Linux-Advocacy Digest #212, Volume #26 Fri, 21 Apr 00 21:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: which OS is best? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.) (Mike Marion)
Re: which OS is best? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Linus Torvalds (Captain Lethargy)
Re: which OS is best? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ("billwg")
Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux (Andy Newman)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (josco)
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Guess How Many Windows Crashes.... ("Dan J. Smeski")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Chris Wenham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:11:03 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:28:07 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 18:32:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 13:03:02 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
>>>
>>>Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
>>>what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
>>>server, require extensive MAN page reading.
>>
>> Actually, either of those require very miniscule manpage reading.
>
>Hah! Tell that to this 1200 page (no, I'm not kidding, and no, that's
>not a typo) book I have on my desk right now called "Samba Unleashed".
There are quite similar tomes for Windows at all level of it's
operation. There are even 'dummies' books for the Macintosh. So,
the mere existence of a reference manual is hardly an indication
of a particular task (computing or otherwise) is extraordinarily
difficult.
>
>Samba isn't terribly difficult, but it requires knowing how to do many
>other things - how to use a text editor, how to edit files in what may
>or may not be a GUI environment (the examples I've seen show pico;
Run editor.
Open file.
These are hardly brain surgery.
>will people know they can use gedit or kedit too?), how to search
Hopefully, the EDIT in gedit or kedit would tip them off.
>through fairly large text files for obscure strings, how to navigate
>and find files in the GUI, how to connect to remote machines - and how
>to use /etc/fstab, kill, etc, etc. That may be miniscule compared to
>the other man pages Linux forces you through, but compared to Windows,
>it's fairly difficult.
As I've said before, the interface is the simplest thing here
even if we're talking about samba without swat.
>
>> You've actually managed to cite one of the better examples of
>> subsystems in Linux that have good manpages and/or configuration
>> files well enough documented to make them uncessary.
>
>manpages *are* documentation.
So are *hlp files. It's quite disputable that we should expect
a common novice to know what to do with Windows to get it to
share files without explicit coaching from the likes of you, a
*hlp file or a written manual.
Many of us do Windows tech support for the novices in our families.
We simply know better when it comes to the complexity of certain
things (even under MacOS-Wannabe '98) relavtive to the bulk of end
users.
>
>> Either sort of thing would simply confound a novice confronted
>> with doing the same sort of thing under Windows. Whether or not
>> Windows is any better in this regard is quite disputable.
>
>Hah!
>
>For the most common Win98 sharing, click dir to be shared, click
>SHARING..., give it a name and a password. Done. Client computers
>then find the machine in network neighborhood.
This presupposes the that the user in question already knows
these things or is capable of exploring the interface. This
is quite often NOT the case. The same attitude that keeps
someone from poking around /etc is the same attitude that keeps
a novice end user from realizing they can access context menus
with right-click.
>
>For the most common Samba sharing: Edit /etc/services with a string I
Not in my Redhat. Not in any version of Redhat dating back to 4.0.
[deletia]
You should really verify your third party anecdotes before you
start using yourself as cannon fodder.
--
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: Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Solaris (was Re: Windows 2000 etc.)
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:25:03 GMT
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> So? That doesn't mean it can't exploit common efforts. Infact,
> Sun was started as an effect of 'common effort'. They just choose
> not to explicitly acknowledge other similar efforts by outsiders
> these days.
I think the issue with Sun is that if they include the GNU tools, then people
will go to them for support. Even when you tell customers up front that you're
just giving them the stuff, but not supporting.. many will still call you. Sun
clearly would not want to support these tools... they're not their tools.
However, with Solaris 8 they are beginning to include some tools. i.e. Perl5 is
now part of the package... with support for it under Solaris! (see
http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/freeware.html) They are also including some
other programs like less, bash, vim, etc.. some with, some without support (see
the above page for which are supported).
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
gawk; talk; nice; date; wine; grep; touch; unzip; touch; gasp; finger; gasp; \
lyx; mount; fsck; more; yes; gasp; umount; make clean; make mrproper; sleep
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:27:07 GMT
"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8dq6qi$1dkn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> >wrote:
> >
> >> There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
> >
> >Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
> >what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
> >server, require extensive MAN page reading.
