Linux-Advocacy Digest #612, Volume #25 Mon, 13 Mar 00 13:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: I've been Cleansed (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Disproving the lies. ("Drestin Black")
Re: Linux vs. NT as a webserver (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Dave)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: (Sascha
Bohnenkamp)
Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: which OS is best? ("Olivier Borgeaud")
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Robert Morelli)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: Mandrake=Poison? (Robert Morelli)
Re: Humor: Beer? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Mandrake=Poison? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for (Donn
Miller)
Re: BSD & Linux (Peter da Silva)
Re: A Linux server atop Mach? ("Charles W. Swiger")
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (5X3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I've been Cleansed
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:39:14 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> After wasting some where near a month TRYING in vain to switch to
> Linux I have finally found my home, and that is Windows 98 SE.
>
> Linux seemed like a good idea on the surface, I mean who could argue
> with free?
>
> Unfortunately the carpet started to unravel after the first day. While
> Windows installed fine and set up dial ups, printers, scanners, SCSI
> devices, Networks, Video cards, Sound cards and so forth right out of
> the box. Linux required that I surrender my first born in order to
> make the simple happen.
>
> Windows users thinking of switching to Linux?
>
> Try Netscape for WIndows and see what you think. You better love it
> cause that's what you are stuck with unless you are counting on some
> long delayed software.
>
> Windows users: I'll bet you love that Modem, scanner and printer you
> have and I am certain it works GREAT under Windows.
>
> Surprise, you have a non-functional modem, scanner and a text printer,
> if that, under Linux.
>
> Need to share files amongst your office coworkers? Hope they like text
> cause that's what you'll be sending them.All those nice graphics and
> custom sig lines, gone under Linux...
>
> I could go on for pages but the point is that Linux doesn't cut the
> mustard, it just plain sucks and you would be far better off using
> WIndows or McIntosh or AIX or anything other than Linux.
>
> Don't believe me?
>
> Try it for yourself and see how much it sucks...
>
> Http://www.corel.com
> Will get you started.
>
> When was the last time you got something for free that actually
> worked?
>
> pete
I don't know about you guys but I see this post as a further affirmation
that Linux is reaching the average user but still requires them to
install and configure. Notice how he said it's easy to install
Windows? That's because it is... you need to install Windows all the
time! While I can install Linux once and get something new working
everyday, it does take knowledge of computer systems to do it... this
is a fact. No matter how much we want to help and are willing to help,
it still takes help to get it going. The good news it that we are
succeeding in making Linux easier to use moreso all the time; it's a
process that does NOT happen overnight despite the lightning fast pace
of development. Keep up the great work!
Be patient with them; they are telling us what's wrong so we can fix
it. Don't ridicule them; they are our users and potential users. If
it's broke, fix it - after all, it's only a matter of perception.
Take all negatives and make them positive... take all positives and run
with them.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Disproving the lies.
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:44:44 -0500
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 00:57:14 -0500,
> Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Visit the dell site, signed livewire 2.2 drivers for Live cards... Dell
> : didn't wanna wait... it was a good moment in teaching CL a lesson... can
> : give you the link of you need it but you can find it pretty easy.
>
> Not everyone owns a Dell... Besides, the download is over 90 MB. Over
> 90 MB for a *sound card* driver and some tools??? I'll wait for the
> CL release, thanks.
Don't need to own a dell - it works with any Live! card. You DO search for
drivers on the net when you dont' have them right? I mean, isn't that how
linux drivers are found? Hunt through deja or places like freshmeat .. well,
same thing applies here. I needed a Live! driver and did a 2 minute deja
search and there it was. A genuine signed driver that I'm using right this
minute. The CL release will be the same size or larger (or they might do
what they did before and remove some things to get it down to 32 megs and
then sell a CD version for $15 or something plus shipping while you wait for
it). Do yourself the favor, get the free full version from dell. (I'll save
you some trouble; install the .inf in the drivers folder BEFORE you run
setup.exe)
>
> : they didn't claim symbolic links, they claimed something much
> : better/different.
>
> Back this claim up. I read their report. What they described was
> nothing more than symbolic links.
Read it again - it's not AND there is already a very lengthy thread on this
here which has covered the topic (hint: yer wrong).
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs. NT as a webserver
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 09:45:58 -0600
Fabio M Albertin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Maybe some of you have some answers for me...
> I'm trying to convince my superior at work that installing a Linux webserver
> instead of an NT server will be a very good decision that the company won't
> regret for at least a decade.
