Linux-Advocacy Digest #699, Volume #25 Sun, 19 Mar 00 18:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Joseph)
Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll (Gary Hallock)
Re: Giving up on NT (Jason S.)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Jim Ross")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Re: Kernel 2.4 ("Jim Ross")
Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll ([EMAIL PROTECTED],net)
Reboot without all these... ("C.X.")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:49:14 GMT
Welcome to Linux :(
Answers you will get from the Linux community, in no special order:
1. Didn't you try the RPM? Took ME 5 seconds.
2. Didn't you try the DEB? Took ME 5 seconds.
3.SuSE's website has the file. Just use YAST. Took ME 5 seconds.
4. You are an idiot. I installed it in 5 seconds.
5.You are blaming Linux because YOU did NOT install the proper
Libraries? Gnome is not Linux.
6. It's better than Windows which overwrites *.dll's at will.
7. You DO know about AutoRPM?
8. You are an idiot if you don't.
9. I always compile from source.
10. Never have a problem. Took ME...........
Try installing Gnome some time. You need 20 or so packages not to
mention all the different pre-reqs for each one, You could easily
spend half a day just figuring out what you have and don't have.
Same goes for Xfree 4.0.
Same with kde, if you can wade through their website that is. All to
run some half baked, Quicken wannabe program like GnuCash.
Why bother at all?
This is so typical of Linux.
Spend time, time and more time trying to install some program that is
inferior to virtually anything you can find for Windows.
Take a look at the Linux groups and see how many questions are related
to "x program is looking for y libraries, what are they and where do I
get them?"
Under Windows setup.exe and that's it.
It just works.
This weekend I installed Windows SE, fresh install not an upgrade.
All went fine.
Installed updated Canon scanner and printer drivers fine.
Installed updated SBLive driver fine.
Installed updated Matrox driver fine.
Installed new Laplink program fine,
Installed new MusicMatch Jukebox fine.
Installed Cakewalk 9.0 and update fine.
Installed TaxCut fine.
Installed updated Logitech Mouse driver fine.
Installed patch for SoundForge fine.
Note, no upgrades were REQUIRED, I just wanted to start fresh with the
latest patches.
This is why Windows succeeds and Linux is a miserable alternative for
someone who doesn't want to waste time looking at configuration
options and searching for libraries and pre-reqs.
As far as I am concerned ALL Linux software should carry a .99 version
or less because it is never really finished and much of it runs that
way.
Steve
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 20:47:22 GMT, Jeff Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
>are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
>programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
>Gnucash? This bastard appears to require the installation of six other
>packages: XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
>lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF! If a
>program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
>version number of 1.x. A version number this high is very misleading to
>anyone who want to install this software. A program in not complete or
>deserving of a 1.x version until there is a relatively easy way to
>install it. It seems that the Gnome programmers are focusing too much
>on technical coolness while leaving the user behind.
>
>If I can't get this sucker installed there is a serious problem here.
>I'm no linux guru, but I am not a newbie. I have set up ip
>masquerading, cd burning, apache, php, mysql, my digital soundblaster
>live, etc.
>
>Can someone tell me what the problem is with the Gnome developers? I
>would rather them use lower version numbers to indicate that their
>programs are not ready for general use. Many users will be turned away
>from linux by gnome programs which suck to install.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 21:50:53 GMT
I rest my case :)
Ha ha!!!
Steve
On 19 Mar 2000 21:27:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>Jeff Greer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
>> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
>> programs which are so hard to install.
>
>You do realize that Gnu programmers are not writing software for LINUX
>in particular, dont you?
>
>> Has anyone tried installing
>> Gnucash?
>
>Yeah. I typed "make install" in the Gnucash directory in my ports
>tree under Freebsd and it did everything all by itself while I drank
>my coffee.
>
>> This bastard appears to require the installation of six other
>> packages: XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
>> lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF!
>
>You mean to tell me you didnt already have that stuff installed?
>
>> If a
>> program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
>> version number of 1.x.
>
>Gnucash is very stable at this point, and its version numbering scheme
>is valid. Your inability to comprehend Gnu programming does not
>make Gnucash unstable.
>
>> A version number this high is very misleading to
>> anyone who want to install this software. A program in not complete or
>> deserving of a 1.x version until there is a relatively easy way to
>> install it.
>
>Oh, THATS the rule? I'm glad you said something.
>
>> It seems that the Gnome programmers
>
>Stop right there. Theres an enormous difference between GNU apps and
>GNOME apps. It appears to me that you are not understanding most of
>this stuff from the very beginning. No wonder youre frustrated.
>
>> are focusing too much
>> on technical coolness while leaving the user behind.
