Linux-Advocacy Digest #305, Volume #26 Sat, 29 Apr 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (tell@m)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Full Name)
Re: Linux KILLED MY SYSEM!!! IT SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft. (abraxas)
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work. ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 28 Apr 2000 23:58:52 -0500
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:17:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:31:37 -0500,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>>You'd have to tell me why I'd need that, given that NT puts the PS
>>>>>interpreter in the driver.
>>>>
>>>>I suspect that he wants to read/preview PS files on the screen and
>>>>have the ability to print them on non-postscript printers. GS/GV
>>>>will do that under windows as well, but it could have been a
>>>>native capability.
>>>>
>>>> Les Mikesell
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>This is correct, I was going to install GS/GV for windows, but never got
>>>around to it, it was simply easier to ps2pdf the file on the linux machine,
>>>and print from the windows box via acrobat, annoying, far from "integrated"
>>>and slow, but it worked.
>>> It just boggles the mind that win9X doesn't know what to do with a postscript
>>>file...
>>
>>Why would it? It's not as if I (or most users) routinely run across
>>raw .ps files.
>
>what do you mean by raw?
> Why does linux have no problems with ps files, but M$ does?
Copy the PS file to the raw printer device then.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:52:20 GMT
In article <8e9ork$7cf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bytes256 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am I the only one here who thinks that X Windows is crap?
> X Windows is extremely archaic, ridiculously bloated,
> way too slow, and extremely hard to install.
>
> Let's get rid of it completely.
>
No problemo,
su -
<enter root passwd>
rm -rf /usr/X11*
rm -rf /etc/X11
Ta-da, your Xwindows is gone. And guess what? you still have a
functional computer! Try getting rid of that crudy MS window system
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: tell@m
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: 28 Apr 2000 21:11:51 -0700
In article <EggO4.1921$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mark says...
>Personally, I'd like to be able to buy WDE which would run Office and other
>Win32 apps on top of the Linux kernel--but I suspect others here might have
>different opinions.
>
>Mark
>
You can allready do that. it is called vmware. it does the same thing
for all practical purposes.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 05:20:41 GMT
On Mon, 24 Apr 2000 16:00:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>
> You use ISA, you deserve whatever hardships you bring on yourself.
>
Reality check:
We have a $3000 ISA A/D board running on a PC that has been gathering
EEG data on a daily basis for the last 5 years. AFAIK we have *never*
had an operating system failure. The PC is currently running Win 95.
Although the software (which I wrote in C++ to run under Windows) does
misbehave on the odd occasion.
This software is designed to interface with these boards. We cannot
simply abandon ISA technology.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Subject: Re: Linux KILLED MY SYSEM!!! IT SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: 29 Apr 2000 05:32:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Fucking pice of shit Linux killed my system...
OK, we're halfway there. Now stand really close to the
system and install Linux again...
>Even the rescue disk
>won't work... To everyone thinking of running Linux. thik again...it
>really sucks...
>
>Speaking of sucking......................................
>
>Terry Porter sucks a great cock, ask his boyfriend....
>Mark Bilk is a faggot.....Ask his lover.
Oh no! He said I'm Gay! Next he'll be saying I'm Liberal,
Democratic, Socialist, Humanist, Feminist, Jewish, Atheist...
Oh, the shame!!! My life is ruined! Now I'll never be
accepted by Right-wing Conservative fundamentalist bigots!
(Note: 1. Most people feel some sexual attraction for others
of their own gender at some time in their lives. Sexual
preference is a continuous spectrum. 2. You don't have to be
gay yourself to support civil rights for homosexual people,
just like you don't have to be black to oppose racism.)
>Jedi is an asshole...Just read his messages.
>
>MLW is a Linux whore, sucking up money where he can.
>
>Bob (asshole) bryant is a disgrace to IBM......
>
>Still want to run Linux...IT SUCKS A BIG ONE!!!!!!!!
>
>LINUX BLOWWWSAASSSSSSSS
>
>
>BUY MSFT AND BECOME RICH!!!
>
>
>POSTED FROM LINSHIT SO YOU CAN ALL SEE HOW MUCH IT SUCKS>>>>>>>>>>
>
Wow, Microsoft is really getting desperate!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to destroy Microsoft.
Date: 29 Apr 2000 06:02:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linus just wants to take over the world as part of his
> master plan. He seems bent on destroying Microsoft and
> indoctrinating all his croonies to do the same.
And here we find the very nub of chad's argument from the
very beginning.
Thanks for summing it up, chad.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:27:37 -0500
Joseph T. Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8edf8l$5hn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : It seems a lot of people like to make claims like this, but I don't
believe
> : I've ever seen a single one back it up with actual evidence. Do you
think
> : you could be the first ?