>
> Does that mean you are able to do things like configuring a windows
> domain controller without reading anything? Hard to believe
> since the domain concept doesn't relate to the way anyone
> else has used the word.
>
No, it still requires reading about the topic, but Linux requires you to
read more about it, in general.
> I've installed both win2k and Mandrake Linux on several machines
> recently and win2k (server) takes longer and asks many more
> questions about things that do not relate to standard concepts.
>
Don't know about Win2K server, but Professional was fairly easy. I do
agree Linux asks less questions but then you tend to have more do set up
afterward. So far BeOS was the hardest, since I never did get my Cable
modem to work, Linux and Windows was alot easier.
> I saw a ton of books about win2k at Comdex - odd for something
> that you claim doesn't require any reading. There was a
> 5 or 6 book set on active directory alone, and I'll bet it
> still doesn't tell how to update it through standard LDAP
> tools.
>
Odd, I can find books on just about ANY topic related to computers, from
the simplest to the most complex tasks. I saw quite a few books about alot
of subjects, but I didn't really look at the books when I was at Comdex.
I was alittle mad, the FreeBSD guys ran out of CDs, 3 people before me,
all I got were the horns. Now I have to see if I can dig one up from one of
my friends who went. I going to try Corel Linux next, their demonstation
was good. Though Turbolinux seems to have the biggest crowd, I guess
giving away free money is always a good thing to do...
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
From: Captain Lethargy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:30:48 -0400
"Johnathan Talley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This guy is lost and programmed by hype. He's a pitiful example of a
>misguided human being. But I don't take kindly to people saying others
>should be physically harmed because they excerise their freedom of choic=
e.
>Dude sucks ass with a crazy-straw.
>
>Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>> >
>> > I believe that the operation system create by Linus Torvalds, Linux,=
is
>the downfall of the software industry. People who use such a dreaful pro=
gram
>should be shot. How dare they take money from hardworking companies like
>microsoft and driving down my shares.
>> >
>> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>> > Posted via http://nodevice.com
>> > Linux Programmer's Site
>>
>> Crossposted to the proper usenet-group. Let's see the
>> reactions, shall we?
>> (What an asshole!)
>>
>> --
>> % make fire
>> Don't know how to make fire
>> % Why not?
>> No match
no, he's a troll, and a pretty fucking obvious one.....
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: 21 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
>>>
>>>Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
>>>what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
>>>server, require extensive MAN page reading.
>>
>>Does that mean you are able to do things like configuring a windows
>>domain controller without reading anything? Hard to believe
>>since the domain concept doesn't relate to the way anyone
>>else has used the word.
>
>Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
>for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
>and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
>>I saw a ton of books about win2k at Comdex - odd for something
>>that you claim doesn't require any reading. There was a
>
>Some facets of any system require reading. But doing *what I
>specified* requires far more work in Linux. That you can seriously
>debate this suprises me.
No, it doesn't really require more *work*. It may be harder
the first time on your first machine. Thereafter you can
just copy the config files around and edit them for incremental
changes over different machines. Besides, samba sharing
used to be drop-dead simple back when you could use the
unix password file for authentication. When samba started
to become a popular alternative to NT servers, Microsoft
issued service packs that made it impossible to use the
existing unix password without registry changes on every
client. So yes, samba is now harder to set up although
linuxconf, webmin, etc. make it easy for those who
prefer point-n-click.
>>5 or 6 book set on active directory alone, and I'll bet it
>>still doesn't tell how to update it through standard LDAP
>>tools.
>
>...which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, does it?
You are the one who brought up 'doing common things' and picked
the example where you thought windows had an advantage. Everything
I've tried on Win2k seemed to require having a domain controller
and active directory already working, so I expect setting
those up (and paying for the client licenses) to be the
most common task in a win2k network.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 00:13:57 GMT
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Linux has been leading the way in such facilities actually. On a
> Unix, the themeability of Mozilla is just a side effect of the
> GUI toolkit in use. ...
>
> All Apple had to do was hire the right ad agency.
