Linux-Advocacy Digest #893, Volume #25 Fri, 31 Mar 00 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (JEDIDIAH)
linux ISP in the UK (opoppon)
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit. (R.E.Ballard ( Rex
Ballard ))
Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nice link ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Rumors ... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nice link (Gary Hallock)
Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible (Robert Morelli)
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse ("Christopher Smith")
MANDRAKE 7.0!!!!!!!!! - Linux has finally convinced me. ("RCS")
Re: xfs is out! (Matthew Gibbins)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux ("John W. Stevens")
Re: NT vs Linux vs Whatever.... ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Nice link ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 22:13:15 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 20:30:49 GMT, Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>On 3/31/00, 12:30:38 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang
>Weisselberg) wrote regarding Re: Giving up on NT:
>
>> That would of course force shortcuts and hack-arounds. Under
>> Windows these are known as Active-X, an endless source of
>> frustration to gamers and users alike. One shoe does not fit
>> every application. If you want them to be 'themed', you may wish
>> to look at KDE & friends.
>
> I'd leave the user with the responsibility of deciding how badly to
>compromise the overall interface by running such programs. And in
>later generations the toolkits could elegantly deal with the needs of
>arcade games.
>
> However, I sympathise a lot more with the camp who'd have you buy a
>console if you wanted to play games. The best computer I own today is
>a Handspring Visor (Palm clone) and I don't care if I can't write
>pages of text with it like I could with the full keyboard of a laptop.
>I could buy an external keyboard just like I could install progarms
>with non-standard controls, but I'm not interested in that. The Visor
>is valuable because it's -small- and I value a user interface that's
>-consistent-.
>
> What you're now suggesting is that the differences still left over
>after installing a new window manager are insignificant, whereas I
>think they add up.
Even a Novice End user GUI desktop is still not a console.
Claiming that it is such is counterproductive. It's still
a relatively flexible system that really depends on the
intellegence of the operator.
Furthermore, given the difference between a 'one true interface'
that is subject to occasional 'revision' or one of a multitude
of interfaces that I can just select and pretty much keep forever,
the latter option has much less overhead.
Your willingess to adapt to a consistent but different interface
more supports the notion of variety that the user can 'fixate'
rather than a single standard that may change, sometimes in subtle
and annoying ways.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , 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.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 23:18:57 +0100
From: opoppon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: linux ISP in the UK
Hi,
I am looking for an ISP linux friendly in the UK. Any name ?
Thanks,
Olivier
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:38:26 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> Becase it's the only end-to-end solution that
> a.) doesn't require a Phd to set it up (just some common sense)
> b.) doesn't require a group of people to maintain
> c.) supports modern applications (not just text manipulation as you illustrated
> earlier)
ALL of this is simple FUD.
> -oh, and it supports more then 2GB of files,
Wrong. Linux can have more than 2GB worth of files.
> -oh yeah, and it scales well. It actually lives up to the term SMP, unlike
> Linux.
More FUD.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What should be the outcome of Microsoft antitrust suit.
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 22:42:29 GMT
In article <jiwE4.804$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8bt8jj$2vv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > IE does *NOT* ship with viewers for powerpoint,
> > > word, or excel. You need to download those seperately.
> >
> > True, but a very large portion of this software is already
installed
> > into the standard windows distribution. The viewers are merely the
> > "face" of the application that has already been embedded.
>
> Backpeddling already? You claimed that IE installed these controlls
and
> that it did so to make Office's footprint seem smaller. So are you
now
> admitting you were lying?
The bottom line is that when Microsoft was forbidden to bundle
Microsoft Office with Microsoft Windows, Microsoft bundled all
of the DLLs, infrastructure code, and binaries required to
implement Office, and then provided a free viewer - This is
yet another attempt to maintain and sustain the "Applications Barrier
to Entry". Microsoft attempted to userp the public standard by
making it's proprietary standard freely available - as a viewer,
making it's control of Office a strategic product - keeping the
value of MS-Office artificially higher than it would have been
if the public had widely accepted Netscape Communicator or other
third party products capable of generating public standard formats
such as HTML, SGML, and TeX.
> > > And which protocols might those be?