>
> I can't prove anything just by posting the logs, and to be honest I
> don't have them anymore. This was about 6 months ago.
>
> But almost everyone I know who's put Windows behind a Linux or *BSD
> autodialer has encountered the same problem - 'Doze tries, for
> whatever reason, to send packets outside the local network even when
> there's nothing that running that should need or want to.
Duh! Ever heard of NetBIOS broadcast messages?
Turn off NetBIOS on your computer and see if it still does it.
> Because it happens so consistently, I'm sure it's easily reproducible,
> and I'm also sure that Microsoft or its apologists can come up with
> some nicer-sounding explanation or excuse for this behavior than that
> Microsoft is stealing my data.
So, you won't accept any obvious reason which anyone with even basic
networking knowledge would know the answer to, but would prefer to hold on
to your belief that Microsoft has singled you out to steal your data.
Do you have any idea how many people or pure processing power it would take
for Microsoft to process the 3-500 million computers that are running
Windows? Do you have any idea how much bandwidth just that would take?
> I can't prove they are, but no one can prove they're not, and they are
> known to have engaged in similar behavior before and to have defended
> the practice and even sponsored legislation pretending to legalize it.
So, do you wear tinfoil on your head to keep the aliens from reading your
mind as well? Nobody can prove they're not, so why take chances?
> I'm not willing to take that chance.
I think you over estimate your importance.
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM dumping more shares of RedHat
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 18:15:19 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8e6u1m$qe1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Costco does not have the corporate prescence of IBM, nor
> > do they have the high-quality hardware to offer that IBM
> > does. All they have are generic prefabbed PCs, which are
> > generally of a lesser quality.
> >
> I'm a big fan of Microsoft and I appreciate the general support that you
> bring to the cause, but you're not too smart about Costco. They sell IBM
Deayah, I iz 2 smart! :-)
I've never seen anything at Costco above a consumer-grade
PC, or an iMac (they might have G4s, but I'm not sure).
Whether or not those PCs have names like COMPAQ, or IBM
on them, I can assure you, the hardware underneath is
generally a noname brand.
> and Compaq notebooks, Compaq and H-P desktops, H-P and Epson printers, HP
> scanners, and similar brand names. They are the retail lines, of course,
> Costco being essentially a discount retail outlet, but I don't know of any
> retail site that carries things like Proliant or M-Pro workstations. On
> occasion they have had an e-Machine as a special, but no "generics". The
> Red Hat boxes that they sell are for the after market and not preloaded.
> Their display isn't very big for Red Hat in Orlando, either, just a few
> copies.
Again,
while those PCs do have brand names on them,
the hardware inside of them is usually very
vanilla. I've never been able to identify
a motherboard inside any consumer-grade PCs
I've ever had to deal with.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Grasping perspective again... UNIX and "real" work.
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:35:20 -0700
Reply-To: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher, it's happening again! :-P
"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> John Jensen wrote:
> > I get a big kick out of Linux right now, partly because a parade like
this
> > doesn't come through town every day. (This five year window isn't going
> > to happen for another OS anytime soon.) Some grumpy old men say "baah,
> > who needs a parade", but I think it is worth some inconvenience.
>
> Being how this parade is already 30 years old, and is CONTINUING to
Linux was first released to the public in 1991 or 1992,
IIRC. While BSD/SVR4 UNIX variants have been around for
about 30 years, Linux in particular has not.
Linux is a UNIX-workalike. If you have a look at "The
Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating
System" (I cannot recall the publisher off hand), you'll
see that their ancestry tree places Linux on its own
branch.
In short, I do not think it is accurate to equate "Linux"
with "UNIX", as Linux was written from scratch, and does
not really have any direct descendence from either BSD or
SVR4, as do most other UNIX variants (ex: FreeBSD is
directly derived from 4.4BSD Lite).
> rise in popularity against all of the marketing money of Microsoft...
> what does that tell you?
That fads definitely suck people in. While I myself
do not like Linux at all, I will acquiesce in saying
that it is indeed quite useful. However, what makes
you believe that people swarming all over Linux is
any less silly than people swarming all over Windows
v3? Most of the non-technical users of Linux are
not using it because they need it. They are using
it because it's cool to use it, and many of them
oddly perceive themselves to be "smarter" simply by
using it. It's pretty sad when people define their
own aptitudes by the operating system they use, but
they often do so nevertheless. :-\
UNIX operating systems are the best solution for people
who need a very flexible and configurable environment,
that gives a lot of conceptual freedom, and because of this,
it is impractical for most consumers, as all they wish to
do usually are light tasks, such as internet access, or
writing papers, or playing games, etc.
