Linux-Advocacy Digest #453, Volume #25 Wed, 1 Mar 00 08:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Windows 2000: flat sales (Mike Marion)
Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Truckasaurus)
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (JCA)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Edward Rosten)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (Stephen Chadfield)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users (Nicholas John Murison)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (Bastian)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (mlw)
Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more... ("Niall Wallace")
Re: Microsoft's New Motto (mlw)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? (mlw)
Re: Why waste time on Linux? ("Niall Wallace")
Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian ("Joseph T. Adams")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 1 Mar 2000 10:13:42 +0100
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>Contrast it with e.g., the Amiga, which was a fully multitasking
>computer complete with networking capabilities, but has/had no concept
>at all about different owners of files (although it does have read,
>write, and execute privileges, as well as a few others). The Amiga
>would make a very bad multiuser server. Similarly for MacOS (AFAIK)
>and good old DOS.
>
The Amiga has multiuser support in the MuFS file system. Combined with
AmiTCP (aka Genesis) and nice telnet/ftp daemons you have a nice remote
login machine/server.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] · http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ · [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Elgyn: My authorization code is E-A, T-M, E.
/Alien: Resurrection
------------------------------
From: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: flat sales
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:14:48 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> well, there you have it. we are an impass. Every setup I've seen has 98
> running faster and DEFINATELY more stable. Every setup you've seen has
> opposite results. There isn't much more that can be said.
Actually my friend saw 95 as more stable... me, it's been about equal between 95
and 98. That equal level has been crap compared to every *nix I've used, and NT
though. But like I've been saying, I don't see an increase in speed on the same
kinds of hardware (at all levels) between 95 and 98. I just see more features
in 98 (though not a whole lot more).
What's really scary is the main reason I bought 98 when I did: I was playing
Descent: Freespace 2 and it kept crashing on me after I'd gotten to a certain
point. I read tons of posts on NGs where people with 95 were having the same
issue, but people with 98 weren't... and dammit, I wanted to finish the game..
so I got 98. Sure enough it didn't crash at that point anymore. :) It did
crash another 2 or 3 times before I finished though.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Barbie of Borg - She doesn't just Assimilate, She Accessorizes too!
-- Stolen from a /. post.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 09:07:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> tim kelley wrote:
>
> >
> > It is certainly not "communist" in the Marxist-Leninist sense,
> > that is where the state owns all property.
>
> Marx thought that the people as a whole should own everything. Lenin
> thought that the people should give everything to the government, and
> the people choose who they want to own everything (by election). Two
> different ideas.
Look up communism; it's an order of society, where *the means of
production* are owned by 'the people', or by the government on behalf of
'the people'.
--
"Dear someone you've never heard of,
how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: JCA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 14:16:07 -0800
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 07:22:09 -0800, JCA wrote:
> >crashed wrote:
>
> > This is a very commendable feeling but, unfortunately, not the way things
> > have
> >historically worked out, the egregious example being that of home VCR formats.
>
> There are more to "merits" than the product quality. There are very good
> reasons why home VCR formats worked out the way they did.
Precisely. And I am not sure that they had much to do with relative merits,
but
with purely commercial and marketing considerations.
> When you talk about "history", think about all the great revolutions -- the
> (Chinese) cultural revolution, the Russian revolution, the French revolution
> ... and also think of their aftermaths. Once the means become corrupted, the
> end follows suit.
>
Whoa, you are diving into unfathomable depths! Assessing the merits of one
of those sociological revolutions is much more difficult than doing the same
thing for incompatible VCR formats (as a matter of fact, I think that unlike the
Russian and Chinese revolutions the French one was a good thing, but that's
an altogether different issue.)
>
> > This is a kind of >Alliance vs. Empire struggle.
>
> Put your light saber down, buddy. The only "struggle" is that to offer
> good quality software to the users.
I wish that were the case. Unfortunately, the guys from Redmond have
shown, time and again, that one can get the upper hand in such struggle even
with inferior software.
My ligthsaber will remain very much ready to strike.
------------------------------
From: Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:22:59 +0000
proculous wrote:
>
> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
> what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along system?
Use a good distro. They work out of the box.
