Linux-Advocacy Digest #10, Volume #26 Fri, 7 Apr 00 16:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) ("Chad Myers")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: RH linux stable?? (chip)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS (Jim Dabell)
Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?) (Jim Dabell)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Jim Dabell)
Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped (Frederick Artiss)
Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark (Tim Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:47:47 -0500
Cher Monsieur,
pardon mon Français cassé.
Vous devriez rechercher votre réponse dans un autre forum, un qui n'est pas
un forum de recommandation. Ces forum sont pour discuter quel OS est meilleur,
pas pour le support d' offre de technologie. Peut-être vous devriez vérifier
comp.os.linux ou un forum de support de linux.
- Chad
"miguel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Monsieur,
>
> J'ai installé sans trop de problème SUSE 6.1 +KDE (votre CD ne fonctionnant
> pas : SUSE 6.3).
>
> Après avoir monté mon lecteur CD, j'ai tenté d'installer (sur votre 2° CD)
> STAROFFICE 5.1, tout ce passe bien jusqu'à l'archiveur (ARK). Après , je
> n'arrive pas à lancer le setup.bin.
>
> Pouvez-vous m'aider à résoudre mon problème. Mon but étant de faire
> cohabiter les 2 systèmes quelques jours afin de bien maitriser Linux
> (Bureautique, Internet, ...etc) puis de migrer définitivement vers Linux.
>
> Merci d'avance
>
> un Linuxien des Caraïbes.
>
> Miguel
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> JEDIDIAH a écrit dans le message ...
> >On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 23:38:07 -0500, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>JEDIDIAH wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:34:56 -0500, Andrew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >I wasn't debating the fact that a 386 w. 4MB configuration was ideal
> for running
> >>> >a semi-modern GUI. It's not. My point is that X running on a box of
> this nature
> >>> >is bloated compared to the Microsoft product. The networking layers,
> for
> >>>
> >>> NO IT ISN'T.
> >>>
> >>> Win 3.x is just as slow and bloated and nasty as X is.
> >>
> >>Slow? Yes. Nasty? For sure. Usable? Quite, in that exact configuration.
> I've
> >>known people that actually used such a machine actively (with a 100MB HD)
> for 6
> >>years. That probably says a lot about them, but it was very active as
> their
> >>"school paper writing" machine for all that time. I doubt you could say
> the same
> >>thing for Linux running X on the same system.
> >
> > This is simply hypocrisy. They are both the same kind of nasty.
> >
> >[deletia]
> >--
> >
> > So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
> > make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
> > Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
> >
> > Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07 Apr 2000 18:50:05 GMT
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 10:06:02 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
|
| Truckasaurus wrote:
| > Closed standards will kill off competetion, open standards make it
| > thrive. Windows advocates often mention that Bill Gates/MS made PCs
| > affordable and easy to handle. That might be true.
| > But isn't it time, that this powerful tool that controls so many
| > aspects of society is given a chance to develop in a way that is not
| > controlled by one single company (one single man?) ?
|
| Not if it means an open standard that generates variants that have
| incompatibilities with each other. I think that's the fear with some people.
Let's say 12 vendors split the word processing market more or less
evenly. They all use a standard file format (say XML) so people exchange
documents freely and chose a word processor based price, performance,
ease of use, etc. Then one vendor changes the format so the other 11
vendors cannot read their file format, and /or this vendor cannot read
everyone else's file format. Guess who is going to be very unpopular
among consumers?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 07 Apr 2000 18:58:29 GMT
On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:43:02 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > > > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
| > > > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
| > >
| > > How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as well as
| > > revenue that the publisher lost?
|
| > FFS revenue is not a right.
|
| However, copyright is. That is Clancy's intellectual property, he created it
| and he alone should be the sole person to profit from it.
Copyright is not a right. Intellectual property is not property.
| By making illegal copies of his books, you are in essence stealing from him
| because those people might have otherwise bought the book.
And in writing a competing book on the same subject I am also in
essence stealing from him because people might have bought his book,
but the bought mine instead. Correct?
| I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time with this.
| Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property have been
| common law for centuries.