> > > There aren't many of them.
> >
> > TCP/IP, IP, DNS, HTTP, HTML, MIME, TCP/IP over PPP, Frame Relay,
and
> > ATM, arp, smtp, nntp, snmp - in all over 3000 RFCs covering
everything
> > from the IP address to multimedia.
>
> No, which PROPRIETARY protocols from MS would that be?
Protocols and File formats which are sent across Internet links.
These would include MSWord documents, Excel Spreadsheets, Powerpoint
Presentations, and anything else capable of passing an executable
OLE/COM object embedded within the document.
Again, in a competitive Market, customers wouldn't tolerate the
passing of "black wire" - binaries that cannot be audited for
the nature of the content. Even encrypted content can be audited
once it is decrypted.
> > One of the reasons ARPA formed what is now the IETF in the first
> > place was to prevent the unfiltered proliferation of executible
> > binaries across the internet.
>
> Funny, I thought it was formed to promote open protocol standards.
Actually it was both. The primary concern of ArpaNet was that
if they couldn't control the protocols, that people would be
sending messages designed to damage the system. One of the big
contriversies was the TN3270 protocol. Eventually, the issue
was resolved with the implementation of TN3270 under the BSD license.
The real issue, for the purposes of a DOJ settlement, is that Microsoft
uses it's file formats, whether stored on files, or passed across
the internet, to protect it's Application Barrier to Entry.
In the competitive IT markets such as UNIX, most vendors conform
to open and published standards. Microsoft refuses to conform
to these standards.
Microsoft must provide sufficient detail of the protocols and
file formats to facilitate GPL reference implementations, and
under the terms of the GPL - - especially if they want to
put that format across the internet.
Again, the goal here is to create a competitive environment in the PC
market that is as competitive as the current UNIX market, where
Microsoft may be the dominant player, but is no longer a monopoly.
Once the competitive market is achieved, Microsoft can do whatever it
wants. If customers would really rather pay $600 for an Office
Suite made by Microsoft for the $400 Operating System made by
Microsoft, in a competitive market (because it's easier
to Learn and Use), it doesn't mean that those who want the $100
Office Suite for the $40 Operating System will automatically be
excluded from all corporate communication and economic opportunity.
The key is that if Microsoft tries to return to "Black Files and
Black Wires" in an environment where 60% of the market is using
Open Standards and Open Source based products, Microsoft users
would have a very hard time having that proprietary content
accepted by Managers, coworkers, clients, customers, and vendors.
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why did we even need NT in the first place?
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 15:53:22 -0700
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8br1bp$4nq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > : Becase it's the only end-to-end solution that
> > : a.) doesn't require a Phd to set it up (just some common sense)
> >
> > How I wish I had a PhD. But setting up Linux is downright simple...
>
> It was an exaggeration, but compared to NT, it's still overly complicated
> to go from nothing installed to all the functionality that NT has out of
> the box, with Linux.
Wrong. It's easier to install RedHat 6.1 than NT.
> That's a different debate, and it's not necessarily
> a bad thing (for Linux), but the question was asked "Why do we need NT, or
> what does it have to offer?"
In that case, your response was off topic. Installation is a one-time
cost, and in and of itself, relatively meaningless.
> How many users on your network?
At one point, I had more than 100 users working in an environment that
had three Linux servers.
> For a large network, Linux usually requires
> constant care if you plan on doing anything on it other than DNS or WWW.
Wrong. I spent most of my time programming, very, very little time was
spent "caring for Linux".
In short, this is more FUD, Chad.
> 2GB in one file. And no, I don't want to drop thousands more for my server
> when I can do it just fine in a nice Compaq x86 server with NT.
'Ceptin you can't do it "fine" with a Compaq x86 box. You want a real
server, get real hardware. This is, in fact, an issue that is
independent of OS'en. NT or Unix, if you run it on x86, expect less
performance, more problems, and longer down times.
See:
http://www.unix-vs-nt.org/kirch/feedback/adrian_filipi-martin.uptime.html
for a sample of what *REAL* hardware will do for you! ;-)
> Why go
> up to 64-bit and pay all that to have functionality I can already get for
> a fraction of the price?
