piece
>>of software. These people are well served by the IP licensing model,
>
> No they aren't. They're going to get ripped off and stuck in
> a trap of vendor lock and planned obsolescence. It's specifically
No, they're not. One only needs to see how cheap several of these home user
applications are to see that they are not ripped off. "Forsaken" was in
my local computer shop for $5-. Quake 2 for $20-. Some resum'e makers
for $20-. For the amount of development effort that goes into this software,
these prices are very reasonable.
>>which makes available software that OpenSource developers are unable to
>>provide answers to ( eg games, multimedia, Office suites ) These people
>>don't want to wait until some Dow 30 company needs the same piece of
>>software that they want, or until Joe Hacker decides to throw something
>>together.
>
> They don't care really. All they wan't is something that's
> "good enough" and doesn't cost much.
And licensed software seems to be meeting the requirements, as the sales
of Win 9x indicate. Linux on the other hand does not meet the needs of
this type of user.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Propagandist Chad Myers Lies About Linux 150 Times
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:26:07 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 13:55:02 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers wrote:
>> > > Can you use them to repair the registry?
>> >
>> > I believe you are mixing the hapless Win9x registry with the WindowsNT
>> > registry.
>> >
>> > I started working with NT right around NT 4.0's release (I was playing
>> > with a beta copy, so it was 95 or so) and, even in an beta copy of NT,
>> > I have NEVER seen a corrupt registry (well, once I saw one on a drive
>> > that had 80% bad clusters and was heading south fast).
>> >
>> > I have seen them frequently in Win9x, so you must be talking about
>> > Win9x. In WinNT, there's no need for repair.
>>
>> Of course, by that reasoning I could say that ext2 doesn't need
>> journalling, as I have never lost data because of it.
>
>Let me restate the above...
>
>The registry is a transactional, locked, and logged database.
>
>Should catsasstrophy <grin> strike, NT can reply the log file and
>roll-forward, and roll-back changes in the event of failure.
So then, what's the command to do a registry recover
to a specific 'known good' date?
What happens if your transaction log is toasted? Can
you mount the transaction log somewhere else? Is the
transaction log visible and available for filesystem
level backup and recovery.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: 24 Feb 2000 18:28:16 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:58:12 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>On 24 Feb 2000 08:24:12 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Furthermore, with proper abstraction you need not give away
> 'the whole thing'. You can keep your core advantage and simply
> release that which has become mundane or a commodity.
Hey, am I misunderstanding, or are you conceding that free software and
commercially licensed software can coexist ?
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:30:14 GMT
On 24 Feb 2000 18:19:30 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:42:38 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 24 Feb 2000 08:50:17 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Assuming that *everyone* can make these copies of the product, it is the
>>>case. The reason why MS Word and MS Dos did OK is that fortune 500 companies
>>>and the government have a hard time getting away with using pirated software.
>>
>> That sort of falls flat for the games and the music artists.
>
>No it doesn't. Reputable record dealers cannot afford to sell illegitimate
>copies.
Since when have you ever been limited merely to reputable dealers?
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: How does the free-OS business model work?
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:37:07 GMT
On 24 Feb 2000 18:26:45 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 17:52:29 GMT, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>>On 24 Feb 2000 08:38:26 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 24 Feb 2000 06:54:57 GMT, Mitch Blevins wrote:
>
>> An entire OS was started by a 'home user'.
>
>Nonsense. It was started by a graduate student in a University. Linus
>was not and is not "Joe user" by any stretch of the imagination.
Actually, I don't believe he was a graduate student at that
time. Either way, it's more important that he believed he
was capable of the task rather than have particular formal
qualifications.
'home user' doesn't necessarily mean novice, even when the
user in question is 12 and has no letters after his hame.
>
>> Some VERY useful shareware and the orginal PC 'killer app' were
>> created by small groups of people or individuals with an 'itch
>> to scratch'.
>
>And more yet were not. Oh, and what, they're shareware, and not
>"Open Source" ?
Different culture.
However, the fact remains that the two major PC killer apps
were both produced by people scratching itches in Universities,
not by some salivating profiteer.
Even quite a bit of the commercial stuff was striclty 'itch scratchers'
and commercial exploitation was just an afterthought.
That's an important aspect of this issue. There are far more consumers
than producers. The greater ultimate interest is going to be in
lowering prices. Add in some world wide collaboration and this becomes
quite feasable. This is especially true in the case of more expensive
products like Oracle or BMC Patrol.
The market sees that the distributed production cost of reverse
engineering a solution from scratch is ultimately cheaper than
buyware and then goes for the cheaper option.
>
>>>> Individuals
>>>>will still write programs to "scratch their itch". Groups will come
>>>>together to create programs that are useful to them, or even just
>>>>for the sake of a good hack.
>>>
>>>This isn't much help for people who don't know how to program.
>>
>> Even if FreeBSD and Linux didn't exist, this would still
>> be flatly contradicted by what was available in the
>> previous computing culture.
>
>No it wouldn't. Not everyone is happy using Latex and emacs. Not everyone
>has the time and inclination to become a Linux systems administrator. Yet again,
If you think free editors are restricted to Latex and emacs
then you have no business indulging in this argument.
[deletia]
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SCSI vs. IDE (Re: My Windows 2000 experience)
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2000 18:39:09 GMT
On Thu, 24 Feb 2000 15:13:02 -0000, Eddie Dubourg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >
>> What? You Win32 power users don't have network access
>> to scanner hardware yet... <snicker>
>>
>Our HP Scanjet has been networked for years (WinNT)
>
>It's just the users that aren't, and putting pages on a scanner 2 floors
>down and 3 buildings along, running back to a desk, pressing the scan
>button, running back, changing pages, running back, pressing scan, running
>back, changing pages...........
>
>It's a bugger.
In which case I would expect there to be a nice conveniently
placed hub there for end users to plug their laptops into
instead of trying to plug the scanner in directly.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