>
>All my stuff works. Though I am getting a little sick of gnapster
>dumping core.
>
>> If I can't get this sucker installed there is a serious problem here.
>> I'm no linux guru, but I am not a newbie. I have set up ip
>> masquerading, cd burning, apache, php, mysql, my digital soundblaster
>> live, etc.
>
>And you still dont know the difference between GNOME and GNU.
>
>> Can someone tell me what the problem is with the Gnome developers? I
>> would rather them use lower version numbers to indicate that their
>> programs are not ready for general use. Many users will be turned away
>> from linux by gnome programs which suck to install.
>
>Have you even SEEN www.gnome.org? Why not count the number of apps that
>have made it up past 1.0...
>
>> --
>> Jeff Greer
>> web developer/software engineer, Atipa Linux Solutions - www.atipa.com
>> B.S. computer science -
>
>Then your ignorance has exactly zero exuse. Fix it at once.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:55:08 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Jeff Greer wrote:
> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
> programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
> Gnucash? This bastard appears to require the installation of six other
> packages: XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
> lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF! If a
> program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
> version number of 1.x. A version number this high is very misleading to
> anyone who want to install this software. A program in not complete or
> deserving of a 1.x version until there is a relatively easy way to
> install it. It seems that the Gnome programmers are focusing too much
> on technical coolness while leaving the user behind.
>
Frankly, I'm at a loss as to what your complaint really is. You simply
mention some dependencies that gnucash has. Would you rather than gnucash
ship as one huge statically linked module? And if you want easy
installation, why are you using tar.gz files instead of rpm?
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 14:00:49 -0500
From: Joseph <[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)
George Marengo wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:18:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >>Nope -- my only point was that anyone who is actively trying to kill
> >>off OS/2 is a nut... IBM did that themselves.
> >
> >I agree, but I also think -- in light of what has come out at the M$ antitrust
> >trial, that there are many, many dirty deeds committed by M$, as well as
> >mis-information and lies spread by Ziff-Davis and others -- that had just
> >a large an impact on OS2, as anything that IBM did or didn't do.
>
> Maybe... but's it was very hard to tell anyone that they should get
> OS/2 when IBM itself loaded Windows as the default with the option
> of loading OS/2 when it should have been the other way.
No need to play dumb about preloading.
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3900/3932.htm
It's hard to tell anyone they should get Windows after reading about MS's contempt for
consumers.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: hot news: Corel Linux and Intel, Linux the next desktop OS!!
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:05:38 GMT
Obviously you have never been in retail.
Stores don't re-order items that don't sell. The absolute last resort
is sending dud items (like Linux) back to the manufacturer because
typically the restocking costs are split amongst the distributer and
retailer and the retailer gets a credit back for the difference. This
is why you see so many dust covered copies of a given program (Linux
for example) at certain retailers. The stores are always counting on
some unknowing sucker to come along and purchase a copy of that dud
program, like Linux for example.
My better half manages one of those chain stores and I can say for a
fact that at least at her store, Win 2k sales are lukewarm at best and
yes they have had several returns. Probably pirates cloning the CD's.
As for Linux, and they do stock most of the distributions and sales
are brisk however the loading dock is full of returned copies and some
people come back all fired up screaming about how Linux screwed up
their systems.
Linux is the number one returned product at least in her store and
nothing else is even close.
They had to put an extra sign on the Linux section emphasizing that
Linux is NOT a Windows program. I got a kick out of that one :)
Steve
On 19 Mar 2000 21:20:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Jerry McBride <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <8ame29$c8t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On three separate occasions, I've asked store clerks in both CompUSA, and
>>>Best Buy how well Linux was selling... most of them stated that it wasn't
>>>selling in but meager numbers. In fact, most of the boxed Linux
>>>distributions at these retailers have a layer of dust on them. This
>>>does not bode well for Linux at all, IMHO.
>>>
>
>> The Staples near me begain their Linux sales with "a dummies guide" book that
>> included an old copy of RedHat on cd. A month later, I now see, COL, REDHAT, a
>> TURBO, etc and a number of utilities offerings... all the latest versions A
>> quick walk to the "book isle" and the number of linux books has gone from one
>> title to maybe 10 or more... In fact... the first thing yu see when walking
>> from the entrance is a shelf full of Linux matter. There are more Linux OS
>> books there than windows OS books...
>
>Indeed. What Mr. Edwards fails to understand is a simple fact of retail:
>
>Stores do not carry what does not sell, period.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:07:30 GMT
And I rest my case yet again.
