Linux-Advocacy Digest #14, Volume #26 Fri, 7 Apr 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic) (Craig Kelley)
Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Adam Schuetze)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Norman D. Megill)
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: Linux mail/news application questions ("John W. Stevens")
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. ("fmc")
Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows (David Steinberg)
Re: Rumors ... (Tim Kelley)
Re: Linux mail/news application questions (Grant Edwards)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:43:45 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 19:56:54 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:36:05 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > |
> | > | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | > | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > | > On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 08:46:37 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> | > | > fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> | > I have an innate right to my property. I can manipulate my property
> | > however I wish. And if one way I want to manipulate my property is to
> | > place a sequence of ones and zeros on it that somehow resembles the
> | > sequence of ones and zeros on another of my properties, then that is
> | > fully within my rights. And if I then want to distribute that
> | > sequence of ones and zeros, that is also completely within my rights.
> | > I have an innate right to what I do with my property, why are you
> | > trying to limit my innate rights?
> |
> | All of your innate rights are intact, but your innate rights do not
> | superpcede the innate rights of another. Your property is yours to do
with
> | as you wish, but their property is not. The law is very clear in this
> | regard.
>
> Yet if you have a copyright on the the string of ones and zeros, you
> would try to prevent me for taking the actions outlined above. None
> of your property is involved, instead the law give you the privilege
> to limit what I do with my property.
Use Occam's razor. The obvious explanation for this is that the law has it
figured out correctly; that means you must be wrong. My property is
involved, because my rights to same are infringed by your action. I never
gave you permission to use my copyrighted bit sequence for any purpose.
Just because it's your ass, that doesn't mean you can tattoo Tom Clancy's
novel on it.
fmc
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: A pox on the penguin? (Linux Virus Epidemic)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07 Apr 2000 15:42:45 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I'm impressed Chad!
>
> > Who would have known :)
>
> That he could type very, very poor french that probably got
> spit out of babelfish?
>
> I would have known.
I can speak Spanish, and that post smells like babbelfish to me.
--
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Penfield Jackson bitch-slaps Bill Gates
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:42:34 -0600
Paul 'Z' Ewande© wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> 8ck7n3$21e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Good for you. Unfortunately, your UberOSes apparently don't cut it for your
> boss.
Or maybe the boss doesn't even know that he has a choice.
> Listen, i don't want to argue this to death. You want a powerful UNIX type
> OS, by all means use powerful UNIX type OS.*
>
> Now, consumers, the bulk of the computer using populace have little to no
> use for a powerful UNIX type OS *at the moment*.
That statment will come as a complete shock to the good folks at Apple .
. . who are using a powerful UNIX type OS as the basis for their new
consumer OS.
> All they want is an
> appliance that fulfill their needs, with the minimum of hassles.
> They boot
> it, they do their stuff, and when they're done, the shut the thing done.
> That's the type of users that are better off using Windows9x or MacOS.
Nope. You do just exactly that on a Linux box, so to claim that Windows
or the MacOS is better is incorrect.
> I want to watch a Sorenson encoded *.mov and I have a Yamaha DS-XG sound
> card, and then convert it on Cinepak. How do I do that on Solaris or Linux.
You don't. But that says nothing about the relative merits of the
operating systems: it is just a comment on the MS monopoly.
After the DOJ breaks MS up, more and more ISVs will start
porting/writing for Linux.
> The most stable and powerful OS in the world does zilch for me if it can't
> run my software on my hardware.
Correct. Hence the incredible urgency in breaking up MS. Until we
break up MS, we will never be able to break the unnecessary relationship
between OS and application that now exists.
> Windows9x wasn't designed to run websites or FTP download sites with
> 99.999999999% availability,
Neither was Linux.
But, as so often proves to be the case, a superior design ends up
creating a system that has superior capabilities.
> Due to hardware constraints at the time, the guys who developped it had to
> make a few compromises here and there [the thing had to sport all those
> features and boot in 4 Megs].
Linux was developed on the same hardware, you know.
> Windows9x is far from perfect, and should be
> gone now IMO, he paved the way for ubiquituous Win32 apps, which was it's
> goal. But the market, apparently doesn't still want to do away with it.
The market doesn't want to pay the up front cost of lower costs later
on.