In other words, Linux isn't gaining ground on its own
merit. It's gaining it on hype, just like Windows v3
did (and yes, Windows v3 did suck very badly).
> Especially when practically every corporate database server runs on
> either mainframes or Unix...and practically every CAD/CAM/CAE
> workstation runs Unix..
Most of the largest corporate databases do run on
UNIX operating systems, yes. And, there are quite
a few CAD systems out there that still run on UNIX
OSen as well. However, WindowsNT has a permanent
prescence in the graphics marketplace, especially
where 3D graphics is concerned. It is rare to find
a 3D application that runs on UNIX, and not on
WindowsNT. Even programs such as BMRT, and
Radiance have been ported. In fact, nearly every
single high-end Hollywood studio uses both WindowsNT
and Silicon Graphics boxen, and they have done so for
years. WindowsNT is typically used for modeling, where
the SGI workstations are used for rendering, due to
their immense speed advantage over Intel hardware.
> What does this tell you?
That perhaps you need to do a little more research
on the 3D graphics industry before you comment on it.
:-)
> The REAL work in this country is done on Unix.
Ah, I love it when people use the word "real" in
conjunction with "work". :-) Matt Templeton did
this once. It was a riot.
Please, Aaron, quantify the word "real" for us.
Does "real" mean "the work that only very intelligent
people can handle doing", or does "real" mean
"tangible, and percievable"?
I think that in your mind, it's the prior. I
really do get a kick out of UNIX snobbery. It's
very amusing at times.
BTW, my WindowsNT box is doing plenty of work
with Lightwave 6 as I type this. My IRIS Indigo
is also parsing some detailed Radiance files. My
NetBSD box is busy offsetting the odd and even
fields on a very large batch of frames of animation.
Aaron, would you please tell me which one of
these machines is doing the "real" work? Golly,
I just can't seem to tell!
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | NetBSD: Free of hype and license.
| = :| "Artificial Intelligence -- The engineering of systems that
| | yield results such as, 'The answer is 6.7E23... I think.'"
|_..._| [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 07:16:41 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:39:45 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:15:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>>There is a problem with the installation if dragging a pdf to the
>>>printer doesn't start Acrobat and print the object. The easiest fix
>>>is usually to simply remove the old Acrobat and upgrade to the newest
>>>one - it's free, and on a reasonably fast computer should take all of
>>>2 minutes. Your registry concerns are unwarranted.
>>
>>
>>The question remains, why open the file in acrobat? just print it, I don't
>>need to preview it, I all ready did that.
>
>Windows itself cannot process the PDF file; AAcrobat is required for
>that.
But why is it neccessary to show it on the screen, then print it?
>
>> As for my concerns re: the registry, too many people have bad stories of reg
>>corruption for me to be blase about dinking with a machine I don't own. (it is
>>at a company I am consulting for. )
>
>Obviously not Windows consulting, I take it.
Heck no! Microwave security systems, I am a h/w guy.
>>>>>>Ghostscript is a postscript interpreter, very versatile, knows pdf and ps
>>>>>>and a lot more. GV is the X-frontend for GS and its not NT, 95
>>>>>
>>>>>You'd have to tell me why I'd need that, given that NT puts the PS
>>>>>interpreter in the driver.
>>>>
>>>>Read my lips, it's 95, not NT.
>>>
>>>Same difference WRT the PS printing.
>>
>>so why is it that dragging a ps file to the printer produces a printout of the
>>ps file text? not as a postscript document?
>
>Because the file is still a text file in the eyes of Windows, and
>hence is seen as a text file (read: sent as text) by the owning
>application (which is probably notepad or similar).
>
>Perhaps someone more familiar than I with printing can tell you how to
>send the data to the printer raw, without going through the Windows
>print processing device, which sounds like what you
>want....essentially, cp filename.ps lpr -> copy filename.ps LPT1:.
Except the printer in question is not a PS printer.
In Linux, it's easy. several ways to do it. But in windows, it seems to be
a right pain in the fundement.
>>>>Nevertheless, Win95/98 are the vast majority of systems out there, in small
>>>>companies all over, because the price of NT is too high, (not that Win9X is
>>>>cheap mind, but it's usually included on the new systems, and the cost is
>>>>hidden.)
>>>
>>>You pay for what you want, and people have decided they want 98. It
>>>would be easy enough for businesses to simply buy and roll out
>>>machines with NT if they wanted; apparently many feel it isn't worth
>>>the extra money, as 98 fills their need appropriately.
>>
>>When a small business buys 25 new desktop PC's the cost of the Licences for
>>NT are, well, hefty to say the least. At the place I am contracting, no-one
>>likes the windows boxes, sometimes for reasons that are not M$ related, but
>>there are very few good words to be said about M$'s products in use here.
