Linux-Advocacy Digest #840, Volume #25 Mon, 27 Mar 00 18:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (JEDIDIAH)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?) (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude (2:1)
Re: Rumors ... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Weak points (JEDIDIAH)
Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns... (2:1)
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows 2000 has 63,000 bugs - Win2k.html [0/1] - Win2k.html [0/1] (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:40:49 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:56:11 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:07:51 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>>Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:28:17 GMT
>
>>>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:13:09 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>>Devlin wrote:
[deletia]
>>Well, didn't you just say that they didn't? Who did *you* have in mind that
>>develops anything other than Windows drivers? (Not counting the Linux
>>development community, of course.)
>
>It is your contention that MS pressure is the reason why manufacturers
>do not support other OSes, and since you have now ducked the question
>of who is being so pressured, a single example will suffice to
>disprove it.
Microsoft was sued by the Department of Justice over this
before. This is where their relationshipo began.
Also:
Ralph Nader actually got quite a bit of press last year with
this issue. His organization tried to purchase prebuild PC's
from several large, visible distributors and was stonewalled
with exclusive (buy only from us or we'll put you out of
business with high licence prices) being cited as the barrier
present at the VAR's.
Contracts stipulating ALL units shipped have WinDOS were replaced
with contracts doing the same thing but only doing so one product
line at a time.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:47:29 GMT
On 26 Mar 2000 02:51:06 GMT, Matt Chiglinsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Can't win? They've already won big big BIG. All you Linvocates can do
>is whine about how much they've won and make idle threats that somehow
>they'll fall soon. Well, let me know when computer newbies start
>running Linux and Applixware or Star Office or GNUmeric or whatever
>other free alternative you propose. Let me know when Gateway's tech
In order for a newbie to run such a thing, they have to be
exposed to it. That's rather difficult when typically the
only thing they are force fed in retail establishments is
WinSomething.
What is far more likely is that someone slightly above the
newbie level will try out Star Office because it's free,
might just satisfy their needs, could keep them compatible
with inconsiderate twits like you and would keep them from
having to constantly re-buy MS Office everytime M$ things
it needs a revenue boost.
>support line has an option for "You're running the Linux operating
>system". Making predictions about a company who produced the richest
>man in the world is kind of premature.
>
>Yeah, I hear the Mac is coming back too. Oh yeah, crashes more than a
>PC, only one mouse button, and a physically awkward keyboard. Go
>Apple.
>
>
>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 00:03:13 GMT, Dirk Gently <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Microsoft knows they can't win. They can only hope to prolong it, maybe by
>>porting their applications to Linux. It can only give them more business.
>>
>>Work is horrible. Chech out Star Office 5.1 at
>>http://www.sun.com/staroffice
>
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:54:18 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 02:17:46 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8b62hc$g8p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> BTW, little known facts about penquins.
>>
>> Penquins are quite clumsy on land.
>>
>> But in the sea, penquins fly like birds when they swim.
>>
>
>But in Linux, all penguins are lazy sitting with round belly.
Hardly. Sometimes you see Penguins hiking their way through
Bavaria with a Bier Stien in their flippers...
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penquins Forever! Was (Re: A pox on the penguin?)
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:55:00 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:42:26 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <ereD4.411$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > But in Linux, all penguins are lazy sitting with round belly.
>> > They cannot walk or fly. They cannot even stand up
>> > with fat belly. Linux penguins must have been eating
>> > too much "free" stuff.
>> >
>> > Totally amazing to see sitting penguins everywhere!
>> >
>> > Can Linxu penguins fly someday?
>> >
>> > It must be scary if those sitting penguins all suddenly
>> > stand up and walk. They'd better be sitting!
>>
>> Nothing could be further from the truth. Linux is moving so fast,
>> in so many different areas (desktop, servers, embedded devices),
>> that it is taking the s/w indusrty by storm. Those not myopic
>> from the M$ affect on this industry are adopting Linux in their
>> droves. In the sea of s/w the Linux penguin is supreme. :-)
>
>Linux penguins are cloned UFO with programmed mission
Most of the software industry exists quite outside your
narrow, consumer view of it actually...
>of destroying the "Software Industry" on our planet. For the
>protection of our mankind, should we re-program them or
>take them to the zoo?
>
>
>
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Predatory LINUX practices with NETSCAPE Navigator!
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:58:11 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 14:36:26 -0300, Francis Van Aeken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8bk3ct$1bc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8bj2hr$je1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]..