> i've used linux and as far as i am concerned it is a complete waste of
> time to configure and set up all in the hopes that there might be some
> application that you can really use.
Such as apache? The other thing is that you view UN*X loke the other
OS's. One of the key features of UN*X is a lack of big apps, which do
multiple unrelated tasks. Instead, it has many building blocks (and some
pretty strong glue) to hold them all together. This way, you use a
'custom' app to to the required task, which is small, fast and very
versatile. I personally think that this is a good thing, because that
sort of power is what I like. Even if you dislike it, there are now a
number of large-style apps avaliable. I also expect that you want a
linux distro to come with *everything*. If you went to a shop and
purchased Win98, you wouldn't have Office2000. To use Office 2000, you
would have to go and buy it. If you have GNU/Linux and want to run an
Office Suite, then you will have to go and get one, rather than expect
it to come with one.
> Hardware support is in many cases
> at a very basic level. I can walk into just about any store and buy an
> application that will do anything. mention linux and people start to
> look at you funny.
Someone has pointed out NT and Win2000, so I won't.
> you linux supporters have no idea how much you are missing in the way
> of great applications. Too busy compiling your cernels i suppose.
A cernel?
Also I've made my point about 'great' apps. sed is a great app, if used
wisely with vi, bash, awk etc.
As a programming environment, UN*X is second to none. I enjoy coding,
much as you enjoy posting provocative posts to C>O>L>A. Therefore, I use
UN*X (RH Linux as it happens, because a local shop was selling CDs and I
dodn't fancy a large download os use another distro / *BSD etc).
> windows rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
rules what?
>
> linux blowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!
>
> Too many rightwangers and left_wang_nut homo's in this bunch anyway.
I, for one don't care for your bigoted views. Take a look at:
http://www.comz.asfh-berlin.de/~gator/manuals/jargon/g/GenderandEthnicity.html
or any equivalent. Remember, many people on C>O>L>A are hackers.
>
> looks like a good ol' fashioned linux barbeecuuuu...
>
> the weird and down-trodden are always welcome....
>
> please shower before coming.....
>
> --
> I love my kernel. I really do. I hate my girlfriend.I love only Linux.
Kernels come and kernels go. GNU stays put. In 5 years time, we may all
have migrated to C>O>L>Hird or whatever. What we like is a good quality,
open OS and the one we choose to advocate is GNU/Linux. Furthermore, I'm
sure that most of us love our partners.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold weather is
because
of all the fish in the atmosphere?
-The Hackenthorpe Book Of Lies
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Reply-To: Stephen Chadfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Stephen Chadfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 11:55:55 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> [SNIP Windows is not a multi-user OS]
>
> > > Which of these single-user assumptions can you list ?
> >
> > A common System and System 32 folder? So that even if the user who logged in
> > hasn't installed MS Office they still need to have the freakin DLLs.
>
> Does not Un*x have /lib?
>
> Does not un*x have globally installed applications?
>
> With Windows2000 TS, you can have individual user-installed apps, and
> system-wide available apps.
>
> And I'm not sure what you mean by "need to have the freakin DLLs".
Can individual users set their own file associations in NT? Using
Windows 98 the default browser setting applies to *all* users.
--
Stephen Chadfield
http://www.chadfield.com/
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 07:24:36 -0500
LOL
Great comedy writing.
--doc
"Norman D. Megill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89but1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I provide the following in response to the notion that "Windows is easy
> to install".
<snip>
------------------------------
From: Nicholas John Murison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Free Internet denied to Linux users
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 13:28:49 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I've had similar experience with free ISPs here in Norway. The most
paradoxal one to date was Sensewave (http://www.sensewave.com) who, when
I called tech support for the IPs of the DNS-servers, told me their
internet offer was "not compatible with Linux", although their customer
homepage-server is actually an Apache server running on a Linux box.
John Culleton wrote:
>
> I received another free internet offer today, this time
> from Juno. As usual Windows 95 or later is required. It's not
> like I haven't paid my dues to Bill Gates. I bought Windows 3.1
> years ago. It won't work and of course Linux won't work. Thus far
> I have free cdroms from Juno, Freei.net, and bluelight.com (KMART).