Just because it's a law does not make it right.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 18:59:19 GMT
"Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> fmc wrote:
> >
> > "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
> > > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
> >
> > How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as well as
> > revenue that the publisher lost?
> >
> > fmc
>
> FFS revenue is not a right.
>
> Jim
Clancy has the right to the fruits of his own labors. How he arranges to
get them is secondary, but the underlying right is indisputable.
fmc
------------------------------
Subject: Re: RH linux stable??
From: chip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 12:00:58 -0700
Bastian-
Its hard for me to imagine anyone thinking that a crash is some
kind of victory over any OS. Oh well, such is the ego I guess,
anyway keep up the good work.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:03:45 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:52:19 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:53:10 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:24:16 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | > | What innate rights do you think YOU have?
> | >
> | > Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. . . I think that about covers it.
> | > Did I miss anything?
> |
> | Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are indeed innate rights.
The
> | pursuit of happiness includes the acquisition and ownership of PROPERTY.
> | Clearly then, Clancy and the publisher innately own the work and all
rights
> | associated with it, including the right to copy it, which they do not
extend
> | to others on a casual basis.
>
> Information is not property.
Nonsense. Open a book sometime.
fmc
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:11:06 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2000 13:43:02 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > > > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
> | > > > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
> | > >
> | > > How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as
well as
> | > > revenue that the publisher lost?
> |
> | > FFS revenue is not a right.
> |
> | However, copyright is. That is Clancy's intellectual property, he
created it
> | and he alone should be the sole person to profit from it.
>
> Copyright is not a right. Intellectual property is not property.
>
> | By making illegal copies of his books, you are in essence stealing from
him
> | because those people might have otherwise bought the book.
>
> And in writing a competing book on the same subject I am also in
> essence stealing from him because people might have bought his book,
> but the bought mine instead. Correct?
That's not theft, nor does it violate copyright, or any other law. The
market is both free and competitive.
>
> | I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time with this.
> | Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property have been
> | common law for centuries.
>
> Just because it's a law does not make it right.
Not THAT again. Go back and review chapter one.
fmc
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 20:09:32 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > So tell me, which innate rights of Tom Clancy do I violate when I
> > > > illegal distribute copies of his new novel?
> > >
> > > How about Clancy's rights to the royalties that he never got, as well as
> > > revenue that the publisher lost?
>
> > FFS revenue is not a right.
>
> However, copyright is. That is Clancy's intellectual property, he created it
> and he alone should be the sole person to profit from it.
There are two people profiting in the example given. The person who
recieved the copy of the book, and Tom Clancy. The person who got the
book would also have profited if he had bought it, so you can't say that
their profit is bad. Tom Clancy profits by getting the opportunity to
have his work read by another person, thus improving his reputation as
an author.
> By making illegal copies of his books, you are in essence stealing from him
> because those people might have otherwise bought the book.
Says who? If the person would not have bought the book, is it OK to
copy it?
> I don't understand why you guys have a such a hard time with this.
> Copyright laws, or the concept of intellectual property have been
> common law for centuries.
It doesn't mean that they are *right*. Slavery was around for a long
time as well. Women didn't have the vote for ages. How can you justify
something by saying "it's been the law for ages"?
The fact is that the author of a book doesn't even *know* that the copy
was made. It has affected the author in *no way*. It *may* affect him
in the future, because there is another person out there who likes his
work.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Definition of "Programming" (was: Why Linux on the desktop?)
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 20:23:43 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> William Adderholdt wrote:
> >
> > So, to sum up, my definition of programming is now "the act of creating
> > an algorithm in a machine-readable format that details a series of
> > operations to be executed in a regular definite order." (Furrfu!
> > I can tell this definition is going to get longer and longer as this
> > discussion continues -- if it continues.)
>
> Urmm . . . not quite.
>
> The act of using a paint program fits your definition, as the button
> clicks, mouse drags, etc. constitute "the act of creating an algorithm"
> (the algorithm used, to be precise, to paint your picture), the
Sorry, no. The algorithm to paint the picture is in the picture-viewing
software, which requires information (the picture data). Take this
example. I write something down. Is it programming simply because
somebody might use a scanner to read it in? The marks on the paper
represent an algorithm using your logic.
