Linux-Advocacy Digest #315, Volume #26 Sun, 30 Apr 00 04:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: What else is hidden in MS code??? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 ("Jim Ross")
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 ("Jim Ross")
Re: Advocay off the Net. (Matthew J Zukowski)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Re: Linux KILLED MY SYSEM!!! IT SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ("Jim Ross")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What else is hidden in MS code???
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 01:54:12 -0500
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8eg3u3$1pl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > All wire-tap technologies are also
> > > protected under the trade secrets
> > > act, and these have even stiffer penalties.
> >
> > Uh huh. And this is as accurate as
> > everything else you've posted here?
>
>
> > Including the "fact" that Excel 95 needs
> > Direct3D to be installed
>
> What I said was that an Easter Egg in Windows 95 requires
> 3D software provided by Microsoft. You merely assumed that
> I was referring to Direct3D. It could have been VRML or OpenGL,
> but the point is that it wasn't part of the standard software
> you would expect to see in Excel.
Untrue. You said the easter egg in Excel (not Windows) 95 Required "the
Microsoft 3D package". Microsoft had no 3D API for Windows 95 when Excel 95
was released. You stated that this had to be installed to even load Excel
95. You cannot back up any of these statements.
> Often, technology exists and evolves before it as "Trademarked".
> VRML as emerging as a popular Open Systems standard for 3D animation,
> and was even being implemented in Open Source as wall as by Silicon
> Graphics.
Microsoft didn't have a VRML implementation until well into 1996 when they
released IE3. Microsoft didn't have an OpenGL implementation on Windows 95
until 96 either.
> The key is that whatever 3D generator was being used was being
> included by Microsoft. This included a "duke nukem" style maze,
> complete with walls, trapdoors, a bridge, and pictures of the
> creators on the walls. I don't remember all the details, but
> I was astonished that such a complex "game" was hiding inside
> Windows.
You seem to be confused. We were talking about the flight simulator in
Excel 95. I believe the 3D maze game you are talking about was in Excel 5,
which was a 16 bit app for Windows 3.1.
> Since that time, these listings have been removed from the
> net. It seems that Microsoft was able to convince a federal
> prosecutor that publication of these "hacker tools" would
> encourage others to create really destructive hacks.
Oh, as if a federal judge could prevent such listings from being shown on
the internet. A similar order is in place for DeCSS, yet this continues to
be posted.
> Even today, both Microsoft and Verisign limit their liability,
> offering to assist in identifying perpetrators, but not accepting
> liability damage caused by fraudulently registered "authors".
Which has never happened.
>
> [re being tapped]
> > ntvdm is the DOS emulator (NT Virtual DOS Machine).
> > If it's eating up that
> > much time, you've got a DOS task running somewhere.
> > This is not something
> > that happens on any kind of default installation of NT.
>
> Perfect - you can launch a start/b command and let MSDOS
> do the "dirty work".
Dream on.
> I had killed all MS-DOS windows and known started processes.
> It seems that it just "started itself", each time I rebooted
> the machine.
There are any number of free process viewer applications out there that you
can use to identify the path name of any executable for a process.
> > Are you certain you
> > did not install something like
> > distributed.net RC5 cracking software?
>
> Nope. What other types of software can you think of that
> would run ntvdm without leaving a tell-tale signature?
> It might have been MQSeries, but I didn't have any active
> channels. I set the service startup to manual. Still
> have ntvdm gobbling aay.
Are you sure that your support people didn't install such a process. It's
common for tech support people to install such programs on machines
throughout the company in order to give themselves an advantage in winning
the prize offered for being the one to crack RC5. This is similar to the
guy that stole millions of hours of CPU time in trying to find the largest
quantity of pi.
> > > My primary activity is that I'm using
> > > Netscape to compose a document
> > > in a static text buffer.
> >
> > What exactly is that supposed to mean?
>
> I'm posting to dejanews.
And how do you know this is a "static text buffer"?