>
>> >> Actually, this is a very bad example. First of all, MSFT doesn't make IE
>> >> for unix systems. Second of all, what other major browsers besides
>
>> >Last summer, when I was doing Web development, one of the browsers
>> >I tested my code with was the Solaris version of IE. It ran quite nicely.
>
>> Why is it that the *ONLY* people who say Solaris version of IE runs nicely
>> are Microsoft advocates?
>
>First of all, I was pointing out that MS makes IE for at least one version of UNIX.
>Can at least the truth be said?
...that being that only running on a single Unix is actually quite
pathetic. Where is the x86 version? Where is the Irix version?
Where is a version that would run on MacOS 10 as a BSD/X application?
>
>Then, why do you say that I am a Microsoft advocate? What's you motivation
>for saying that? The fact that I said it ran nicely? I should have known. On COLA:
> - good things about Linux or bad things about MS = FACTS
> - bad things about Linux or good things about MS = FUD
Most people don't have good things to say about Sparc/Solaris IE4.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:03:02 GMT
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 01:21:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'll agree with that statement. If you want beeps and squeeks and the
>ability to play a CD and are not really into what's going on with DVD
>then go buy a $20 SoundBlaster-16 and Linux will work fine.
I can do considerably more than just beeps and squeeks as is
on a SB16/IDE. Beyond S/N, you've not demonstrated WHY most
common consumers (the ones that use Windows for ease, not
'power' or the sort that would shop in CompUSA for their
software and soundcard rather than a music store) why they
would care about Linux's current faults.
As far as DVD goes, unless you're doing something that the MPAA
would dissapprove of then you're just using the PC as a very
expensive DVD console anyways.
Nevermind that you're lying and/or misinformed when it comes to
Linux support of quality consumer audio hardware, enviromental
audio & DVD.
>
>If you want state of the art in digital audio go with Windows or a
>Mac.
>
>Steve
>
>
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:45:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>
>
>> The real question is: Are those toys enough? For whom are
>> they enough? For each platform, the answer to that is going
>> to be highly individualistic.
>
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Peter Norton is one smart dude
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:21:52 +0100
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> maybe Linux will catchup some day later too and claim Linus wrote it.
If he writes a JFS he has a right to claim that he wrote it. Implementing is
different from inventing. M$ often `confuse' the two.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 27 Mar 2000 15:06:27 -0700
codifex maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Donn Miller wrote:
>
> > They would only open up a small portion of the Windows source, under
> > extenuating circumstances. Also, remember this is only a proposal for
> > settlement, so it doesn't necessarily mean they will do it anyways.
> > It looks like the DOJ isn't happy with Microsoft's settlement ideas
> > anyways...
>
> Releasing source code today wont keep them from changing it tomorrow.
So what?
All we need from Microsoft and it's partners is a promise not to
develop Windows-centric hardware; publish all calls for every
piece of equipment. The source code to Windows would do nicely,
unless Microsoft would care to cooperate in other, less barbaric
ways....
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:05:17 GMT
On 25 Mar 2000 11:23:54 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:45:29 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 00:12:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 23:19:00 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>On 23 Mar 2000 23:00:51 GMT, Brian Langenberger
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>SetMeUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>:> You can't possibly
>>>>>:> be serious about the "suck"ness of Postscript printers.
>>>>>:> The price is higher in some cases, but so is the quality
>>>>>
>>>>>: Exactly, higher enough that home users prefer other
>>>>>: printers just like Canon, HP, Epson, ... no postscript,
>>>>>
>>>>>So what "sucks" about them, except for a modest increase
>>>>>in price?
>>>>
>>>>I don't call a couple of hundred dollars, to essentially perform the
>>>>same function ie:print, a "modest" increase in price.
>>>
>>> For a serious printer, a couple hundred dollars really
>>> isn't much of an added cost. Fortunately, your assertion
>>> that only postscript printers are supported under linux
>>> is a LIE. It is fortunate for those of us that have been
>>> using non-PS printers for years.
>>
>>So you won't spend $89.00 for a real, working, supported in mass
>>operating system but you will blow a couple of hundred EXTRA dollars
>>on a printer that doesn't do anything better than any other $99.00
>>printer on the market.
>What utter nonsense, how about 10 pages per minute at 600*600 dpi ?
>how about lower cost per page, than your $99 Winprinter ?
Halleluiah! The $300 laser printer I alluded to (Brother 1240?)