> So, basically, why is Linux better than NT, and can you back it up with any
> online resources? I'd be extremely grateful for responses.
> The main points are : stability, overall cost of computer & OS, cost of
> hiring staff with knowledge of Linux in the future, apache's ability to run
> ASP... I think you get the idea...
>
> Anyway, I'd be really grateful if any Linux-freak could send some facts my
> way... to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
>
> Thanks.
>
> Bye,
>
> Fabio Albertin
Number one reason??
To get off the expensive Microsoft merry-go-round. It's reason enough
for me!
Number two reason??
Piece of mind! I can do anything to my LINUX box while away from it
except for hardware work. I wont be getting up in the middle of the
night and driving to my server unless my hardware is toast.
Number three reason??
I can trust UNIX! I know that it is the finest piece of software
available today for servers at the price - Linux is a fine example of
UNIX technology as are the BSDs.
Number four reason??
LINUX is powerful to say the very least.
Number five reason??
I like the way Linus says LINUX.. Leee-nooks hehe.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: 13 Mar 2000 09:45:15 -0600
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 13:14:59 GMT, "LP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Um, Dos/Win9598 will cache from the top-down.. so it is not "anything above it".
>
>The real problem stems from the fact that it is top-down caching, so performance will
>suffer across the board.
>If you have 96megs installed, the first 32megs won't be cached.
>
>Contrast that to OS/2, which will cache from the bottom up.. so that yes, if you are
>actively using it beyond
>64megs, it'll not be cached.. but for 99% of it's memory usage, it'll be fully cached.
I could be wrong but I don't think it works that way. Win9x *uses*
memory from the top down, but the caching problem is a chipset
problem. It's the top 32 meg that won't be cached if you have 96
megs.
Or were you counting the other way, as in the top 32 meg *is* the
"first" 32 megs under Win9x? If that's the case, then "nevermind"!
:-)
Dave
------------------------------
From: Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re:
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:10:18 +0100
> <sarcasm>
> Yeah... it's almost as bad as Redhat/Corel/SuSE et al taking all that
> open source from around the world, sticking it on a CD and selling it
> for profit.
> </sarcasm>
All these companies to provide money to free-projects to make linux
better!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers
Subject: Re: LINUX = COMUNISM more...
Date: 13 Mar 2000 16:18:41 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 08:52:43 GMT, Truckasaurus wrote:
>> Where ? A dictionary isn't sufficient.
>
>Fill the gaps left open by dictionaries with brainpower.
Are you implying that the definition you give is sufficient or not ?
>If all property is publically owned, then why are people paid? Money is
One could equally ask "why do you pay to use a public hospital" or
"why do you pay fees to go to a state University".
>So 'all property is publically owned' and 'each person is paid' are
>mutual exclusive in this context. The definition you bring up doesn't
>work...
It is perfectly consistent.
from the communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may he summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property. "
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Olivier Borgeaud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:49:54 +0100
> ...except many people have gone into considerably detail
> demonstrating that this is NOT how Windows9x operates.
Exactly, but take Windows 2000, no more DOS !
Olivier
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:15:37 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Ferdinand V. Mendoza wrote:
>
> Robert Morelli wrote:
>
> > Ferdinand V. Mendoza wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > BTW, I would say that your conpiracy theory is farfetched.
> > > Do you have shares in Caldera or Redhat?
> >
> > Shares in Caldera or Redhat? Would attacking another Linux distro
> >
>
> Read my previous post again because it is very clear that I
> haven'tattack Caldera or Redhat. If my comments said Mandrake is far
> superior than Redhat for desktop use, that is based from my personal
> experience
> and I guess lots of newbies or the veterans would seem to
> agree that that's an honest fact.
> One of Mandrakes coolest feature is the "update icon". Don't know
> if Redhat has this now in their latest release. But all in all those
> are all excellent distros.
>
> > actually help those shares? Hey, that makes my theory look
> > pretty sane.
> >
>
> Your personal motives in attacking Mandrake is quitehighly suspicious to
> me so that does not validate your
> conspiracy theory to be pretty sane.
>
> Ferdinand
Let's go through this one more time. When I said "attacking another Linux
distro" I was referring to *me* attacking Mandrake. What I consider far fetched
is the idea that *my* attacking Mandrake would help shares of Caldera Red Hat.
I think it's pretty clear that attacking Mandrake probably has a slightly negative
effect on all other distributions, because the high flying movements of the Linux
company
share prices have little to do with monthly sales of one product against another,
and a lot to do with the perception that there is a lot of momentum behind Linux.