>
But who is going to "hire the right ad agency" for Linux? Right now there
are three software companies and a few more basically hardware companies all
fooling around with versions of Linux that, to me, don't seem all that
compatible, but I'm a Windows person so maybe it's OK. "Netscape" is really
AOL and has a lot of bucks to make some noise plus they are the only one to
benefit from that noise. All these versions of Linux actually compete with
one another as well as with Microsoft. I don't see where anyone is in there
for the long haul.
These posts started with R.E. Ballard suggesting that Linux would get 30-50%
of the desktop market in a (implied) fairly short time. My belief is that
no one is investing in the promotion of Linux to the general public who will
have to have an acceptance of it or else the OEM effort will never occur.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy Newman)
Subject: Re: Adobe FrameMaker available on Linux
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 07:55:38 +1000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David Rolfe wrote:
> Well I think this is a very nice developmnet as FrameMaker is
> used by some very serious document production houses.
You do know that Frame was originally developed on Unix systems
and later ported to Windows? The Linux version (which also runs
quite nicely on FreeBSD BTW) is pretty much the same as the other
Unix versions lacking only some the input/output filters (please
Adobe, port, port, release, please, I'll pay!).
--
Chuck Berry lied about the promised land
------------------------------
From: josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:26:19 -0700
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000, Chris Wenham wrote:
> "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Don't know that I was claiming THAT much. But then, I'm a TeX user.
>
> How much TeX must you learn (syntax and structures) before being able
> to start using it for making documents?
None.
> And out of curiosity, do you know if and how TeX compares with
> Postscript?
It doesn't.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:35:16 -0500
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 23:11:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>>Hah! Tell that to this 1200 page (no, I'm not kidding, and no, that's
>>not a typo) book I have on my desk right now called "Samba Unleashed".
>
> There are quite similar tomes for Windows at all level of it's
> operation. There are even 'dummies' books for the Macintosh. So,
> the mere existence of a reference manual is hardly an indication
> of a particular task (computing or otherwise) is extraordinarily
> difficult.
Windows? Or Win95 filesharing?
I know Samba is very powerful, but the power comes at a high price.
It's difficult to learn and set up.
>>Samba isn't terribly difficult, but it requires knowing how to do many
>>other things - how to use a text editor, how to edit files in what may
>>or may not be a GUI environment (the examples I've seen show pico;
>
> Run editor.
> Open file.
>
> These are hardly brain surgery.
Which editor? Where?
What file? Where?
What files does one edit?
Sorry; it's not brain surgery, but it's tough for a beginner.
>>will people know they can use gedit or kedit too?), how to search
>
> Hopefully, the EDIT in gedit or kedit would tip them off.
Where and how would they guess they could use either of those files?
If a user didn't know what they were to begin with, it's very
difficult to just spontaneously come up with this knowledge without
reading a lot of ... you guessed it... man pages!
>>through fairly large text files for obscure strings, how to navigate
>>and find files in the GUI, how to connect to remote machines - and how
>>to use /etc/fstab, kill, etc, etc. That may be miniscule compared to
>>the other man pages Linux forces you through, but compared to Windows,
>>it's fairly difficult.
>
> As I've said before, the interface is the simplest thing here
> even if we're talking about samba without swat.
Simplest thing here? What does that mean? It's far more difficult
than Win95/98's sharing.
>>> You've actually managed to cite one of the better examples of
>>> subsystems in Linux that have good manpages and/or configuration
>>> files well enough documented to make them uncessary.
>>
>>manpages *are* documentation.
>
> So are *hlp files. It's quite disputable that we should expect
> a common novice to know what to do with Windows to get it to
> share files without explicit coaching from the likes of you, a
> *hlp file or a written manual.
I'm sorry; Win98's sharing is so, so, SO much easier than what Linux
offers - there's just no comparison.
> Many of us do Windows tech support for the novices in our families.
> We simply know better when it comes to the complexity of certain
> things (even under MacOS-Wannabe '98) relavtive to the bulk of end
> users.
*You* don't, do you? I'd think all the little Jedis would run Linux,
no? :)
>>> Either sort of thing would simply confound a novice confronted
>>> with doing the same sort of thing under Windows. Whether or not
>>> Windows is any better in this regard is quite disputable.
>>
>>Hah!