The reason it isn't programming is because clicking on the buttons in
the paint program is manipulating a specific piece of information, and
not creating an algorithm.
> algorithm is presented in macine readable format (the button clicks,
> mouse drags, etc. are of course all machine readable, or the machine
> wouldn't have responded to your clicks, drags, etc.)
So the mouse is a sensor. Using that logic, everything is
"machine-readable". Is my arse machine-readable because I can sit on a
scanner? Can I program by wiggling it about?
I think you need to understand the difference between an algorithm and
information.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 13:02:49 -0600
Jim Dabell wrote:
>
> "John W. Stevens" wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> > > > > So I just "programmed" my monitor to be brighter when I turned the
> > > > > brightness up?
> > > >
> > > > Is your monitor a computer?
> > >
> > > What about laptops?
> >
> > What about 'em? Can the laptop continue to compute without it's screen?
>
> Laptops have a monitor embedded in the system. Is turning the
> brightness/contrast/whatever up on them programming?
Are monitors computing systems?
> Some of them need
> you to press a key combination to do so. Others have buttons especially
> for it. Are they both programming? Or just one?
Is writing a program to control the volume of your computer's speaker:
programming?
(a) Is using the slider on the GUI to the volume control program
programming?
(b) Is using the monitor control panel to brighten the display:
programming?
Is doing steps (a) and (b) in order to be able to do step (c): Running
your video display software to show a movie: programmming?
If after starting the movie, you go back to step (a) to turn up the
volume, is that programming?
(d) If you write a program to do steps (a), (b) and (c), then back to
(a) for you, are you programming?
If instead of using the monitor control panel, you use the monitor
hardware brightness control, are you not-programming?
If the program you wrote in step (d) instead of using (b), uses a
robotic arm to reach up and adjust your monitor hardware brightness
control, are you not programming?
> > In the olden days, they had hardware called "patch boards" . . . can I
> > take it from your opposition that you don't consider modifying the
> > hardware settings on a computer to be programming?
>
> It depends on the situation. As I said, the *act* doesn't change just
> because you are using a computer.
Ok, so programming can be done independently of computing systems. . .
which implies that just 'cause you are the one executing the program in
your head (the one you just wrote in your head), you are still
programming.
> If the act is to *solely* change the
> way the computer is running, then it's a lot more likely to be
> programming. If the act is to get something else done directly (i.e.
> turn the brightness up) then no, I wouldn't consider it to be
> programming (unless you can think of an exceptional case).
If the monitor is part of the computer, and you adjust the brightness,
isn't that the same as "change the way the computer is running?"
> I meant that I was missing part of your argument because I couldn't
> accept the fact that your opinions could be so, well, I'm not sure how
> to describe them,
Insane? Irrational? Elitist? Dumb?
> actually. It's not important.
Oh, I don't mind.
The whole discussion was provoked in order to create a philisophical
basis for a next generation "User Interface". The very first question
that must be asked when creating a user interface, is just what,
exactly, differentiates a user interface from any other kind of computer
interface. One of the critical distinctions that must be addressed, is
the difference, *IF* *ANY*, between "using" and "programming".
My assertion generates a lot of heated response, because people are
knee-jerking . . . the perpetual fight between people who want "user
friendly" (their definition of user friendly) vs. the other guys who
also want "user friendly" (THEIR defintion of user friendly) generates
unthinking, dogmatic responses.
The hope was that somebody that had been part of that argument long
enough, would have actually stopped to think about it, and had at least
the beginings of a description between "using" and "programming" . . .
'cause as far as I can see, "using" is just programming with a higher
level set of functions/sub programs/processes, wherein you write the
program in your head, act as part of the computing system (some of the
conditional processing is executed by you, some by the computer) to
execute the program, then throw the program away after you are done.
> > In short: If I say do, and the computer does, under what conditions
> > would you call the action I took programming, and under what conditions
> > would you define my actions as "not programming"?
>
> As a general rule of thumb, when the (short term) act you are performing
> is intended to complete a specific task, then it's not programming.
Excuse, but that describes why people write programs: to complete a
specific task.