> Freei.net has Apple software, the other two are Win9x or Win2k only.
>
> The first free provider to include Linux as a supported or at least allowed
> user operating system has a monopoly on the Linux market for this kind of
> service. Whay hasn't any of the bright boys and girls who run these services
> woken up to that fact?
>
> John Culleton
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Nicholas John Murison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't mess with penguins
Registered Linux User #153895 http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bastian)
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: 01 Mar 2000 12:32:34 GMT
On Wed, 01 Mar 2000 02:06:05 GMT, proculous wrote:
>windows rulez!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>linux blowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!
And even the keyboard drivers are buggy in Windows.
Bastian.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 1 Mar 2000 12:35:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:39:48 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reading between the lines you
> can read anything you want to.
Your newsreader seems borken (or you don't use it correctly, but I
suspect the former), look how it mangled the attribution and my
text.
> > Nope.
> No? You're denying that "reading between the lines" is an entirely
> subjective interpretation?
I won't deny that it's an area of interpretation. However, that
does not mean you can read everything you want. You are griping
for straws.
> > > It's more than that. Have you ever run a mail server? The volume of
> mail
^^^^^^
Your newsread... oh, I repeat myself.
> > > recieved for a medium sized company can put a modest server under heavy
> > > stress.
> > manage on less ... But then, as an admin, you are expected to be
> > able to make sure you have enough computing power and IO and
> > Bandwidth for whatever you need. If you are unable because of
> We're not talking about Exchange here. We're talking about the amount of
> processing power necessary to handle the huge volume of mail that Hotmail
> gets.
Processing power? For what? Waiting for the raid stacks to
finish reading or writing the data? You seem to have little idea
what the difference between I/O and processor power is.
Mailsending and recieving does *not* need much computation. I/O,
that it needs. Bandwidth, yes, for huge amounts of mail.
> > Before that? Well, I was looking up something a year or 1.5
> > ago, somewhere in the MS-Knowledge base. It tried to force a
> > cookie on me and would not let me pass without.
> Most sites of any size on the net require cookies to track information
> entered from page to page, where you are in the site, and what your settings
> are.
I was not going or had not entered information. Where I am?
Ever heard of something called URLs? That's enough to know for
the Server, usually. (HTML's a stateless connection, the server
is not expected or required to know where I am, just to send out
the data tagged to that URL.) And there's such a thing called a
Referer Header, which tells what URL I came from. Also, I
didn't enter any settings. The default would have been fine for
me, all *I* was after was a static article in the knowledge
base!
Note further: Your claim or "Most sites of any size on the net
require cookies" needs some proof. At least I don't encounter
many sites that actually set a cookie (apart from ad companies)
and those that do work perfectly well without any cookies ... at
least I have not encountered anything different yet, apart from
M$.
> > > It's all dynamic content
> > > customized to each individual user.
> > If you choose to do so. Like your 60% IE users, "most probably
> > haven't" customized their content.
> That doesn't change the fact that it still has to be dynamicly generated,
> even if it's a default page. Making it dynamic for one user makes it
> dynamic for all.
dynamic != dynamic
You ought to know that. You can dynamically calculate all prime
numbers between 1 and 10.00 for a page every time it's accessed.
That's slow. You can just check 3 variables and fill in a
template. That's fast and needs little computing power. You can
do a complicated or lengthy SQL statement every time.
> > Common sense dictates that "nobody gets fired for choosing IBM".
> > Common sense tells you that there's no speed of light.
> > Common sense would have everyone running from|to Microsoft.
> > Obviously you have just speculations. Which don't count much as
> > far as facts go ... and I am sure I'd rather have somebody else in
> > the jury, should I ever be accused of something criminal.
> Common sense is none of those things. It doesn't take much of a brain to
> figure out that MSN's home page is probably the most trafficed page on the
> net. With Netscapes page second.
So, you have proof? No.
On the same hand it does not take much brain to figure out that M$
is *still* running Hotmail not under NT because they found it too
hard to do so, despite them telling us they were goung to do that
and despite their marketing telling us that switching to
NT3.5|NT4|W2K is fast and painless. You did not accept my
reasonng, why should I accept yours?