>>
>>For the most common Win98 sharing, click dir to be shared, click
>>SHARING..., give it a name and a password. Done. Client computers
>>then find the machine in network neighborhood.
>
> This presupposes the that the user in question already knows
> these things or is capable of exploring the interface. This
> is quite often NOT the case. The same attitude that keeps
> someone from poking around /etc is the same attitude that keeps
> a novice end user from realizing they can access context menus
> with right-click.
Except that finding /etc - then finding files in it - is far more
difficult than clicking on a drive or printer or folder....much less
*doing* anything with it.
>>
>>For the most common Samba sharing: Edit /etc/services with a string I
>
> Not in my Redhat. Not in any version of Redhat dating back to 4.0.
Read the man page. You'll need to either add it (if it isn't there),
comment out the # your distributor probably put in there to begin
with, or, if by *amazing* chance it's all already enabled in your
distribution, well, you got lucky. For neither LinuxPPC 2000,
Mandrake 7.0, nor RH6.2 would a user get lucky in all aspects of SMB
setup.
>[deletia]
Why did you delete the rest? Because every single point was
absolutely correct and you had no comeback? C'mon - you deleted the
crux of the discussion. What's the problem?
Here - I put it back in; I'm sure you can address it, point by point,
for us:
_________________________
For the most common Win98 sharing, click dir to be shared, click
SHARING..., give it a name and a password. Done. Client computers
then find the machine in network neighborhood.
For the most common Samba sharing: Edit /etc/services with a string I
don't remember right now with a text editor of your choice...that will
allow swat to answer TCPIP port 901. Then edit /etc/inetd.conf and
modify a few more text strings. Then send a 'hup' signal to the inetd
process, ala "kill -1 'ps -c inetd | awk <deletia>". That gets swat
going. At this point you'll have completely lost all but the most
ardent people, but the advantage is that the normal person has a
prayer of configuring swat; forget about talking mom through
configuring /etc/smb.conf by hand.
Now, go into the WWW browser, put in your hostname/localaddress:901,
which shows swat. Log in as root. Click on Shares, click add share,
give it a name, give it a path to what you want to share. Now click
on Commit Changes, then click on General, then rename the SMB service
(ie give it a friendly netbios name), then turn on encrypted passwords
(novices won't know to do this, leading most to give up here, if they
haven't already, assuming the OS to share with is 95OSR2 or newer),
then realize that, without additional work, there's no easy way to
sync 98 and Linux passwords.
At this point, anyone but a system administrator or someone with a lot
of help will have given up.
Don't even get me started with configuring the *client* for samba.
God save you if SMB support isn't compiled into the kernel, as it
isn't with my LinuxPPC distribution.
NFS is similar to this, but it's another PITA when you start having to
f*ck with UIDs and GIDs because, bar NIS, there appears to be no
uniform way to authenticate users across multiple machines. Forget
about domains - just *machines*. So, off to set up a NIS server.
That's my project for the day, actually.
(addendum: i'd appreciate anyone's comment on this - certainly
there's a better way!)
That's just the *beginning* of Samba/NFS. There's plenty more. If
you think that's easy, you've been using Linux too long and you've
been too far away from normal people for too long.
______________
> You should really verify your third party anecdotes before you
> start using yourself as cannon fodder.
Address the rest of the deletia and tell us how much of that is wrong.
The default Mandrake 7 install comments out SAMBA resources; RH6.2
comments out much of it as well. The third party anecdotes are
verified, Jedi - I've done them, and that's how it works. NFS setup
reminds me of HOSTS setup before DNS became widespread at the local
LAN level - every machine must be granted permission on a machine or
subnet basis, and God help you if the UIDs and GIDs aren't synced
perfectly.
You'd do well to look at just how well you know Linux and Win98. It's
very obvious to those of us that have done both and can look at the
issues impartially that Linux has a LONG way to go in user
friendliness before it surpasses 98 or 2k...in filesharing and many
other issues.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:43:03 -0500
On 21 Apr 2000 18:40:45 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>>Did I say domain controller? No - I said NFS and SMB sharing. And
>>for sharing in WinXX, click the device to be shared, click SHARING...,
>>and away you go. It's far simpler than Linux.
>
>OK, try again. Which button did you click on NT to get tha
>NFS sharing done and how long did it take to find?