>>Word is a four letter word :)
>
>So why do they use it if it's as bad as you claim? Obviously they've
>found nothing better - or else they just like to complain. I suspect
>both are somewhat true.
Actually, these folks mostly use macs, there are about a dozen win9x machines
around, and they sell a security system with NT running the S/W, (well, it
used to, they are in the process of switching to FreeBSD for stability reasons.
(in this case, with the system running ~$15k and only needing one NT licence,
cost is not as big a factor, having customers call and complain that the
computer is down, is a big factor.)
>>>>>>don't trust the boys in Redmond.
>>>>>
>>>>>So you've not run NT / Win2k?
>>>>
>>>>At a cost in excess of $300 for no net gain over linux? no, nor am I likely to.
>>>> Allthough the newest desktop machine actually has the oomph to do so (PIII at
>>>>550 Mhz and 128MB ram, nice machine, came with linux) I doubt I'll spend
>>>>money on W2K. (I probably could score a copy illegally, but frankly, I don't
>>>>support piracy, even of M$)
>>>
>>>How do you know there's no net gain if you haven't run it?
>>
>>Simple, it doesn't do anything I can't allready do, that I need to do, it
>>costs over $300 and it will only run on one of the 5 machines on the boat,
>>even if I were allowed to install it on more. So why should I try it?
>
>To learn something?
>
Believe me, that would be a good enough reason if I didn't have every hour
tied up with learning stuff allready.
>> Does it have gvim/vim?
>
>Not in the box, but I'm sure you could download similar tools.
>
>>does it have LyX? a compiler and various development
>>utilities?
>
>Not in the box, but I'm sure ... "
LyX isn't afaik avail for windows in any format, latex probably is, compilers
obviously are, even free/OS ones. But there's nothing there that is better
than what is available for Linux, and again, the cost is not small (for W2K)
>>Does it firewall? or have a news server?
>
>Not in the ... "
>
>>W2k may be the best that Redmond has ever put out, but it's not good enough for
>>my needs. YMMV, but that's mine.
>
So I should pay over $300 for an OS that I will then have to spend days or
weeks getting to the same point I am at now? a point I can get to with any
major linux distro in about 45 minutes?
Windows doesn't have what it takes. For me, as always, ymmv.
--
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] (Jim Richardson)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 07:17:20 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:58:52 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 04:17:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 21:31:37 -0500,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> brought forth the following words...:
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:14:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>You'd have to tell me why I'd need that, given that NT puts the PS
>>>>>>interpreter in the driver.
>>>>>
>>>>>I suspect that he wants to read/preview PS files on the screen and
>>>>>have the ability to print them on non-postscript printers. GS/GV
>>>>>will do that under windows as well, but it could have been a
>>>>>native capability.
>>>>>
>>>>> Les Mikesell
>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>This is correct, I was going to install GS/GV for windows, but never got
>>>>around to it, it was simply easier to ps2pdf the file on the linux machine,
>>>>and print from the windows box via acrobat, annoying, far from "integrated"
>>>>and slow, but it worked.
>>>> It just boggles the mind that win9X doesn't know what to do with a postscript
>>>>file...
>>>
>>>Why would it? It's not as if I (or most users) routinely run across
>>>raw .ps files.
>>
>>what do you mean by raw?
>> Why does linux have no problems with ps files, but M$ does?
>
>Copy the PS file to the raw printer device then.
It's not a PS printer.
--
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] (Jim Richardson)
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2000 07:18:58 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:32:17 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On 28 Apr 2000 21:58:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>wrote:
>
>>>>This is correct, I was going to install GS/GV for windows, but never got
>>>>around to it, it was simply easier to ps2pdf the file on the linux machine,
>>>>and print from the windows box via acrobat, annoying, far from "integrated"
>>>>and slow, but it worked.
>>>> It just boggles the mind that win9X doesn't know what to do with a postscript
>>>>file...
>>>
>>>Why would it? It's not as if I (or most users) routinely run across
>>>raw .ps files.
>>
>>Errr... Lots of people have raw .ps files. The reason you don't is
>>that Microsoft would have had to share some of their wealth with
>>another company and follow published standards to include the tools
>>for you.
>
>Sorry; I don't see the point of it. If I need to print something, I'm
>perfectly willing to re-send it thru the driver, have it re-rasterize,
>and then sent to the print device.
>
>I'm not a print shop with big, long-time-to-render jobs lying around.
>If I were, I could see the use. I'm not, and I don't. I print mostly
>text files, and I have no need to keep .ps files lying around.
Obviously your requirements and mine differ, Windows works for you, that's
great, I'll stick with linux (and play with FreeBSD and BeOS on the side)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