> > > What makes this even more interesting is that the machine is behind
> > > a firewall at a financial institution.
> >
> > Why does that make it more interesting?
>
> Think about it. We have something that has suddenly started
> slogging down my machine, tries to send traffic, and can't
> be identified. Behind the firewall of a company that may hold
> your 401k, your medical records, your stock portfolio, your
> life insurance, your pension fund, and possibly even a few
> credit cards - and we can't prevent it from "doing it's thing".
>
> The following day, absolutely no traffic. But still an ntvdm
> eating 98% of the CPU.
As I said... if you had half a clue, you could figure out the source of this
in a few minutes.
> > > Some simple tests I haven't run yet:
>
> > Of course, since they would prove you wrong.
>
> And they take time, and they take more expensive equipment,
> and they need to be brought to a client site.
Well, I thought this was an important issue of security. Guess you're not
all that concerned or you would have done something about it.
> > > Install most of your software to an SMB Linux remote drive, put
> > > all of your servers on the drive. Every 15 minutes, run a
> > > "find <share path> -newer touchfile -print >logfile ; touch
> touchfile ;
> > >
> > > You can either throw it in a crontab file, or generate a loop.
> > >
> > > In the morning, you will have files that were touched that you
> > > expected to see touched, and then you will find the ones that
> > > shouldn't have been accessed for any reason.
> >
> > And what is the results?
>
> Ideally, you should only see the standard system logs being updated.
> If you are seeing unusual files like e-mail or private directories
> being touched and updates, you may have a problem.
Ever heard of a read-ahead cache?
> > What would it prove even if it did give any results?
> >
> > > see also:
> > > http://www.vcnet.com/bms/departments/dirtytricks.shtml
> >
> > Gross exagerations, biased, and quite wrong in many places.
>
> You clipped the others - your perogative.
>
> I suggested that these were "biased but interesting".
>
> > For instance, the claims of MS embedding
> > a GUID in order to violate your
> > privacy are grossly exagerated.
>
> This one has been reported in other media before as well.
> The key is that it allows nearly anyone to identify
> the origin of a document.
And the media had no clue about what it was reporting on.
> > The GUID was there as a way to uniquely
> > identify documents for indexing, but it
> > was later discovered that since the
> > GUID has the MAC address of the machine
> > it was generated on embedded in it,
>
> Let me see if I get this right. Microsoft
> DIDNT KNOW that the MAC adress (the serial
> number of the ethernet card) was embedded
> into each word document?
Of course they knew. Just because you know something is true, doesn't mean
you've put together the pieces to realize that it could be a privacy
violation. GUID's are used throught Microsofts code for unique ID's... for
instance, they're used to generate unique key names in Access databases.
It's a convenient, OS supplied mechanism of providing a unique ID.
> Microsoft DIDNT KNOW that the MAC address
> is unique to a network and burned into the
> ROM of every ethernet card?
>
> Microsoft DIDN'T KNOW that the MAC address
> and it's associated DHCP assignment was logged
> into the DHCP log?
>
> Microsoft DIDN'T KNOW that while DHCP assigned
> addresses can change regularly, the MAC address
> (especially the "real" MAC address) can't be
> easily changed.
>
> Microsoft DIDN'T KNOW that once the DHCP assignment
> for a MAC was located, the IP address could be used
> to access all shares on an NT system, and all of
> a Windows 95 system?
What does this have to do with anything? DHCP logs are not broadcast across
the internet. And NT systems, if properly configured, require LM
authorization to access shares.
> Microsoft DIDN'T KNOW that all documents stored on
> a shared drive (the only safe place to put them) would
> have that GUID number?
Huh? Why is a shared drive the only safe place to put files?
> > this could be used to trace the origin
> > of the machine the document was
> > created on.
>
> Microsoft had the NT serial number, the Office Serial Number,
> the Hard Drive serial number, and could have provided a cookie
> serial number - but they decided to use a number that could
> be traced back to the original machine via the net.