Steve
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 16:55:08 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Greer wrote:
>
>> Gnu programmers don't suck, but they really piss me off. I believe they
>> are being really irresponsible towards the linux community by releasing
>> programs which are so hard to install. Has anyone tried installing
>> Gnucash? This bastard appears to require the installation of six other
>> packages: XmHTML-1.1.5.tar.gz, eperl-2.2.14.tar.gz, guile-1.3.tar.gz,
>> lesstif-0.88.1.tar.gz, nana-2.3.tar.gz, swig1.1p5.tar.gz. WTF! If a
>> program requires this much bullshit to install it should not have a
>> version number of 1.x. A version number this high is very misleading to
>> anyone who want to install this software. A program in not complete or
>> deserving of a 1.x version until there is a relatively easy way to
>> install it. It seems that the Gnome programmers are focusing too much
>> on technical coolness while leaving the user behind.
>>
>
>Frankly, I'm at a loss as to what your complaint really is. You simply
>mention some dependencies that gnucash has. Would you rather than gnucash
>ship as one huge statically linked module? And if you want easy
>installation, why are you using tar.gz files instead of rpm?
>
>Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:10:02 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> Welcome to Linux :(
>
> Answers you will get from the Linux community, in no special order:
>
> 1. Didn't you try the RPM? Took ME 5 seconds.
So, what's wrong with that answer? The RPM file is very obvious and easy
to find on the gnucash web page. For someone who wants easy installation
it is the obvious choice.
>
> 2. Didn't you try the DEB? Took ME 5 seconds.
The DEB file is not on the gnucash web page but if you needed it there is
always alien.
>
> 3.SuSE's website has the file. Just use YAST. Took ME 5 seconds.
> 4. You are an idiot. I installed it in 5 seconds.
> 5.You are blaming Linux because YOU did NOT install the proper
> Libraries? Gnome is not Linux.
> 6. It's better than Windows which overwrites *.dll's at will.
Damn right. I suppose you prefer that every application ship with it's own
copies of system libraries and blindly overwrite whatever is there.
>
> 7. You DO know about AutoRPM?
> 8. You are an idiot if you don't.
> 9. I always compile from source.
> 10. Never have a problem. Took ME...........
>
> Try installing Gnome some time. You need 20 or so packages not to
> mention all the different pre-reqs for each one, You could easily
> spend half a day just figuring out what you have and don't have.
You do not need 20 or so packages. The packages are arranged so that you
don't have to install everything. For example, I don't play computer games
so O didn't install gnome-games nor do I write game software so I didn't
install gnome-games-devel. And it only takes a few seconds to determine
what dependencies you are missing - RPM tells you.
>
>
> Same goes for Xfree 4.0.
First Xfree 4.0 was just released. If you want RPMs I'm sure they will be
available shortly. Second, as I said before, downloading the files for
Xfree 4.0 is trivial. The number of files is irrelevant. It still only
takes a couple of mouse clicks.
>
>
> Same with kde, if you can wade through their website that is. All to
> run some half baked, Quicken wannabe program like GnuCash.
> Why bother at all?
>
> This is so typical of Linux.
Typicall of a Windows brainwashed idiot.
>
>
> Spend time, time and more time trying to install some program that is
> inferior to virtually anything you can find for Windows.
>
> Take a look at the Linux groups and see how many questions are related
> to "x program is looking for y libraries, what are they and where do I
> get them?"
>
> Under Windows setup.exe and that's it.
> It just works.
>
> This weekend I installed Windows SE, fresh install not an upgrade.
> All went fine.
> Installed updated Canon scanner and printer drivers fine.
> Installed updated SBLive driver fine.
> Installed updated Matrox driver fine.
> Installed new Laplink program fine,
> Installed new MusicMatch Jukebox fine.
> Installed Cakewalk 9.0 and update fine.
> Installed TaxCut fine.
> Installed updated Logitech Mouse driver fine.
> Installed patch for SoundForge fine.
>
Damn, you mean you had to install as those separately. Why the hell can'y
you just download and install one file.
>
> Note, no upgrades were REQUIRED, I just wanted to start fresh with the
> latest patches.
>
> This is why Windows succeeds and Linux is a miserable alternative for
> someone who doesn't want to waste time looking at configuration
> options and searching for libraries and pre-reqs.
>
> As far as I am concerned ALL Linux software should carry a .99 version
> or less because it is never really finished and much of it runs that
> way.
>
> Steve
>
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:11:37 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
> And I rest my case yet again.