I am looking at primarily for the combination of cost vs.
print speed & resolution.
>
>Steve as usual is stretching the facts right thru Wonderland and back.
[deletia]
Mind you, what is essentially my 6 year old color deskjet is onsale
now at compusa under some other model name and retails at ~ $99.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:13:08 GMT
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:50:29 GMT, Give me a choice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 1) Serious and easy modem/fax and printer support.
>> (sendfax makes me laugh, postscript printers suck)
>
> It has been left very clear that there are Linux serious support, but
>not easy support at all, so half the sentence is true. It has been left
>clear too that postscript printers run very well under Linux and that
>buying other than these is let's say stupid.
Only by MS Shills and compulsive liars.
>
>> 2) Coherent window manager configuration files and behaviour.
>
> It has been left clear that there are a lot of window managers that
>never give problems to anyone, but no one ever pointed out that
>sometimes XF86Cofig is a /etc and another at /etc/X11 (like this
So? If you ever need to ding the configuration file directly,
something is horribly wrong. This should be a non-issue.
>there are several examples about coherency). I know that file has
>nothing to see with window managers, just an example.
...and example of a detail that should only be of any consequence
to the distributor who is also creating the interface for you to
deal with that information.
>
>> 3) If easy installation methods are to be so, better go back text mode
>> installations or else improve the so called "easy" installations, because
>> really suck.
>
> t has been left clear that the original post was not clear enough.
>Anyway,
>I guess Linux installation will improve till it reaches Windows one, even
>with
>bugs (well, there are some now).
It's already surpassed the Windows one. It yields more power and
flexiblity while allowing the end user to forego all that. Windows
installers do not. While the eye candy could stand some debugging,
none of that is really necessary.
>
>> 4) Apart from saying that there's decent software lack, just point that
>> the tries to make it (aka Staroffice) produce such a bloated software as
>you
>> claim Microsoft Office and the kind are. I disagree, Microsoft Office is
>far
>> ahead from Staroffice, not to mention Applixware, LyX (huuhuhu), ...
>
> It has been left clear that if you want Office compatibility, you have to
>use
>Office (under Windows or emulated), but who wants that at all ? If you need
>you are as stupid as the ones who programmed it.
No it hasn't. This is quite disputable. This is especially so when
MS Shills choose not to tightly define what is needed out of an
ms office compatible app. This is disputable not merely for Linux
but for MacOS, BeOS and other office applications !(msoffice) on
Windows itself.
[deletia]
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: I don't want to stir up any concerns...
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:37:58 +0100
Trevor Fuson wrote:
> W. Kiernan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Matt Chiglinsky wrote:
> > >
> > But I could put up with that ugly-as-a-dog interface with relatively few
> > complaints, if only they had "reveal codes" and a documented file
> > format. Butn Microsoft will never open their data format, because it's
> > part of their long-term strategy to keep the customers in the dark, and
> > to hold their data hostage, as much as possible.
>
> Word has the option of view all non-printed characters. The "reveal codes"
> option is a necessity in Word Perfect because of the quagmire of codes
> required to do basic formatting. Without reveal codes Word Perfect
> documents can be rendered useless because of hidden codes which cannot be
> fixed without seeing them.
>
> Word on the other hand doesn't have this problem, so the feature is
> unnecessary.
That's utter tosh. Word's formatting is dreadful. Having no reveal codes meaans
that yoyu can't fix it. If you 'reveal codes' you will see that WP doesn't have
a quagmire of codes to do basic formatting.
-Ed
--
Did you know that the oldest known rock is the famous Hackenthorpe rock, which
is over three trillion years old?
-The Hackenthorpe Book of Lies
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 22:22:40 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 01:33:07 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>>
>>> There should be a law that a customer must have a right to buy any PC
>>> without any operating system installed.
>>> This will give a customer choice of any OS, or if someone aleady have
>>> Win on desktop, why he/she have to pay to M$ an additional fee for OS
>>> on laptop?
>>
>> I don't thaink that should be a law. Most people wouldn't want / be able
>> to install an OS themselves (lusers, mainly, but there are a lot of
>> them). But any decent vendor would sell you a computer without an OS
>> installed, so go and buy from one of them.
>
>OEM's should show the price of a PC without the cost of any bundled s/w
>(including the OS). They should state the cost of installing any s/w on
>the PC and should be free to configure that s/w any way they wish. That
>way people can choose what they want installed.
Essentially, price discrimination on the part of MS must end.