By the way, to the best of my understanding, posting slander in a newsgroup with the
intent
of influencing share prices of a stock you own would be a serious crime, violating
both
libel and SEC laws. (Anyone out there have the legal expertise to confim this?) If I
were a
criminal, I wouldn't post here under my own name. I do suspect that some of the
cowards who
post under pseudonyms here are in fact criminals in this sense. The biggest obstacle
to getting a conviction on something like this would be convincing people that posts in
this group were influential enough that it was worth the trouble.
On the other hand, if someone posting illegally here worked for, let's say,
Microsoft,
it might be fun to see them convicted.
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:25:14 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy MJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message:
> Shit, I just knew I couldn't help myself.
No doubt you expect us all to be surprised at your lack of self-restraint?
> This was the funniest thing I've seen or heard all weekend. I think we can
> safely apply this new definition of "portability" to Microsoft Windows 98 --
> the most "portable" operating system in the world. Hallelujah!
Gee, if I extract the source from a GNU-project tarball and do "./configure ;
make install" under Win 98, it doesn't work.
And source code which does syscall(SYS_chmod, ....) happens to compile and
work using the existing Mach kernel in MOSXS that it does everywhere else,
such as with the Linux kernel (which #defines the above to be __NR_chmod in
/usr/include/syscall-list.h). Anyone who cares can compare and contrast the
list of system calls provided by the two kernels and figure out that the
exported API's are practically identical.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 10:37:59 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >I obtained both Linux-Mandrake 6.0 and 6.1 and tried installing them on
> >> >several machines, two different laptops and 1 very standard desktop.
> >>
> >> What is the point of posting this now that 7.0 has been out for
> >> quite a while?
> >
> >7.0 has been out for a couple of months -- hardly what I'd call quite a
> >while.
>
> Perhaps in the sluggish world of Windows development you would call
> two months a long time.
>
> >It's also not a dramatic upgrade from 6.1 as far as I'm aware.
>
> The install procedure is wildly different.
>
> >6.0, 6.1, and 7.0 were all released in quick succession, which
> >may in fact be part of the problem.
>
> What problem? I suppose there are hardware configurations where
> it won't work, but all of those versions installed for me on
> an assortment of machines. About the only problem I saw was
> ftp not working in one version.
>
> >In any case, I actually paid money
> >for one of the Mandrake distros, and I don't see it as remarkable to
> >report on a product that was obtained only a few months ago. In any case,
> >if there is any shred of truth in my conspiracy theory, it would apply
> >equally well to 6.1, 7.0, 8.0, ...
>
> Perhaps they carefully targeted your particular machine as part of
> this consiracy. It even runs on a friend's 486, in spite of being
> optimized for pentiums.
>
> >The real reason I've posted this now is that I'm intrigued, and a little
> >concerned, by the increasing popularity of Mandrake. If it had fallen
> >into obscurity, I wouldn't have bothered. What prompted me to post
> >yesterday was seeing a recommendation from Borland/Inprise for either
> >Red Hat or Mandrake for use with one of its development products. What
> >merits that endorsement, above say a fine distribution like Caldera's?
>
> I'd guess that 7.0 is in fact a response to Caldera's install, trying
> to out-do them in user friendliness.
It's not clear to me what your point is. The fact that Mandrake attempted to
respond to an appealing feature that Caldera had first, merits an endorsement
that Caldera itself doesn't get? That's kind of like how Microsoft copies a
competitor's idea, and is then hailed by the magazines it advertises in as
"revolutionary." Well that kind of thing turned my stomach back when Windows
mattered to me, and I sure don't want to see it happen again with Linux.
> >I'm on no crusade against Mandrake. If my experience was an uncanny fluke,
> >so be it. But I'm no psychic, so the only way I can find out is by
> >alerting other people to my experience.
>
> Most people who aren't on a crusade first make an attempt to find
> out what they did wrong or which piece of hardware is incompatible
> with the software.
Hmm, let's see. I install 2 different versions of Mandrake on three different
machines, in a couple of cases multiple times, and it fails every single time
within a week. I install Caldera and Red Hat on the same machines and have no
problem. And I'm supposed to blame the hardware in a laptop bought in 1995, a
different laptop bought in 1998, and a desktop bought in 1999, for giving
similar failures on only one of three distributions? Any ideas?
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Humor: Beer?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:17:27 GMT
In article <38cc7fca@news>,
"Rich Cloutier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux Beer:
<snip>
You forgot "less filling".
-andrew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Mandrake=Poison?