>
> Steve
>
And you are a fucking asshole
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jason S.)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:11:09 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lance Togar posted the following first-level quoted material to comp.sys.mac.advocacy:
>"Jason S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >ROFLOL!!! I hope this "pearl of wisdom" makes the CSMA dunce of the month
>> >award. I'm going to leave all the cross-posting intact. For those who
>don't
>> >know, Joe's a rabid Mac user who learned about Linux via macaddict and
>still
>> >hasn't gotten it running - mostly because he's confused about the lack of
>a
>> >smiling penguin on the startup screen.
>> How little you know, Prozac boy! Any PowerPC Linux setup will have
>> a penguin (it looks like it is smiling) on the startup screen, since
>> all PowerPC Linux setups use the framebuffer device! (The old version
>> had the penguin holding a beer, but the PC forces -- no, not PeeCee:
>> politically correct -- changed that). You can even get it on your PeeCee
>> Linux, especially if you have an ATI or Matrox card (it's pretty useless
>> with other cards, IMO). You get nicer console fonts with it than the
>> icky BIOS screen, too.
>Missed again cracko. The point was that Joe never got that far. If _you'd_
>ever got that far on an Intel PC, you wouldn't be using a PPC to run Linux.
I have an Intel machine (Celeron) and an AMD machine (Athlon) running
Linux. The Celeron provides a smiling penguin upon bootup,
although the Athlon doesn't (although I may configure vesafb to get
nicer console fonts, and, thus, get me a smiling penguin on that one
too).
So what's your point, Imipramine Boy?
>And what's the BS about the beer holding Penguin suppost to mean?
You are so clueless. Maybe if you knew something about FB_DEV you'd
understand. Here's a clue: the old FB_DEV drivers showed a picture of a
penguin *holding a beer* upon boot. This was eventually changed because
some people found it objectionable, although some kernels may still
contain the beer-drinking penguin picture.
>> Maybe you should learn something about Linux, Mike!
>I've been using it since kernel .7.
Using != learning, obviously.
>It's not intended for desktop newbies
>and since you're having an ongoing problem with headers (Mike???), why not
>try a decent Windows newsreader.
I don't do Windows. I call you "Mike" because "Mike" is your real name,
idiot:
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=414130254
Did the imipramine affect your memory?
(And don't pretend that it isn't you -- the headers match up with your
headers in CSMA from the same period).
>slrn is obviously beyond you.
Hardly.
--
Check out the comp.sys.mac.advocacy FAQ
http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/csmafaq/
muahahahahahahaha!!!snap!snap!!snap!!photoshop!!
-- Ho You Kong
Marge Simpson: That's a pretty lousy lesson.
Bill Clinton: Hey -- I'm a pretty lousy President.
-- The Simpsons
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:03:02 -0500
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > $319 doesn't sound appealing to a home user though.
> > Emachines computers can be bought for that now I believe.
>
> Yeah, but do you really WANT an E Machine. It's the Packard Bell of the
> new millennium. Well, come to think of it, it would be perfect for W2K.
I'm just putting into perspective how expensive W2K is if it costs what an
entire machine can be bought with.
I'm cheap, I likely would buy the E Machine as a starter system yes (the
machine I'm using in borrowed)
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:20:33 GMT
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:10:02 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> Welcome to Linux :(
>>
>> Answers you will get from the Linux community, in no special order:
>>
>> 1. Didn't you try the RPM? Took ME 5 seconds.
>
>So, what's wrong with that answer? The RPM file is very obvious and easy
>to find on the gnucash web page. For someone who wants easy installation
>it is the obvious choice.
Assuming they satisfy all of the dependencies and that is usually not
the case in my experience.
>>
>> 2. Didn't you try the DEB? Took ME 5 seconds.
>
>The DEB file is not on the gnucash web page but if you needed it there is
>always alien.
Tried it with an SBLive driver and it died. That was the only time I
tried it however.
>>
>> 3.SuSE's website has the file. Just use YAST. Took ME 5 seconds.
>> 4. You are an idiot. I installed it in 5 seconds.
>> 5.You are blaming Linux because YOU did NOT install the proper
>> Libraries? Gnome is not Linux.
>> 6. It's better than Windows which overwrites *.dll's at will.
>
>Damn right. I suppose you prefer that every application ship with it's own
>copies of system libraries and blindly overwrite whatever is there.
When Win95 first came out dll hell was very real and up until Win98
was out for a while it continued to be so, especially if you tried to
install that shareware application from 1997 on your 1999 up to date
system. Things are much different now and I have not had a single dll
problem in a long time. My only beef is that programs are always
trying to install their own versions of DirectX and QuickTime.
>>
>> 7. You DO know about AutoRPM?
>> 8. You are an idiot if you don't.
>> 9. I always compile from source.
>> 10. Never have a problem. Took ME...........