More FUD. The price difference between Alpha and x86 is small, and well
worth it.
> Just because Linux runs on Alpha, doesn't mean it's 64-bit,
True . . . but Linux *IS* 64 bit on Alpha. Oh, and yes, Linux is
running on Merced as well.
> nor does it mean
> it runs well on Alpha.
The same could be said of NT . . . except in Linux'es case, it *DOES*
run well. Just ask Linus.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nice link
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 19:52:45 -0300
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:N16F4.2477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you're using Windows, please click the link below for
> something nice:
Here's an even nicer one: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Francis.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:24:46 -0700
codifex maximus wrote:
>
> Craig Kelley wrote:
> >
> > Yes, but that is very drastic. To some extent, Microsoft earned their
> > current position. I don't believe that they are infallible; I believe
> > Open Source software will simply get better and better. With AT&T,
> > you had one company *physically* owning a bunch of lines, which made
> > the barrier to entry very high for other companies. The divestiture
> > razed those barriers.
> >
> > With Microsoft there is no barrier. As long as you can take a generic
> > PC and load another OS on it, you're fine (which brings me back to my
> > original solution -- make sure that this *is* the case). We don't
> > need a handout, and neither does Apple, Be, or whoever -- we just need
> > parity, a base from which everyone can start.
>
> Hmm... I'm not sure we disagree on much. However, I feel that the
> barriers (however abstract or intangible) to entry are there and those
> barriers are manufactured by the incumbent OS's owner.
I'd disagree with you both.
The barriers are there, they are real (not at all intangible or
abstract) and have nothing to do with market share or financial power.
The barrier here is closed, proprietary data file
formats/protcols/API's/encodings . . . in short, the barrier here is
"secret information".
Imagine, if you will, that AT&T had implemented the telephone system
using "secret information" (protocols, specifications, signaling
profiles, etc.). Just making the bare "wires" available to the
competition would then have done *NOTHING* to solve the monopoly
problem.
The same thing is true here . . . until such time as MS is forced to
release all interface information as both open, *AND* standardized . . .
they can and will retain their monopoly.
For examples, look at Samba. The biggest problem with developing Samba
is aquiring the neccessary information to be MS compatible.
> However much I dislike regulation... the invisible hand has been
> battered into unconsciousness in the computer industry.
I despise regulation. I would suggest breaking the company up (Ala Ma
Bell), and forcing them to make *ALL* the code for *ALL* versions of
Windows open, and to *KEEP* it open for a minimum of seven years, with
*NO* use restrictions.
That allows for the creation of competition, only impacts one of their
products (they can keep everything else that they have never described
as "part of the OS" private), and gives the most bang for the least
buck. Since a huge part of their revenue comes from Office, this won't
impact their bottom line negatively.
'Course, that means that MSIE would have be opened up too, since
according to MS, IE is part of the OS. . . ;->
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:38:15 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nice link
Francis Van Oaken wrote:
> Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:N16F4.2477$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > If you're using Windows, please click the link below for
> > something nice:
>
> Here's an even nicer one: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Francis.
Why? It's not like Chill maliciously created a web page to bring down Windows. It's
simply points to a nonexistent file on you hard drive. Something anyone might do if
they accidentally typed the wrong file name. You should be glad you found out this way
rather than when you had other windows up with important work in progress. It was
quite obvious that it was going to crash the system - it didn't take much reading
between the lines to figure that out. Of course on Linux using Netscape I got what I
would expect:
Netscape is unable to find the file or directory named /c:/aux/aux. Check the name
and
try again.
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:50:11 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: For the WinTrolls - incredible
Robert Heininger wrote:
>
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 13:59:21 -0600,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Tim Kelley' wrote:
>
> >http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20000331S0002
>
> What's the big deal? It's only just an "issue", according to Microsoft.
If this is just an "issue," it's kind of scary to think what their bugs are like.
> Didn't you read the whole article? What's wrong with you? All the facts
> that _you_need_to_know_ are right there in the last sentence. What's your
> point? ;-)
Microsoft wasn't kidding when they promised Windows 2000 would be more scalable.
Heck, this thing scales all the way up to 51 IP addresses!
