Linux-Advocacy Digest #33, Volume #26 Sat, 8 Apr 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine! (Jim Richardson)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: About GNU kernels ("ax")
Re: Be vs. Linux ("ax")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (JEDIDIAH)
Observations on Internet World LA (Salvador Peralta)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(JEDIDIAH)
Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:13:35 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 20:50:09 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Bob Lyday wrote:
>
>> Shell wrote:
>> >
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (redrum) writes:
[deletia]
Simple, off the shelf applications have never been restricted to
just Kludge Klones. Infact, both of the microcomputer 'killer apps'
were developed ELSEWHWERE (the spreadsheet & web browser). Also,
the notion of a truely user manageable interface and hardware is
also something else relatively alien to Kludge clones.
Microsoft and it's co-conspirators are just trying to replicate what
Apple had 16 years ago. Most of the technology that's driving this
'usability' is equally exploitable by any Kludge Klone OS, even
something like Solaris.
Infact, Microsoft's 'success' in throwing a pretty face on DOS is
just a good demonstration that the same could be accomplished with
Unix or even VMS.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:17:11 GMT
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:38:21 GMT, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The goal should be to make the computer easy to use. People just want to
>turn it on, and use it to get their work done. Most people don't care how
>it works. They just want to check email, and cruise the web. They don't
>want to dwell on how large to make the /var partition.
Fortunately, that's something that's never been required even of
a sysadmin on Unix. Unix has had "installsheild-esque" automation
facilties since before DOS even existed.
>
>
>> You know about partitions. I know about partitions. The typical
>> Windows user knows C:\windows and that's it.
>>Example of people not knowing what they are doing. They're $.10/dozen
>>anymore thanks to Windows.
>
>>True, but it is the reality of the situation and a point the
>>Linvocates fail to be able to grasp.
No, what shills fail to grasp is that such users NEED something
that WORKS. An appliance has to be, above all, RELIABLE. WinDOS
fails miserably in this respect. Rightfully it should be in the
dustbin of history with the 030 Mac's smirking on top of it's
grave.
--
It is not the advocates of free love and software
that are the communists here , but rather those that |||
advocate or perpetuate the necessity of only using / | \
one option among many, like in some regime where
product choice is a thing only seen in museums.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: 2000: Hammer blows to the Micro$oft machine!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:18:08 GMT
On 8 Apr 2000 19:26:27 GMT,
Jeremy Crabtree, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Jim Richardson allegedly wrote:
>>On 8 Apr 2000 15:40:28 GMT,
>> Jeremy Crabtree, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>Leonard F. Agius allegedly wrote:
>>>>
>>>>We must be a rare breed, then. I read my owners manual, and actually bought
>>>>the shop manual to the car, as well. I may not do all the work on it myself,
>>>>but the more Iknow about my car, the less likely any service shop will try
>>>>pull the wool over my eyes.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, there isn' a shop manual for my car, otherwise I would have
>>>that too.
>>>
>>
>>Check for a Haynes manual, (making a huge assumption here that you are in
>>the US.) Haynes manuals are nice because of the way they are set up. They
>>really help IMHO.
>
>I have, and they don't have one for my car. (1996 Geo Metro, their Metro books
>only cover through '94)
>
Ah, you may have to wait a year or two more then.
All the cars I had haynes manuals for, were not exactly new...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:22:58 GMT
On Fri, 07 Apr 2000 17:12:55 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>CG wrote:
[deletia]
>> it is probably true that it's a little easier to add software willy
>> nilly to a windows machine, but this is part of the curse as well,
>> because nothing screws up a windows machine faster and more completely
>> than adding every crap installation, trial demo, applet etc. that
>> comes along. they can't be uninstalled half the time and eventually
>> they bring down the whole o/s. can't happen in linux.
>>
>
>It is very true about being able to add software willy nilly to a Windows
>machine, and it may be part of the curse as well. But given that there isn't
>that much Linux software out there (comparitively speaking), can you make a
>fair comparison?
There are plenty of things that can be added to even HP/UX such
that you could make a similar comparison. Where the comparison
would break down, of course, is that Unix applications don't
typically expect to be able to alter the core system state.
[deletia]
You can even create DLL hell if you know enough about Linux to
be dangerous to yourself. Although, cleaning out some lib from
/usr/local/lib at Miguel's direction is relatively simple.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: About GNU kernels
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:24:21 GMT
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 13:51:14 GMT,
> ax, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >
> >"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> ax wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It does not surprise me if someone start thinking of
> >> > replacing the Linux kernel somehow.
> >> >
> >> > There are two major areas I am quite concerned about
> >> > Linux future.