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:24:11 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Leslie Mikesell wrote:
> What prompted me to post
> yesterday was seeing a recommendation from Borland/Inprise for either
> Red Hat or Mandrake for use with one of its development products.
What
> merits that endorsement, above say a fine distribution like
Caldera's?
> That bugged me a little. I wonder whether Borland actually has a
reason,
> or whether they're just following the sales figures. There are after
all
> precedents in the computer industry for lousy software becoming
entrenched
> for marketing reasons:(
I'd hazard that Borland hasn't been into Linux all that long to make
sure their products work well with all distributions, so they've picked
the "industry-leader" in Red Hat to develop with, and since Mandrake is
built off Red Hat (and was also a better seller at one point), they
threw that in there too. Probably and IMHO and all that.
-andrew
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 12:41:59 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Buying Drestin Linux Was (Re: Drestin: time for you to buy UNIX for
Drestin Black wrote:
> actually, Donn, we're finding the same thing is true as always. You stuff
> bad drivers into a good OS and it'll go bad for everyone. What's true is
> that w2k doesn't just up and puke as bad as NT4 did with a bad driver and
> w2k's recovery console is much better in these cases. I've seen the only two
Right. I've just had an experience with a bad ATA disk driver in
FreeBSD -current. See, Soren Schmidt committed some code to the
source code prematurely. This code was the ATA disk driver, which is
the driver for the IDE hard drives. Something in there was fubar'd,
and when I tried to umount my second HD, weird stuff started
happening. the umount command was hanging, and pretty soon the whole
machine was acting screwy. He just fixed the driver code, I
recompiled my kernel, and now all is working fine.
So, you are correct in saying that bad drivers can ruin a good OS.
- Donn
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter da Silva)
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: 13 Mar 2000 17:29:51 GMT
In article <8aiju4$40n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It all depends on whether you build understanding of the filesystem
> into the boot loader (if the understanding is there, you can dispense
> with reconfiguration at kernel build time since you can find the info
> at boot time.) In any case, it's not as if LILO is the only boot
> loader on the Linux block, and I've heard some nice things said about
> GRUB in the past...
I thought /boot (special filesystem simple enough to be grokked by the boot
loader) was a reasonable compromise, back in the old days, but since they're
putting full-screen interactive user-interfaces and high-res bitmap splash
screens in the things these days, it seems awfully retro.
--
In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
`-_-' Ar rug tú barróg ar do mhactíre inniu?
'U` "The Windows Perl motto: It's just as well there's more than one
way to do it because most of them don't work." -- Simon Cozens.
------------------------------
From: "Charles W. Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Linux server atop Mach?
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:47:19 GMT
In comp.sys.next.advocacy Sal Denaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 00:30:03 GMT,
> Charles W. Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Linux does have a noticable advantage in databases with Oracle and Sybase
>> ports; it will be interesting to see whether either company adds MOSXS or X
>> to the platforms their databases run on.
>
> That and Linux supports hardware you'd actually _want_ to run a real
> database on. (And by _real_ I mean 2GB+) Does Apple sell a machine with
> redundant power supplies? Rack mountable? Anything close to real server
> hardware?
Of course Apple sells nothing close to real server hardware-- certainly I know
this and have pointed it out myself.
N+1 redundant hardware, rack-mountable form factor, ECC memory, registered
mode PC100 memory support, hardware which can do at least 4 GB of memory,
out-of-band diagnostics & management, RAID+hot swappable drive bays, SMP,
hardware watchdog reset timer...you name it, Apple doesn't offer it.
That's fine. Sun does, and WebObjects runs just fine on big, honking Sun
Enterprise machines (in fact, we just had a client go with a E4500 to handle a
processor-intensive website).
> I wouldn't trust OSX on a g4 for anything more than a development database
> right now.
True. MacOS X Server is a decent WebObjects development client, but it is
approximately unusable for production deployment.
> Secondly, client access on OSX is sub par. Linux will connect to just about
> _any_ database out there. And while I think EOF is a killer data access lib,
> how many of the _big three_ databases can you connect to via EOF on OSX
> Server right now? One?
Exactly.
>> Darwin-development and from individual ChangeLogs, we've seen that Apple is
>> actively supporting GNU autoconf and providing configuration feedback to
>> make sure packages and build easily. Much credit for this (and many thanks)
>> to Wilfredo Sanchez.
>
> The tarball and autoconf system isn't enough IMHO. Both the .rpm and .deb
> methods are better. Heck, why doesn't OSX support the FreeBSD ports tree?