Microsoft should be barred from offering different wholesale
prices for different customers. Dell would get the same price
as compusa, no more no less. All manner of discounts should
also be prohibited including volume discounts.
Also, all contracts made by Microsoft should become public record.
A consumer or watchdog group should have the option to inspect
Microsoft's business dealings with end consumer merchants.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:22:05 -0700
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> No. I said that Administrator is not exactly like root. You can take away
> priveledges from Administrator so that they cannot accidentally modify or
> delete certain files. I was told that you can do the same thing in Linux,
> which is incorrect, since root ignores all rights and priveleges other than
> global read-only status.
>
> You can't see the difference here?
Administrator is not, therefore, root. Administrator is something less
than root. And something less than root can be done using an account
other than root.
In short, Unix can do what NT can, but NT cannot do what Unix can.
> No, his point was to contradict my statement. My statement is true.
> Administrator is not the exact same thing as root. Very similar, but they
> have different characteristics.
Correct. If you use root, you accept responsibility for your actions.
> Under Unix, your right. Under NT, Administrator *IS* a normal user that can
> be given (or removed) any specific rights.
Such accounts exist on most Unix systems, as well. The lp account is a
good example.
> > we are talking about root.. and it's a given on (standard) unix that
> > root is all-powerful, all-seeing.
>
> Which is simply not the case with NT.
Yep. If you screw up and remove some access or capability, then you're
screwed. Your only choice is to "blame the user" (guess you shouln't
have removed that access, eh?).
> I said nothing about Unix having a problem. Try and follow the thread. My
> argument is only that Administrator under NT is different from Root under
> Unix.
And you are correct. Now, I can do "Administrator" on a Unix system . .
. how do you do "root" on an NT system (I'd really like to know, 'cause
as far as I can tell, the only way to recover from certain kinds of
mistakes on NT is to either reinstall, or in some cases, it looks like
you can recover by rebooting . . . )
> > then use rm -i... the i does stand for "interactive" and is designed
> > exactly for /interactive/ use of rm. I have rm aliased to -i when i log
> > in as root.
>
> I don't want interactive. I want the ability to not effect files which I do
> not own unless I specifically take those rights.
Then don't use root. Set up an account to adminster what you want to be
able to affect, and use that account, instead.
> How does lack of a very useful feature equate to idiocy?
>
> Your attitude is typical "We can't do it, so it's stupid to want to"
Urmm. . . no, we can do it, and in fact, we do it all the time. The
adminstrative accounts I have on my HPUX box are extensive, and they all
let me do what you want: restrict my ability to muck with files that I
don't want to be able to muck with.
I get all this, while still being able to log in as root and fix my
really egregious typo's . . .
'Course, most systems are setup so that those administrative accounts
cannot actually be used to log in, but that is trivial to change if you
really want to do so. Most people don't do that, 'cause the risk of
using root is something you very quickly adjust to, and incorporate into
your working habits.
But all of this is besides the point: If you have a tendency to destroy
your system through typos, then the differences between Administrator
and root are almost totally irrelevant. You might save youself from a
very small percentage of possible problems, but in the end, you'd be a
heck of a lot more effective if you simply learned to double check what
you type, and think before you hit return/go/execute/etc.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 15:24:53 -0700
westprog 2000 wrote:
>
> One of the hardest lessons in the field of computing is that users gain
> power and flexibility by restricting their capacities to do the wrong
> thing.
This is hard to learn, because it isn't true. This "lesson" (in truth,
this ANTI-lesson) is based on the fallacy that a hunk of impure silicon,
programmed by imperfect human beings, running incredibly simple minded
programs, knows better than you do.
Users gain power and flexibility by the incredibly difficult and
expensive process of giving them power and flexibility.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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, 27 Mar 2000 22:29:19 GMT
On Sun, 26 Mar 2000 18:52:06 GMT, Michael W. Coulson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Paul wrote:
>>
>> Funny, windows runs fine but linux takes 4 hours of setup to get a printer
>> and a usb mouse working.
>> Become superior before claiming you are.
>
>
>Hmm - my printer was set up in about 5 minutes. Can't comment on USB as
>I've not seen enough USB devices to warrant using it. (Everywhere I
>look - USB hubs. No devices to plug into the damn things. :)
USB is no problem for someone not intimidated by a kernel compile.
I'm not sure if there is a USB driverset that you can just plug
into a 2.2 kernel yet (ala v4l & 2.0).
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that theare the communists, but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
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
******************************