> I think that the definition of programming is a moving target, and a grey
> area. I don't have to define it completely to be able to say that a
> certain action is not programming.
You have to define programming at least enough to be able to show the
difference between programming, and not-programming, in order to say
that a certain action is not-programming.
Since, so far, nobody has provided a way to define either (programming,
or not-programming), I'd say that the discussion has been resolved to
indicate that not-programming is the empty set.
> It's about as hard to define as pornography, I guess.
Pornography is trivial to define. I don't understand why you think it
is hard to define.
Simply define what parts of the body may not be represented in any kind
of persistent visual storage format.
Done. What's so hard?
> You know it when
> you see it. Your argument is similar to "any picture of people is
> pornography",
No, no similarity at all. You think pornography is hard to define,
because you have attempted to apply a legal argument, wherein the legal
argument is bushwah.
> at least that's how absurd your argument appears to me. I
> don't have to define pornography to be able to say that, without a
> doubt, some pictures of people are not pornographic.
Yes, you do have to define pornography to be able to say, *AT* *ALL*,
that some pictures of people are not pornographic.
> > It's the *ACT* of creating HTML that is programming.
>
> Even if I am writing it down using pen and paper?
Yep.
> > > And for the record, writing HTML is *not* programming. Even if you type
> > > it into a computer!!!
> >
> > Ok, you are on the record: but you still haven't shown how writing HTML
> > is not programming. When I program a computer, I say: do this, and the
> > computer does what I tell it to do. When I tell the computer to record,
> > transmit, then execute an HTML program . . . what am I doing that is
> > different from what I do when I program?
> >
> > If telling the computer what to do *ISN'T* the basic definition of
> > programming, then what is?
>
> When you are writing HTML, you *are not* telling *any* computer what to
> do.
Which simply indicates to me that you not only share my definition, you
find it to narrow. . .
> It is not a set of instructions,
Yes, HTML *IS* a set of instructions. The <table> tag instructs the
computer. What, however, is your point?
> it is information.
Point of order: all programs are information. Defining something as
information, does *NOT* define it as a not-program.
> It is not a
> programming language, it is a markup language.
But, once again, how is the *ACT* of creating HTML not programming? You
claimed that HTML is not a programming language. . . fine. But that
wasn't the assertion, was it? The assertion was that the *ACT* of
creating HTML is programming. Even if the result is not, *ITSELF* a
program, you have to write a program to write the HTML, right?
> "Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to prove that a
> particular interaction with a computer is not programming."
>
> "But since you stand by the blanket statement "any interaction with a
> computer is programming" it is impossible to do so."
>
> Perhaps I should have said that it is impossible to prove it *to you*.
Not at all. To prove it to me, provide a counter example. My assertion
can be tested, it is not an assumption or a definition. Show to me how
the act of interacting with a computer is *NOT* programming, and you
have proved to me my assertion is false.
> I don't see the flaw in my logic.
The flaw in your logic seems to be illustrated by the statement: "If I
design and store a set of instructions in my head, then execute them
through the sub routines and sub programs available to me on a computer,
I am not programming. But if I design and store a set of instructions
in my head, then use the sub routines and sub programs available to me
on a computer to store the instructions in my head in a persistent
storage device on the computer, then tell the computer to execute those
instructions out of the persistent store, I am programming."
If, indeed, you define the difference between "using" and "programming"
as the intervention of a persistent store, then you'd be able to show
that using a computer when your actions are not being recorded, isn't
programming.
But, unfortunately, you'd also prove that designing and writing a
program in my head, but never saving it on the computer, is not
programming.
> Perhaps you are making assumptions?
No, I was making an assertion. By showing the assertion to be untrue,
you prove me wrong.
> > Trolls are simple to deal with: prove 'em wrong. You *STILL* haven't
> > given anything but bald assertion (re: For the Record) to prove me
> > wrong. :-)
>
> It's hard to prove you wrong, because you are relying on ambiguities.
Then define the terms. Which term do you find ambiguous? Please start
by defining the term: programming.
> There is no way of proving you wrong without resorting to "well the
> dictionary says..." which is inadequate.