That's almost always the case, which is why democracy is such an
absolute and total failure as a political system.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Adam Schuetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 21:48:09 GMT
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
> > Everytime I tried to search for an answer to this question, I
> > found a lot of advice saying to use mail, trn, etc. Yeah, I used those
> > programs for a while; but I didn't upgrade to linux to use the same
> > text based programs I used 10 years ago.
>
> Ok. What, precisely, is wrong with text based programs? If they work,
> why do you care that they are text based . . . especially as what you
> want to do is text processing.
I agree.
<rant>
It makes sense to use a text-based program for just that, -text-. Why muddle things
up and bloat software just to give it a pretty graphical interface? Having a GUI
does not make it any easier to read the text. And choosing text based programs does
not mean that you must suffer from poor functionality. I think it's important for
people to wean themselves from their window dependancies. For example, you can
read/send news, mail and browse web pages from a 486 with 16 megs of ram, if you use
plain command-line linux. You can even do these things simultaneously, if you use
virtual logins (I think thats what it's called... hitting alt+f2 gives you a 2nd
login screen, for example). You can buy machines like that for 50 bucks at a garage
sale. It requires something with a whole lot more horsepower (and a -whole- lot
more money) to do the same, with a graphic interface. Don't get me wrong, X is
excellent, and has it's uses, but I don't think that it's necessary for everything.
This dependance on gui's for -everything- has driven people into a yearly (or more)
hardware upgrade schedule. This effect is not quite so pronounced with linux and X,
but it's still there.
> Hey, if the interface is more important than the functionality, then be
> my guest, insist on GUI'fied stuff. . .
Once again, interface over functionality, something that has become ingrained in our
minds, after so many years of megasoft bloatware.
</rant>
Godamn, what a rant. But I feel so much better.
Adam
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Norman D. Megill)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: 7 Apr 2000 17:52:28 -0400
In article <8ckuqp$76u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
doc rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I don't like the government getting involved with most things. I don't like
>regulation of any businesses. I don't like mandatory licensing of any
>professions (including doctors, lawyers, etc.)
>
>I wouldn't characterize it as Bill Gates' responsibility to ensure that the
>government doesn't regulate software.
The government already does regulate software, via "intellectual
property" laws. It regulates the restrictions on what you are allowed
to do with the 1s and 0s residing on your computer, even in the privacy
of your own home; when these restrictions will expire (nowadays, usually
not in your lifetime); etc.
>We're the ones voting for the clowns who would impose the regulation. Let's
>get a Libertarian government in power. You can start by supporting Harry
>Browne or Don Gorman this year instead of voting for a Democrat or
>Republican flunky.
Since you claim to be a libertarian, you must know that not all
libertarians support the idea that there is even such a thing as
"intellectual property", as opposed to physical property. See e.g.
http://www.reason.com/0003/fe.jw.copy.html
http://www.free-market.com/forums/microsoft9809/messages/269386497.html
http://www.freenation.org/fnf/a/f31l1.html
Copyrights (and patents) are monopolies on information granted and
regulated by the government, a relatively recent phenomenon in the
history of human affairs purportedly intended to benefit the public by
encouraging creativity (although that didn't stop Newton, Shakespeare,
Beethoven, Rembrandt, Socrates, da Vinci, etc.). Copyright laws are a
government-regulated form of suppression of freedom of speech, that
restrict the information you are allowed to communicate to others. In
its natural state information "wants" to be free. Unlike physical
property, if I share information with you I still possess it. I don't
know when copyright laws originated, but most of my books that were
published in the 1800's and early 1900's have no copyright notice at
all, and early filmmakers and record producers often did not bother to
copyright their works.
One indication that IP is an artificial concept is that there are
arbitrary, government-mandated limits to how long one has exclusive
rights to the information (unlike with physical property, which the
owner possesses forever). As time goes on, these limits keep being
extended due to pressure and lobbying by big corporations, most recently
by Disney to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. What "logic"
would you use to justify this arbitrary, government-dictated number?
Microsoft has always had a government-regulated information monopoly (as
does every copyright holder under current law). Information monopolies
are privileges, not rights, intended to benefit the public.
Historically they have not been considered an "innate right". Society
seems to have lost sight of this fact.