> >> >
> >> > (1). monolithic kernel architecture
> >> >
> >> > Linux uses obsolete monolithic OS architecture for
> >> > the gain of speed. But as the computer hardware speed
> >> > increases, the speed gain of monolithic Linux kernel
> >> > will be less significant.
> >> >
> >> > What Linux loses for using monolithic kernel instead
> >> > of microkernel are what Linux cannot afford to lose for
> >> > the long run.
> >> >
> >> > We are matching into the new millennium with an old
> >> > tech....
> >>
> >> This whole micro vs monolithic kernel debate is stupid. There is
nothing
> >> that keeps a microkernel from gaining the bloat that is mostly
> >> attributed to monolithic kernels. There is nothing that says that a
> >> monolithic can't implement features attributed to microkernels.
> >>
> >
> >We can rewrite Linux in machine code '0' and '1' which can do
> >everything Linux can do and may be even faster than Linux.
> >But nobody really wants to go back to the good old 70s to do so.
>
> It is in "0"s and "1"s, thats why we compile the C source code...
>
Cannot find anyone around me still code directly with '0's and '1's.
I did that in 70s but that remained in my memory only.
> >
> >Technology is the driving force. An OS built with old tech
> >has the risk of being challenged sooner or later.
>
> But you first have to show that the old tech, is not as good as the
> new tech. Which you have failed to do. So.
> 1) What are the advantages to a micro kernel design that cannot
> be duplicated in a monolithic kernel
> 2) Are there any examples of a micro kernel that demonstrate these
> advantages, or are they purely theoretical.
>
I remember someone posted old discussions between Linus and
the professor who built minix a while ago. In my memory, even Linus
agreed that he made a poor choice to use monolithic architecture
(correct me if I misunderstood Linus).
>
> >> As we have seen with many microkernel implementations, monolithic
kernel
> >> practices are creeping in. (Anyone taken a good look at NT lately?)
With
> >> Linux, we are seeing many microkernel-esque features, like kernel
> >> modules and loadable filesystems.
> >>
> >
> >Yes. Linux had incorporated many microkernel-like features.
> >That's a good effort, I believe.
>
> So does this remove the need you see, to recode the kernel as a micro
> kernel? if not, are you aware of the MkLinux (Micro Kernel Linux) project?
>
I am not aware of MkLinux. I will look into it later. Thanks.
> >I had looked into the Linux kernel lately and found it full
> >of kludge, inconsistency and lots of low programming skill
> >code segments. Looked like some students had not attended
> >programming and software engineering courses before they
> >contributed their code. There are areas in Linux kernel
> >so poorly coded that changing one line has the risk of breaking
> >hundred things. It's monolithic nature makes Linux relatively
> >difficult to maintain in the course of its future evolution.
>
> This is a little misleading, in any program, changing one line
> somewhere can have catastrophic effects.
> You may be right about the quality of some of the kernel code, I don't
> know, I am no hotshit C hacker, but why do you think Linux differs in this
> way from any other OS? Why do you seem to think that Linux being
monolithic
> contributes to this "bad code" ? After all, were the standard linux kernel
> to be rewritten in micro kernel form, it would likely be these same
programmers
> doing it.
I taught in universities before. This is probably why I can feel
the level of the programming expertise by just looking at the code.
Linux provides the opportunity for less skilled undergrads
to participate in the kernel development. Based on my
personal experience, kernel level work requires higher
level of expertise. There is nothing wrong for undergrads
to participate in the kernel development since Linux
was originally a university project. But Linux was pushed
to the commercial stage which may incur different
requirements and issues. There is always some gap
between university work and industry.
Monolithic architecture is harder to maintain. Bad code makes
things worse.
If the OS kernel is better structured, the bad coded OS is much
easier to refine and evolve over time.
> What you are suggesting is that everyone stop advancing, and go back and
redo
> years of work that have allready been done. Unlikely to happen. You are of
> course, welcome to begin and start showing us how it's done. That is the
beauty
> of open source. Don't like it? start to fix it. If others agree, they'll
help.
>
Software refinement and enhancement is integral part of software
development.
Linux is no exception.
> >> >
> >> > (2). GPL
> >> >
> >> > Linux gains its popularity due to GPL. But Linux businesses
> >> > are suffering from the lack of sound business model due
> >> > to GPL too.
> >> >
> >> > Without GPL, Linux will not achieve what it has achieved
> >> > to date. But with GPL, Linux businesses will attempt to
> >> > challenge the traditional business wisdom with its
> >> > so called "bizarre business model".
> >> >
> >> > It's hard to tell if the "bizarre wisdom" will win. But
somehow,
> >> > the stock market seems to start punishing the "bizarre".