> > > 60% of the internet users use IE, which
> > > defaults to msn.com, which most probably haven't changed.
> > So is msn.com getting more or less traffic than, say, hotmail,
> > altavista, yahoo? That was the question.
> Yes, it's probably getting more traffic than hotmail, altavista and yahoo
> combined.
You remember that Internet != www? And that the start page
(usually cached in the browser or at the ISP) is one page ...
reading mail on hotmail or searching on altavista/yahoo is a
couple of pages per user in a rather short time.
Probably? I'd say the probability is somewhere around 0.15.
But then I am not impartial.
> But traffic is only one part of the equation. You also have to look at the
> amount of processing the servers do for things the user can't see.
That's why I did ask about the *number of servers* as well. And
I wonder ... which processing do you mean?
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Weisselberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft migrates Hotmail to W2K
Date: 1 Mar 2000 12:44:24 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 12:16:34 -0600,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As typical with a Un*x based solution. Nothing works end to end, so you
> have to mix and match to make up for each components failings.
As compared to MS-Solutions: Nothing works end to end, and you
can't replace the 'suboptimal' parts, so you either give up or
you'll have to invent (over and over again) horrible hacks while
working against the OS.
> Reason #1029102 to migrate homatil.com to Windows2000 - end-to-end
> solutions
The're much simpler. They just don't work, right? :-)
> Have you recompiled your kernel today?
Windows 2000 Professional build 2195 (release version):
Existing files can be extended even if a user is over quota.
See <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-Wolfgang
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 07:47:50 -0500
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on 29 Feb 2000 16:27:22 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >On Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:45:53 -0500, Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >nospam> wrote:
> >>
> >>Lies? Pooky? Lies? You and MiG are the only liars around - how about helping
> >>MiG in proclaiming that NT is not a multiuser OS (he doesn't even know the
> >>definition) or are you at least smart enough to fail in that claim too.
> >
> >NT is a multiuser OS in the same sense that DOS is an OS at all.
> >Technically it's multiuser, but single-user assumptions are buried
> >throughout the code, and they have caused problems in multiuser
> >environments and they will continue to do so.
>
> The only thing that's not multiuser about NT, IMO, is the console.
> And that's a very small thing. Everything else about NT, as
> far as I can tell anyway, shows that it is in fact ready for
> multiuser and server use.
I sort of agree with the previous post to yours that While NT does have
a very clear concept of tracking who multiple users are, facilities and
conventions are design with single user in mind. This is mostly the
fault of software developers writing software for Windows, but which
will run on NT. There really is no way to develop software in a 'single
user' mindset that will work 'magically' multi-user. Here UNIX has the
advantage because one can't use the UNIX without it being multi-user.
At its heart, the Windows API set was originally designed for 2 floppies
and an 8086. Sure they have expanded it, but it's heritage is of single
user personal computer.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:48:46 -0000
Hm, I would say that something can be so capitalist that is becomes almost
Comunist.
Ie. MS taking over the computer world where everything is a monopoly, ie no
competition which is sort a part of comunism but GNU allows open source
which is actually similar to capitalism because everyone gets a chance and
can suceed unlike MS's system where only MS can suceed.
Since Comunism has everything owned by the people and no or limited
comptetition lets consider the differences.
Right, Microsoft own big operating system that is pretty crap, most people
in the world use this operating system because they think they have no other
choice.
Now, Comunism Russian style I think.
Govement owns everything for the people of Russia/CCCP, people think that
this is their only choice.
So following that idea Linux is a bit of an escape hatch
A bit of confusion supplied by Niall
Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:89imkp$9cd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > tim kelley wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > It is certainly not "communist" in the Marxist-Leninist sense,
> > > that is where the state owns all property.
> >
> > Marx thought that the people as a whole should own everything. Lenin
> > thought that the people should give everything to the government, and
> > the people choose who they want to own everything (by election). Two
> > different ideas.
>
> Look up communism; it's an order of society, where *the means of
> production* are owned by 'the people', or by the government on behalf of
> 'the people'.