What is the inherent value in Microsoft's products, and what was its
source? For example, Internet Explorer has at its core the Mosaic
browser, developed at public expense. Microsoft slapped on some bells
and whistles and called the result its property, exploiting
government-regulated information laws. The same is true of almost every
product offered by MS: someone else originated the idea, and MS took it
over, copyrighted it, and marketed it, reaping the gains for themselves.
Sometimes the creators benefitted (when MS bought them out), sometimes
they didn't. The ones who didn't may have screwed themselves by not
properly registering their creation with the appropriate government
authorities, or perhaps they just had a different belief system with
respect to IP.
Since IP monolopy (and MS's use of it) is an artificial privilege
created by government regulation, presumably for the public benefit, it
doesn't seem ironic to me that government regulation can also set limits
on that privilege, in particular with laws regulating monopolies
(although originally of course those those had nothing to do with IP).
If you scrap the regulation of monopolies in general then logically you
should also scrap the regulation of information monopolies in particular.
Another matter that should concern you as a libertarian who presumably
values individual privacy - what you do in your own home is your own
business - is that IP laws are in conflict with this concept. Microsoft
routinely avails itself of government-regulated IP laws to obtain search
and siezure court orders, enforced by the police if necessary, to
perform "audits" of businesses suspected of violating their licensing
agreements. How do you know that one day they may not decide to show up
with a court order to "audit" your private home? Suppose you have 2
computers, yours and your wife's, and purchased one copy of the
software. What right does the goverment/Microsoft have to tell you what
you can do with that one copy in your own home? Obviously they can't
even know unless they violate your privacy rights.
Unlike physical property, there is a no clear-cut line between what
violates IP laws and what does not. If I memorize a song and sing it to
my wife (with proper and ethical acknowledgement of who wrote it, of
course), do I violate IP laws? What about to a neighbor visiting my
home, two neighbors, or a group of neighbors? What about to an assembly
of many acquaintances, or even the general public?
A library can lend a book to 100 people, e.g. a novel that would
probably be read once then discarded if purchased. The publisher is
paid for only one book. Why is the publisher not being cheated in this
case? It seems IP laws are rather inconsistent here - again presumably
for benefit of the public.
What if you buy a book and make a copy so you and your wife can read it
at the same time in order to discuss it? If it is illegal, how would
could it be enforced without invading your privacy?
In another post you wrote:
>I have the same model gateway (well, the equivalent, its only about a
>year old) with all the fixins sitting at home on top of my stereo
>serving up MP3s
Can we assume that every mp3 you have stored on your system is not in
violation of some copyright law, and that you have only obtained them
from CDs you have personally purchased and not resold, lent, or given
away? (And even if so I believe strictly speaking some CD makers would
not be too happy about your copying their songs to your PC, if you read
their fine print.)
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of
exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an
idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it
to himself, but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the
possession of everyone, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of
it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less,
because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea
from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who
lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That
ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for moral
and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems
to have been peculiarly and benevolently deisgned by nature, whom she
made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their
density at any point, and like the air in which we breath, move, and
have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive
appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of
property."
--Norm
------------------------------
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 21:53:34 GMT
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8clg5v$ra3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy 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.
>
> Wrong, once again. He sold first north american publishing rights to his
> publisher, period. His publishers rights would be violated, NOT clancy's.
>
> I'm not at all surprised that you do not understand this very, very simple
> legal concept.
>
Unknowns are forced by circumstance to sign away all rights for a pittance
just to get on the boards. Established best selling authors call their own
shots. Clancy doesn't need to sign away all rights to a publisher. He can
sell the publishing rights AND demand shamelessly greedy royalties.
Do you have anything to say that's more pertinent to the discussion?
fmc
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
------------------------------
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 21:56:44 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 20:13:22 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "Jim Dabell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > fmc wrote:
> | > >
> | > > "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
> | >
> | > How has Clancy laboured when *somebody else* makes a copy of his book?
> | >
> | > Jim
> |
> | He doesn't have to. His labour ended when he wrote the book. All he
has
> | to do now is collect royalty checks.
>
> So he gets paid for doing nothing.
He still has to sign the checks and deposit them. Life is so hard
sometimes.
fmc
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 15:47:54 -0600
Terry Porter wrote:
>
> > I'd also like the ability to have it automaticly combine
> >and decode messages.
> Ahh porn!
ADB or Unpost.