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:51:20 +1000
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > > If the OS is not portable, stop
> > > calling it portable.
> >
> > Portable does not imply ported.
>
> Portability is a claim that must be proven. If you can't prove it, you
> ought not claim portability.
It's been proven in the past. NT was ported *to* it's primary platform.
> > > You mean to tell me that NT on a power PC wouldn't be an interresting
> > > market?
> >
> > Interesting, sure. Successful ? Highly doubtful. The only volume OEM
of
> > affordable PPC based hardware is Apple, and we all know how well they
react
> > to potential competitors.
>
> Why wouldn't Apple like this to sell hardware?
Because they don't want to lose half the battle, which is keeping people on
their OS. Once someone's moved to a different OS, what's to stop them
moving to a different platform as well ?
Apple sell hardware *and* software. They sell "solutions".
If Apple were interested in selling hardware on its own, all that trouble
with Be would never have happened, and buying a Mac without MacOS would be
possible.
> > > How about NT on Sun hardware?
> >
> > You don't think Sun would have anything to say about that ?
>
> No, of course not. Sun sells hardware.
Sun is like Apple. They sell "solutions".
I had a quick look at store.sun.com and didn't see any machines selling
without an OS.
> > > These are targets that should make
> > > marketing people drool.
> >
> > What on earth for ? No one using SOlaris on Sun is going to have the
> > slightest interest in NT. Ditto $UNIX on PPC.
>
> Yes, but I/O bandwidth on a Sun blows away the PC. NT on Sun would be
> about as fast as NT could get.
But would it be cheaper and more reliable than a big-arse cluster of x86 NT
servers ?
> > > Maybe not for sales of that product, but for the
> > > argument that NT is portable and therefore a viable option.
> >
> > Eh ? How does being ported to a dozen platforms suddenly make it a
"viable
> > option" ?
>
> Because it would be proven to be portable. By being portable, one type
> of scalability can be just better hardware.
Being available on better hardware isn't much good if there's no software to
run.
NT's been on other platforms. It's success was dismal, and that's being
generous.
> > > As it is now, portability of NT is, at best, a joke.
> >
> > How would you know ? You know nothing of itsportability, merely of its
> > ports. Not many commercial OSes run on more than one or two platforms.
>
> Having worked on NT, as a kernel developer, since the original beta, I
> think I have a bit of knowledge in this area. Looking at many of the MS
> written drivers, I can honestly say, IMHO, that while NT aims to be
> portable, many of the big ticket drivers, such as video and networking,
> are not coded in a very portable fashion.
The drivers themselves, or things inherent in the driver models ?
> While they did try to be good about wrapping things in macros and
> abstracted APIs, they seem to have a hard time breaking away from the
> architectural paradigms of the PC. A lot of the things done in NT will
> not port very well to dissimilar architectures. Some machines have
> explicit I/O, some do not. Endian-ness, is also a problem.
So how did it manage to exist previously on 4-odd different platforms ?
[chomp]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000: nothing worse
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:53:41 +1000
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 05:57:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8c06fp$14b0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > I have real problems classifying NT as Multiplatform. two or three
tops.
> >> > Multiplatform is something like netbsd. Linux, although originally
> >> > developed for the x86, has been proven to be capable of being
> >> > multiplatform. NT has only been ported to alpha, mips, and is Merced
out
> >> > yet? Mips was dropped. The Alpha's port is on shaky ground (is it on
> >> > again or off again this week?)
> >
> >It's somewhat unfair to compare a commercial OS (that has to be
profitable)
> >to free OSes like that.
>
> An OS that is owned by the resident 800lb gorilla of the market
> doesn't need to be profitable.
An OS owned by any publically traded company has to be profitiable, AFAIK.
> Furthermore, MS could have used
> it's clout to MAKE Windows on other platforms not just viable
> but profitable.
How, pray ? MS don't have that much clout in the x86 market, let alone
outside of it.
> As always, they chose the least effort path that
> they thought wouldn't inspire mass customer defections.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Its off again.
> >>
> >> They also dropped a PPC port a few years ago. Just when it was looking
> >> quite nice actually.