> That would be a hell of a lot better than using rpm's.
Again, darwin-development has shown Apple has been moving towards using
Debian-style package management; whether this makes it's way out to MacOS X is
a different question.
> And why is Apple still using pax for its packages instead of rpm's, deb's
> or something else?
Inertia? Professional jealousy? Corporate institutionalized incompetence?
[ Clue to the humor-impaired: this was a joke. ]
>> The BSD 4.4Lite API over Mach is so close to the API hosted off Linux that I
>> doubt many people can actually name a single system call or standard library
>> function which differs between the two.
>
> I'm still of the opinion that most of the people advocating Linux over
> BSD for OSX are the ones that know the least about BSD and Linux.
Agreed.
> It's like a technical comparison between 3m sticky pads vs scotch taping
> a note in place. Sure there are a few differences, but for the most part
> people are more interested in the _note_ than the mechanism used to attach
> it to the monitor.
Definitely. Like I said to MJP, there aren't a whole lot of people who will
ever notice the difference between the syscall(SYS_something,...) interfaces
the Mach and Linux kernels offer.
-Chuck
Chuck 'Sisyphus' Swiger | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Bad cop! No Donut.
------------------------+-------------------+--------------------
I know that you are an optimist if you think I am a pessimist....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 17:40:45 GMT
On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 04:34:22 GMT, hot_offer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Everyone complains about Microsoft putting the Internet Explorer icon on the
>desktop and including it with the installation of their operating system.
>Monopolistic and controlling. And they give it away for free.
>
>Yet, install any distribution of Linux and they put the Netscape Navigator icon
>on the desktop and it is included with the installation of the Linux operating
>system. It is installed by DEFAULT. And they give it away for free.
Actually, on my Redhat you can check it on and off if you like.
That's very handy in a tight disk server type configuration.
However, even if you don't there are at least 2 others that are
likely to come along for the ride. (lynx,kfm)
Plus you can just go through the system and rip out lynx or
netscape or kfm afterwards and not have to worry about some
spiffy Redhat or Caldera feature suddenly breaking.
>
>Hmmm....see the obvious parallel. Amazing similar isn't it? And yet every
>Linux Lacky will claim this is TOTALLY different. No it's not. Same thing,
>same reasons, same way. But denial is far easier to swallow in the Linux camp
>apparently.
Nope.
You can trivially and completely remove Netscape or choose not
to install it, or install other alternatives.
--
|||
Resistance is not futile. / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (5X3)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 13 Mar 2000 17:52:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Norman D. Megill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> You also didnt have to remove the pcmcia stuff to install.
> Yes I did.
You know, you swear up and down that you dont know anything about
computers, that youre not a system installer person, etc. and then you
have the bollocks to disagree with someone who actually knows what
theyre talking about. I'm beginning to understand exactly why the
tech support person on the other end of the phone gave you the
instructions they did. I probably would have told you to throw in
a little chant and a coupla hail marys in there too.
>> Even if you had
>> removed the pcmcia stuff to install, you wouldnt have had to have put them
>> back and configured them individually.
> Well, perhaps I could have pushed them in simultaneously instead of one
> at a time, saving me one step out of several hundred, but when I did
> this originally Windows got confused by what drivers were where - while
> swapping drivers floppies etc. - because I installed two things at once
> without rebooting in between. Perhaps I made a mistake somewhere, but I
> just didn't want to waste time with more experiments.
You have no idea what im talking about, or what youre talking about. Again,
you're saying that you have no experience with sort of thing (and also seem
to have a willingness to learn) and then you turn around and fight with
people who actually know what theyre talking about. No wonder youre so
unhappy with this whole thing. I doubt youd be happy with a freakin toaster.
> Even installing them separately gets Windows confused about where the
> drivers are, which you can see with a bunch of error messages that must
> be ignored and the correct driver location provided multiple times.
Because you dont know what youre doing. Stop pretending that you do.
>> I make a habit of out of using
>> pcmcia hardware that is supported completely by windows98 (much easier
>> now with win2000) "out of the box". That way, when I reboot windows just
>> installs the proper drivers all by itself. You might have to click "ok"
>> on a dialog box or two though.
> Well, that's all very nice but I'm talking about a specific machine as I
> described it. I did not have a choice of PCMIA cards since they came
> with the machine. I should not have to throw them away and spend money
> all over again buying replacement PCMIAs that behave as you describe.
You should have done more thinking and more research before you bought
the machine in the firstplace. Your current situation is due completely
to your own ignorance.
p0ok
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