> >>
> >> The GPL is just one way to make a living with Linux. Applix sells
> >> software which is not GPL, which runs on Linux, they are making a
> >> profit. What is bizarre about that? Once you think about it, they only
> >> bizarre thing is that there is no need to pay Microsoft for what can
> >> only be called "sub-standard" software.
> >>
> >
> >I am interested in knowing more about Applix and the
> >ways to escape GPL.
>
> Simple, write software that doesn't link to any GPL code, and sell it.
> What's to explain. Loki does it with games, Applix with office S/W, and
> many others do it with other programs. Including kernel modules and device
> drivers. Linux is GPL, that does not mean that everything running on a
linux
> system has to be. You could make a totally (except for the kernel) GPL
free
> system if you chose. (it'd be tough to live without some of the gnu-tools
> but it can be done. ) I doubt this distrol (call it, um Foonix :) would be
> real popular, but hey, someone might buy it.
>
Thanks. I am still quite fuzzy on the boundary between GPL and non-GPL.
I need to collect more information on this.
> --
> Jim Richardson
> Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
> WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
> Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
>
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:24:22 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 18:03:13 GMT, ax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> >Will Linus be willing to give up control to allow the DIFFERENCEs?
>
> He already did. The GPL says you can modify the code any way you want,
> and even distribute it, provided you also make the source available. It
> does not say anything about Linus giving permission.
>
If that's the case, why those Linux companies don't take the kernel
with them and make speedy enhancement or cleanup of the
kernel instead of relying on part time Linus?
I'd rather see companies such as Red Hat and many others to
take the lead in the kernel development instead of having Linus
to control when and how the next kernel release will be.
Did I misunderstand anything?
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:25:48 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 23:26:43 +0100, Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>> "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 21:18:46 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > | On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 20:50:09 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
>> > | <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > | accumulated over the years just to run wannabe Linux applications with
>> > | crude, sometimes down right hostile interfaces (sendmail comes to
>> > | mind).
>> > | You Linvocates have got to be kidding.
>> >
>> > Sendmail is not an "app". It's a deamon, a mail transfer agent to be
>> > specific.
>>
>> So that makes its ok that it is horrible to configure and administrate?
>>
>> -Chad
>
>Yeah, to an extent, seeing as only people configuring a server need to
>bother with it.
If you are the sort that would be futzing with sendmail's
defaults, you better well be competent and knowledeable
enough to handle the config files. This is true even if you
are some mail admin that uses some other server app and/or
a shiny happy gui admin front end.
Some tools aren't for novice hands. This includes 'cars' like
an omnibus, 'tools' like a industrial strength drill or some
computer applications (with or without gui).
--
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.
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Observations on Internet World LA
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 15:27:50 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I went to Internet World in Los Angeles last week.
I would've liked to have seen ESR there. The Linux business community
needs someone to acquaint the IBMers with the Linux development
process. The Lotus guys still don't get it. It goes back to the same
things that the Slashdot crowd has been talking about for years: Until
corporate legacyware people understand that the inefficiencies of their
model have been exposed and fully embrace open source as a platform for
corporate development, they will continue to have declining revenues,
long production times, and generally unhappy customers.
Lotus doesn't just need another platform to run on. It needs to start
leveraging the strengths of native tools on platforms like linux and
their packaged software add-on's need to be open-sourced.
Bob Young (RedHat) and Scott Handy (IBM - dir. of intergrated solutions
& Linux Marketing) were no-shows at their Thursday panel (the poorly
titled: Why Linux is Storming the Market). Were they in meetings? If
they were, should we be expecting an announcement from IBM and RedHat?
Probably more linux servers rather than desktops. Will they ever
announce the Linux/RedHat/IBM network workstation. The price point is
right.
One person I was glad to see is Bernie Thompson from Applix. Applix 5.x
is now in distrobution. I've liked it ever since I got a 4.x demo with
SuSE 6.1. Applix is still having a tough time getting takers on their
open-sourced elf/shelf integration model.
Re IBM: I'd love to convince the IBMers to facilitate DB2 access in
linux native tools like Perl. In terms of talent, Linux developers in
the workforce are well ahead of Lotus teams in form-based email routing
and other web-enabled server-side scripting for corporate
nfrastructures. We are viral in our ability to use sendmail and
delimited text to interface with Legacy middleware like Lotus mail
databases. it still amazes me how something so simple can be so
powerful. The ubiquitousness of RFC's, and other documentation on linux
coupled with programming tools like RegEX and parsing modules also has
linux developers ahead on Notes teams in terms of most types of
web-enabled clients.