The modern version of Unpost assumes that the collector (of pictures, or
MP3's, or programs, or what ever binary format you want to collect)
assumes that the collector is connecting to the internet over a slow,
PPP link (and yes, 56K is slow!), and uses a number of tricks to
maximize the amount of interesting data that is moved across the PPP
link, some times achieving virtual transfer rates that are as high as
four times the physical transfer rate.
Of course, the modern version of Unpost still doesn't have a GUI . . .
because to put a GUI on a tool like Unpost would be very, very silly.
"Modern" != "GUI'fied".
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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 21:59:35 GMT
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 18:59:19 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
> fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | "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.
>
> I'm going to go to the beach and dig a hole. It'll be a really big
> hole. It'll take me several months to dig this hole, working 5 days a
> week, 8 hours a day, undoubtedly quite a bit of labor. Now some SOB
> copies my hole! He has infringed on my right to the fruit of my labor!
You really ARE digging a hole. What did they say when you tried to register
your hole with the Copyright Office?
fmc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: benchmark for speed in linux / windows
Date: 7 Apr 2000 22:00:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I am not arguing the power, control or freedom of Linux, I am simply
: saying that "Attention K-Mart Shoppers" , which make up the bulk of
: the PC buying population, are simply not interested in the geek code
: blocks.
I guess the question is: why do care so much about "Attention K-Mart
Shoppers"?
For the most part, they have very little effect on my life, except when I
have to fix their toasted Windows machines. I use what I want, and they
use what they want. If someone tells me that Windows best suits their
needs, chances are they're right, and I'm not going to tell them
otherwise. If someone asks me what I think of Windows/Microsoft, I'll
probably tell them what a piece of crap/evil company I think it is, but
I'll likely add, "but, unfortunately, it is/makes the most suitable system
for what you want to do with your computer," if that is true. I have no
desire to convince people to use Linux, if they don't have some reason for
wanting to.
However, when someone such as yourself basically says, "Linux sucks
because it's too hard, and you have to partition, and there's no apps, and
you have to be poor to use it, and besides I can't use my keybaord," I
feel the urge to point out that the problem does not lie with Linux.
Or, ask me why I like Linux, and I could go on for hours.
Why do you feel the need to keep spreading the lies and exagerations? Why
do you boast about giving people Linux CD's so that they'll try it and
hate it? Don't you feel bad that you've wasted their time, when you
ccould have just said, "I don't think Linux fits your needs right
now"? When I fix people's Windows machines, I curse the OS for making my
life harder, but I don't take any pleasure out of the fact that it's
not working for someone else.
Why can't you just accept that Linux is not for you, and move on? Who
uses an operating system just so they can find things they don't like
about it?
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Kelley)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:00:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 09:38:50 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Show me ONE place where Apple has strong armed a hardware vendor
>(independant of Apple its self) into pre-loading to the exclution of
>every one else the Mac OS. In deed, show me any vendor that Apple strong
>armed into suppleing ONLY Apple products (you must PROVE that Apple
>strong armed or threatened the company) Without doing so, you can NOT
>claim Mac is being just as aggressive and draconian as MS.
They do it with quicktime. I don't have proof but I am fairly certain
they approach movie studios and get them to release the trilers in qt
format, which sucks. this is the same sort of behaviour that M$ is
guilty of; it fucks everyone over, and benefits only Apple. Real.com
does the same thing. We already have MPEG.
Apple is certainly one of the most odious corporations ever, what with
their faux 60's couterculture image and all. Ick. What a bunch of
slimeballs. At least M$ is quite honest about being slimebags.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: grant@nowhere. (Grant Edwards)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Linux mail/news application questions
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 2000 22:02:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Adam Schuetze wrote:
>It makes sense to use a text-based program for just that,
>-text-. Why muddle things up and bloat software just to give
>it a pretty graphical interface?
Damn straight.
[...]
>Don't get me wrong, X is excellent, and has it's uses,
The most important of which is to run 8-10 terminal emulators
on a great big monitor so I can have as many text-based
programs running (and visible) as I need.
I'm serious.
Once in a while I run netscape or acroread, but 90% of the time
there's nothing on my X display other than text-based programs
running in a half-dozen copies of rxvt.
Oh, and gbuffy. It's the one X application other than rxvt
(and a window manager) I run consistently.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! MERYL STREEP is my
at obstetrician!
visi.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
******************************