So, give me *YOUR* definition, and lets work from there. In short, turn
the table. Make an assertion about a specific action as being
programming, or not-programming (as you do above) and I will attempt to
disprove it (as above).
> So I give examples to try and
> make you see that your definition is too wide.
And I respond by showing you how your examples of not-programming
include things that you also define as programming.
> > In that case, can I assume *YOUR* assertion would be: "Programming is
> > the act of telling any computing system what to do?".
>
> Nope. Too broad. Again, using a computer doesn't change the nature of
> what you are doing. Don't try and sidestep it, what is wrong with what
> I said, apart from the fact that it conflicts with your definition?
I answered you above. Your definition does not *EXCLUDE* activities
that *YOU* seem to define as programming, therefore it cannot be used to
define the set of actions that are not-programming.
> > A typewriter is not a computing system, a computer is. The universe
> > could reasonably be defined as, at the very least, being a computing
> > system. You could even define a cat as a computing system. . . the flaw
> > in your response is in your attempt to draw an analogy between a
> > typewriter, and a computing system.
>
> The analogy is perfectly justified.
Nope. Tell me how to use your type writer to compute, say, the square
root of PI?
> Somebody is typing something that
> they want to end up with on paper. The fact that it is done
> electronically or mechanically doesn't change the act. I say they are
> typing something; you say they are programming if they use the
> computer.
Oh, well, if that is your argument, then we agree. The act of using the
typewriter is computing, because part of the *SYSTEM* is a computing
device: YOU. In which case, my assertion stands, as to interact with a
computer makes you part of the system there, as well.
If you define programming as an activity that takes place within the
human mind, then any interaction that includes a human being is
programming, right?
So far, it seems that my assertion can only be proven false by defining
programming as the act of *SAVING* a program in a persistent store.
Unfortunately, that has the side effect of making the act of designing a
program that you don't store, not-programming.
> If this doesn't convince you that your definition is too wide,
> nothing will.
Why should this convince me my definition is to wide? After all, I
didn't really make a definition, I made an assertion, but even when I
made the assertion, I made it deliberately narrow, not deliberately
wide.
It seems clear to me that *OTHER* interactions are programming: A
teacher in front of her class, or a preacher in front of any audience,
for example.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 20:29:07 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
[snip]
> > HTML is not something
> > that can be executed in a meaningful way, just parsed.
>
> Ok, so my browser isn't executing HTML? So just exactly how did the
> HTML cause a different set of bits to be displayed on my screen?
>
No, your computer isn't executing HTML. It's information and not an
algorithm. The algorithms for changing your screen are spread over the
browser, shell, OS and video card. The information that the algorithm
in the browser works on is the HTML.
*Please* understand the difference between the two concepts.
Jim
------------------------------
From: Frederick Artiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: 10 things with Linux I wish I knew before i jumped
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:35:32 -0400
Tried that with the mouse -- it doesn't work!!
Darren Winsper wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Apr 2000 19:20:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Sat, 1 Apr 2000 19:07:13 +0100, "Nick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Still haven't got the wheel on my mouse working yet...
> >
> > IMWheel should do the trick.
> >
> > Try:
> >
> > http://www.freshmeat.net and look for IMWheel.
>
> IMWheel isn't really needed. Just shove this in your XF86Config file:
>
> Buttons 5
> ZAxisMapping 4 5
>
> That is assuming your aren't using XFree4.
>
> --
> Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
> Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
> DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
> This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Subject: Re: Linux vs. Windows Benchmark
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:32:44 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 7 Apr 2000 16:55:30 GMT, Chris Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>We are going to be seeing fewer and fewer of these benchmark comparisons
>bettween Linux and Windows in the future as Linux ports on hardware like the
>S/390's become widespread. Companies like Mindcraft and magazines like PC
>Mag don't have the knowlege or the skills to deal with Linux and this kind
>of hardware.
Well, I agree. It would be interesting (and that's all, just
interesting) to see how linux can stack up to NT in "absolute terms":
run linux on an S/390 and NT on the most maxed out pc you can find. I
just want to see the numbers :-)
I think the pc will still remain the most popular server platform
though, because it is so cheap and easy to deal with.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