>
> --
> "Dear someone you've never heard of,
> how is so-and-so. Blah blah.
> Yours truly, some bozo." - Homer Simpson
> Martin A. Boegelund.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft's New Motto
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 07:54:39 -0500
Angelos Karageorgiou wrote:
>
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >
> > The only thing that's not multiuser about NT, IMO, is the console.
> > And that's a very small thing. Everything else about NT, as
> > far as I can tell anyway, shows that it is in fact ready for
> > multiuser and server use.
> >
>
> I beg to differ, NT is Not Trully Multiuser neither is it trully
> multitasking. One can easily verify my claim by writing a little
> thread code, after creating a thread you NEED to call wait on
> the mutex or else your app eats all the CPU.
>
> Thus NT is really single user with a few bad hacks to emulate
> multitasking.
I'm not sure what you are talking about, but NT does multitask fairly
well. One does not need to call wait within a thread for other threads
to run. Yes, if I bump a thread up to real-time priority and just spin
in a loop, the thread will get lots of time. If I just start a thread at
normal priority, it will be just fine.
If you really want to make a claim like this, show us some code that
demonstrates what you mean. That way we can decide whether or not it is
a flaw or feature.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 07:59:09 -0500
(While this is an obvious troll.....)
proculous wrote:
>
> When there are so many great windows and mcintosh programs out their
> what is the point of wasting time on a build it as you go along system?
> i've used linux and as far as i am concerned it is a complete waste of
> time to configure and set up all in the hopes that there might be some
> application that you can really use. Hardware support is in many cases
> at a very basic level. I can walk into just about any store and buy an
> application that will do anything. mention linux and people start to
> look at you funny.
There are many great Windows programs, yes. There are many great Mac
programs, yes. Unfortunately neither the mac nor Windows provides me
with the stability and flexibility that I need to get my work done.
Aside from a few "would like to have" programs, I have all the programs
I really need on Linux.
As for the people looking at you funny? I would not bet that it is
because you said Linux.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 95, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why waste time on Linux?
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:54:47 -0000
Yep, I am forced currently to use MS here but,
I got Caldera at home on an un netwoked machine Ie Desktop.
Installed from Windows gave me Boot Magic so I can use the mouse to decide
which OS I want to use, Seems to be capable of mounting almost every disk I
have except my Mac Formatted discs.
I have just written a report using Wordperfect which came as a demo on the
disk I seem to have 10000 uses for the cost of loading up the Corel WEbsite
and filling in the form where as the same amount of uses of MS Word would
cost me the initial cost of the software and then getting another dodgy
update every few years. Okay so I may be looking for Free Stuff but having
a computer that hangs every disk read or write isn't much use.
I find KDE much easier to use than Win 95 as I can set it the way I want
(MAc Os just now but I might set it defferently tomorrow) To do that without
KDE would require about 6 different computers all with different osses (Mac,
Win 95, Win 98, Win NT, BeOs, Win 2000)
I have more to say but not enough time.
Niall
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: 63000 bugs in W2K > # of bugs in Debian
Date: 1 Mar 2000 13:04:48 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Actually, X requires a mouse. So any GUI version of emacs (for Linux at least)
: may as well require it.
X may require the existence of a mouse or other pointing device.
It does NOT follow that any application, especially a text-oriented
application, ought to require use of the mouse.
Most if not all the things that can be done via mouse should be able
to be done via keyboard as well, perhaps by means of keyboard
accelerators or a close equivalent. It is MUCH more productive not to
have to frequently move one's hands from the keyboard while typing.
Whatever other sins Microsoft may have committed, it has at least
offered keyboard accelerators or shortcuts to all or nearly all of the
functionality of its office and development products.
I see no good reason why we shouldn't do the same, and lots of good
reasons why we should. (Thankfully most of the KDE and Gnome apps
have keyboard-accessible menus at least.)
:> Its just bad design practice for GUI apps to force the use of the mouse.
:>
: Then blame X
X has nothing to do with it.
X requiring the existence of a mouse, and an application requiring one
to *use* it (thereby forcing at least one hand away from the
keyboard), are two separate and unrelated issues.
Joe
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