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:28:07 GMT
On Wed, 5 Apr 2000 17:04:26 -0500, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Linux is numero uno in returns and nothing is even close.
>> Makes me wonder how many of those cheapbytes CD's and downloads of
>> Linux are REALLY being used.
>
>Perhaps they will start competing for AOL CDs in terms of numbers unused.
Nah, we have enough of a sense of humor to suggest using such
unwanted CD's as coasters. I've got some 4 year old Slackware
discs that serve that function quite adequately.
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:30:06 GMT
On Thu, 6 Apr 2000 09:01:30 -0400, Keith T. Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Jim Dabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> [snip]
>> > >> Every computer with Linux pre-loaded should come with one. A
>competant
>> > >> Sysadmin that is......
>> > >> But, fear not, there aren;t that many Linux pre-loads going out.
>> > >> Try calling Dell and asking for one....After the silence at the end
>of
>> > >> the phone, ask for a supervisor.
>> > >
>> > >My point was, the average businessperson would have a sysadmin at work.
>> > >The average nine-year-old would have parents.
>
>The 9 year probably knows more about the computer than the parents do...
More importantly, the 9 year old is likely more willing to learn,
more willing to explore and in general more openminded.
It's not the [knowledge], it's the [attitude].
[deletia]
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:32:20 GMT
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 16:17:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And takes a degree in Emacs speak to run.
...another one of Heather's lies.
Emacs takes a 'degree in lisp' to do things that msword/notepad can't.
For the simple stuff, the hotkeys are fairly few and there
are even menus to help you get along.
>
>No thanks.
>
>Steve
>
>
>On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 11:35:33 GMT, Johan Kullstam
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>> Example:
>>> Slrn. Does News, sort of. You need SlrnPull or Suck (great
>>> name) or LeafNode to pull to local NNTP.
>>> Doesn't do mail..Another program.
>>> No spell...Another program...
>>
>>example:
>>
>>gnus/emacs
>>
>>* does news *and* mail.
>>* has offline agent mode.
>>* works in linux and windows.
>>* handles attachments.
>>* good text editor already built-in.
>>
>>now i don't know about you, but every windows mail tool seems to come
>>with the *worst* text editor. i mean lamer than notepad. plus, there
>>is no escaping it and chosing your own editor.
>
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:37:46 GMT
On Wed, 05 Apr 2000 22:15:59 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Don't make me laugh. My $69.00 Canon scanner came with enough "free"
>> software to blow the doors off anything Linux has, including Gimp.
>> Not to mention it worked perfectly out of the box.
>> The wizards did everything from configuring to prompting me through
>> making my first scan.
>>
>> Worked like a charm right out of the box and no overpriced SCSI
>> needed.
>>
>> Sane?
>>
>> Should be called insane...What a joke.....
>>
>> Linux misses the boat again. When will you people understand that
>> setup.exe is your friend?
>>
>> In this case all I did was pop the CD in and away it went.
>
>No offence, but you Winvocates are *always* buying scanners and DVDs. How many can you
>realistically use at once, even if they do work out of the box?
>
>But seriously, though, SCSI scanners give noticable performance increases over
>parallel
>ones, but it obvioulsy comes at a price. Personally, I can spend the mmoney I saved on
Not really. These days, the prices are about the same. You might have
to spend an extra $30 for a PCI SCSI2 host adaptor.
[deletia]
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Top 10 reasons why Linux sux
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:42:31 GMT
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:40:31 GMT, Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> >X can only use two colours in its cursors. Unless someone's eased
>> >that restriction in a more recent version than I've got the docs for.
>>
>Other then you, who cares about the color of the cursor.
I wouldn't mind spiffier cursors. There's a particular cursor
that I would love to be able to force X to use. However, this
is only a minor nuisance and not something I would run WinDOS
over...
--
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.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2000 22:47:09 GMT
On Sat, 08 Apr 2000 00:58:02 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>fysg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>: In fact, almost every person will need some Windows application, that's
>: because in an intranet one should have at least one Windows client (NT WK,
>: 2K Pro or W98). Perhaps if you do have a strange printer you may then want
>: to serve printer with NT/W2K Server ... but everything else could (dare I to
>: say should ?) run on Linux, I mean, other clients, Internet software, file
>: serving and of course firewalling.
>
>That's why you carefully shop for your equipment. For example, I only use
>external modems. For me, that's the biggest caveat about Linux. You shop
>for printers carefully, ensuring it's not a brain-dead WinPrinter.
Haven't you heard? The likes of 3COM are now selling RealModems
as 'high performance' 'gamer modems', for a hefty premium...
Even on Windows, it pays to be a smart shopper. You down want to
be fragged due to lag now do you... '-)
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