> >
> >Quite nice ? Just who was making machines that could run it ? How about
> >software ?
>
> Typically when MS Shills talk about 'running things' the first
> things brought to the fore are Microsoft's own apps. So, that
> certainly shouldn't be a problem. Furthermore, MS is the leading
> devtools vendor. Certainly they could have made supporting other
> CPUs quite trivial.
The dev tools were available for all platforms IIRC. Again, if the platform
isn't being profitable, it would be stupid to support it.
> >> Go figure.
> >>
> >> I guess x86 hardware is "superior" for some reason.
> >
> >In some ways. It's common, cheap and fast, relatively speaking.
>
> It's not relatively fast, just relatively cheap due to a
> self-perpetuating process based on popularity.
It's relatively fast considering what it costs.
------------------------------
From: "RCS" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: MANDRAKE 7.0!!!!!!!!! - Linux has finally convinced me.
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 01:55:56 +0200
Uptil now I have had respect for Linux as a server platform,
but as far as the desktop goes, I was less than impressed (by the
installation procedure,
the graphics and fonts, and the somewhat amateurish looking widgets).
I by accident got Mandrake 7.0 on a CD-rom with a computer magazine (PC-PLUS
Issue 163), and was taken by the high praise this installation got, so I
decided to give it a try.
I paritioned my Windows 98 disk to make room for Linux, booted the computer,
and that was it!!!! After a few easy choices during the installation routine
(and a cup of coffee
waiting) a superbly designed, great looking desktop with just beautiful
graphics (KDE) appeared, with so many tools and possibilities that would
otherwise cost me several months of salaries on Windows, that I just leaned
back in amazement!
The anti-Linux FUD'sters do not know what they are talking about!
As simple as that!
RCS
Engineer
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gibbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: xfs is out!
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2000 09:50:52 +1000
Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> horst wrote:
>>
>> Hey, sgi's xfs is finally out there.
>> That makes three journaling file systems in the works, jfs, xfs and
>> reiserfs.
>>
>> That's good news!
> Are there any guys out there that can give us the low down on this?
> Will it make it into 2.4? From what I've read, reiserfs does not look like it
> will make it until 2.6 (or whatever it'll be)
Reiserfs may not make it into the official release of 2.4. However, it's
quite likely that a patch will be available very soon. The reiser functionality
for 2.2 exists in much the same manner. I've been using it for quite a few
months without any problems. Impressive considering it's not part of the
'official' 2.2 tree.
It's amazing what's possible when source code is publicly available :)
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:53:12 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Wed, 29 Mar 2000 23:56:46 +0000 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> Obviously I was referring to the Linux version.
> >> Windows has an hourglass to let you know it is busy.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >And Linux has a stopwatch.
>
> Actually, X Windows has the stopwatch. Linux doesn't really have
> anything to tell anyone it's busy. :-) (I'm not sure it really needs
> to, either.)
Sure it does! XLoad! ;-)
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT vs Linux vs Whatever....
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2000 16:58:18 -0700
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> "Robert Heininger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > See above. IMHO: "Freedom" is what Linux and the OSS movement is all
> about.
>
> Well unless you can cook your own code then you are being forced into doing
> things however debian or red hat or corel or whoever decided to do them,
> surely?
Nope. Since the default shell is highly programmable, and the default
install for all versions of Linux (and pretty much, all versions of
Unix) inlcudes a number of programmable tools (sed, awk, perl), then you
can do "user" programming with very little effort.
Hey, maybe all you are doing as a new user is:
ls | more
but, you *ARE* programming.
The learning curve for Unix is much shallower than the learning curve
for Windows in this regard.
John S.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nice link
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:09:25 GMT
On Fri, 31 Mar 2000 18:38:15 -0500, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>between the lines to figure that out. Of course on Linux using Netscape I got what I
>would expect:
>
>Netscape is unable to find the file or directory named /c:/aux/aux. Check the name
>and
>try again.
>
>Gary
That's basically the same message I got using Agent so I fail to see
what the point of this URL/directory or whatever is?
IE 5.0 is my default browser BTW...
Steve.
"Use your Sound Blaster Live to it's full capacity... Run Windows"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