NT doesn't come with it. The objective is to get OS-native sharing
going - somehow, anyhow, with a minimum of fuss. NT (and 95/98) do
that very well. Linux doesn't. Editing /etc/exports for NFS, for
example, isn't my idea of fun. ksysv and such make the automation of
such things easier, but I don't consider it 'easy' by any stretch.
>>Some facets of any system require reading. But doing *what I
>>specified* requires far more work in Linux. That you can seriously
>>debate this suprises me.
>
>No, it doesn't really require more *work*. It may be harder
Yes, it does.
>the first time on your first machine. Thereafter you can
>just copy the config files around and edit them for incremental
>changes over different machines. Besides, samba sharing
Which config files? Break out those man pages Jedi claims aren't
needed...and start guessing... a new user wouldn't have a -clue-.
>used to be drop-dead simple back when you could use the
>unix password file for authentication. When samba started
>to become a popular alternative to NT servers, Microsoft
>issued service packs that made it impossible to use the
>existing unix password without registry changes on every
>client.
Translation: Microsoft encrypted passwords in SP3 by default, so they
were no longer sent, by default, in cleartext. The fact that MS
allowed clear text passwords in SP0 -> SP2 is a security violation and
A Bad Thing. The fact that you'd bless such a thing is also A Bad
Thing.
>So yes, samba is now harder to set up although
>linuxconf, webmin, etc. make it easy for those who
>prefer point-n-click.
Easy isn't the right term. Less difficult is probably a better term.
>>>5 or 6 book set on active directory alone, and I'll bet it
>>>still doesn't tell how to update it through standard LDAP
>>>tools.
>>
>>...which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, does it?
>
>You are the one who brought up 'doing common things' and picked
>the example where you thought windows had an advantage. Everything
>I've tried on Win2k seemed to require having a domain controller
>and active directory already working, so I expect setting
>those up (and paying for the client licenses) to be the
>most common task in a win2k network.
You do end up paying, that's for sure, but isn't time worth something
too?
------------------------------
From: "Dan J. Smeski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Guess How Many Windows Crashes....
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2000 19:39:49 -0500
Don't get me wrong.. I am beginning to fall in love with Corel Linux. I
think Corel has finally figured it out... and my exchange server processes
10,000 emails a day, it's not that much, but still...
"Mig Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8dnn25$pt9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Dan J. Smeski wrote:
> > Okay... I agree that Windows 98 is not a great operating system. I NEVER
> > said it was better than Linux. I think however that Windows NT is better
> > than Linux. I dual boot Corel Linux and NT, and certain web sites take
> > FOREVER to render in netscape and under 2 seconds in NT... stuff like
that!
>
> Huh.... Thats strange.. try to measure the time it takes a Netscape >= 4.7
> against IE 5. I did and was surprised that Navigator was 10-20 % faster
> than IE. My guess is that youre trying to view a page with large tables
and
> a Netscape Comm. prior to 4.7 .. this is slow
>
> > And yes, u will blame it on KDE, well I can blame many things on many
> > things, point is.. I want a system that works. I don't want to worry
about
> > it. My exchange server is up for a year now without a re-boot, while my
> > Linux box at home that I use to share internet with goes down every
month...
>
> Huhh... on KDE ?? Im using it right now on a P120 - its not a fast loader
> compared to f.ex. WindowMaker (which is just a windowmanager) but after
its
> loaded its more responsive as my PII 350 running NT at work.
>
> That exchange server must be under zero load or else i dont understand
it..
> our exchange boxes go down easily - thats the reasen we have 8!!
>
> My Linux box has been down .. but not after i discovered that my CPU fan
> didnt start every time.. since not a single shutdown due to some error.
> Nearly everybody else (except winvocates) here have the same experience
so
> you're not telling the truth
>
> Dont talk so much BS.. most of us here come from and occasionally stil use
> different Micros¨1 Windows enviroments
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:09:47 GMT
josco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > And out of curiosity, do you know if and how TeX compares with
> > Postscript?
>
> It doesn't.
I know that Postscript is a programming language as well. Is this the
main difference? Do you know what other differences are?
Regards,
Chris Wenham.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