>>
>> Try installing Gnome some time. You need 20 or so packages not to
>> mention all the different pre-reqs for each one, You could easily
>> spend half a day just figuring out what you have and don't have.
>
>You do not need 20 or so packages. The packages are arranged so that you
>don't have to install everything. For example, I don't play computer games
>so O didn't install gnome-games nor do I write game software so I didn't
>install gnome-games-devel. And it only takes a few seconds to determine
>what dependencies you are missing - RPM tells you.
Took me half a day assuming I want all Gnome stuff.
1. Download package.
2. Try to install it.
3. Discover what I don't have.
4. Go to site and find that stuff.
5. Try to install missing stuff.
6.Find I need more missing stuff to load original missing stuff.
7.Gave up............
>>
>>
>> Same goes for Xfree 4.0.
>
>First Xfree 4.0 was just released. If you want RPMs I'm sure they will be
>available shortly. Second, as I said before, downloading the files for
>Xfree 4.0 is trivial. The number of files is irrelevant. It still only
>takes a couple of mouse clicks.
Assuming you have everything necessary to make them work in the first
place.
Matrox driver: 3 meg for the entire enchilada including all of the
toys which are not necessary to use the driver.
Setup.exe and it is done.
>>
>>
>> Same with kde, if you can wade through their website that is. All to
>> run some half baked, Quicken wannabe program like GnuCash.
>> Why bother at all?
>>
>> This is so typical of Linux.
>
>Typicall of a Windows brainwashed idiot.
So you are telling me GnuCash even holds a candle to Quicken?
>>
>>
>> Spend time, time and more time trying to install some program that is
>> inferior to virtually anything you can find for Windows.
>>
>> Take a look at the Linux groups and see how many questions are related
>> to "x program is looking for y libraries, what are they and where do I
>> get them?"
>>
>> Under Windows setup.exe and that's it.
>> It just works.
>>
>> This weekend I installed Windows SE, fresh install not an upgrade.
>> All went fine.
>> Installed updated Canon scanner and printer drivers fine.
>> Installed updated SBLive driver fine.
>> Installed updated Matrox driver fine.
>> Installed new Laplink program fine,
>> Installed new MusicMatch Jukebox fine.
>> Installed Cakewalk 9.0 and update fine.
>> Installed TaxCut fine.
>> Installed updated Logitech Mouse driver fine.
>> Installed patch for SoundForge fine.
>>
>
>Damn, you mean you had to install as those separately. Why the hell can'y
>you just download and install one file.
I didn't have to install anything (with the exceptions of the new
programs) as everything worked. And yes each one was only one file.
Setup.exe or somthing similar. Easy as hell and worked every time.
Linux ain't even close when it comes to user friendliness and ease of
upgrading. Not even in the same game as Windows.
>>
>> Note, no upgrades were REQUIRED, I just wanted to start fresh with the
>> latest patches.
>>
>> This is why Windows succeeds and Linux is a miserable alternative for
>> someone who doesn't want to waste time looking at configuration
>> options and searching for libraries and pre-reqs.
>>
>> As far as I am concerned ALL Linux software should carry a .99 version
>> or less because it is never really finished and much of it runs that
>> way.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Kernel 2.4
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:05:34 -0500
Net Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hG8B4.93$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Because odd number revisions (2.1, 2.3, etc..) are developmental, hence
> > experimental code, and the even numbers, like 2.2 and 2.4 are stable
code.
>
> I know, but were'nt 2.3.51 going to be turned to 2.4pre ?
Pre builds are just that. They then get stabilized before becoming the real
2.4 kernel.
That's how it works.
Jim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED],net
Subject: Re: Gnome/Gnu programmers Suck. -- Not a troll
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:23:07 GMT
Heck this is like real time chatting here Gary.
You and the other person responded exactly as I had predicated and you
can't accept the truth.
Reading the LinoNuts is getting far too easy these days. I think I
need a new hobby.
Steve
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 17:11:37 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED], net wrote:
>
>> And I rest my case yet again.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>
>And you are a fucking asshole
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: "C.X." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Reboot without all these...
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2000 22:23:21 GMT
I want to build a Linux box which has no anything except a network card
to connect to outside. I am thinking to do so by this way: have a Linux
box with vedio card, keyborad port, mouse port, floppy, cdrom, and set
up software inside, then take off vedio card, keyboard port, mouse port,
floppy, cdrom, and only an ethernet card. Then reboot it.
I think this will work, ie. I can really reboot it. I am wondering
anyone did this kind of thing before. Do you change starting scripts
much? What is the caution? Thanks information in advance.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