Do not attribute to malice what can easily be explained by laziness. GUID's
are simple and easy and OS provided. GUID's were not created by Microsoft,
but by the OSF for DCE RPC.
> Actually, they ignored the problem when it was first discussed
> on the comp.os.windows newsgroup, the person who identified
> the problem was dismissed as a "crackpot" (much like Eric
> is doing now). Then they tried to "cover it up" pointing
> out that this was confidential and proprietary information
> protected under the EULA. When the story finally hit the
> press - they finally did something about it.
Since when has Microsoft *EVER* had a corporate presence on comp.os.windows
newsgroups? And if they did, it should be childsplay to find some URL's on
deja which you are so fond of using to support your statements. Where are
they?
> > I might also mention that Microsoft did
> > not invent the use of MAC's in
> > unique identifiers.
>
> > The OSF did when they created RPC.
[a bunch of crap that doesn't relate to my statements deleted.]
Respond to the statement that the OSF created GUID's (or UUID's actually)
for DCE RPC. The OSF is clearly very expert in the field, yet they failed
to see the privacy concerns of embedding your MAC in an ID. Why should
Microsoft have been omnipotent enough to have seen this?
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 02:59:43 -0400
Don Werve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> KDE has nothing to do with the way _Netscape_ interacts with _X_. It's
> the window manager, true, but Netscape does all of it's own interacting
> with the X server, and doesn't go through KDE.
>
> So the 2D acceleration is handled in X. But this has nothing to do with
> HTML rendering.
>
> Try the latest Mozilla milestone; I've noticed it to be _much_ faster
> than IE under Windows, and under Linux it just flies. NS is about the
> same as IE in my experience (in terms of rendering speed
You must have a very different frame of reference.
So far Mozilla is slow. Slow loading the app, slow to render pages.
Until recently Mozilla always needed 20MB of ram, and didn't cache webpages.
Under Linux Mozilla is even slower. In fact resizing is very painful (you'd
think you were running the Windows version under emulation).
And the toolbar always seems to be distorted with missing parts, parts from
webpages, whatever.
It still isn't that stable, and under Linux Mozilla doesn't seem to want to
run with an icon (i.e. must start it from a terminal).
Browsers in Linux seem poor. Especially Amaya and Opera.
Jim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 03:05:48 -0400
Dan J. Smeski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why is my KDE sooo freakin slow when rendering web pages. This is using
> Netscape. On Windows 2000 with netscape this is like 4 to 5 times faster.
I
> have a Voodoo 3500 video card? Is this another short coming of Linux? This
> is on a dual boot computer, so it's the same hardware on Linux and Windows
> 2000 and my drivers are correctly configured in Linux.
>
> Dan
Because it is.
It amazes me the KDE browser is as good as it is.
Have you seen all the poor attempts at a web browser there are out there?
Amaya was suppose to be a proof of concept for html 4.0 is it is very poor.
Opera seem poor.
The Gnome browser Express is poor (does it even attempt to render a
table???).
I must conclude it is extremely difficulty to make a decent web browser.
Judging from cross platform software like Mozilla and AbiWord, the Linux
environment seems
to slow things down (lack of mature thread support, less advanced 2D/3D
video drivers/servers),
lack quality fonts (smaller selection of TrueType fonts, lack of
anti-aliasing support, etc).
Therefore these limitations seem to make it even more difficult to write a
good web browser for Linux.
There are many reasons for this (a good reason is the desktop was only
recently made a priority if Linux/Unix land).
Jim
------------------------------
From: Matthew J Zukowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocay off the Net.
Date: 30 Apr 2000 07:02:18 GMT
I wonder what will breaking up microsoft accomplish? It's already clear
that the seperate departments don't talk to each other, We'll just have
two seperate companies with the same goal in mind.
I support the idea of having standards for software, actually requiring
longer time for beta testing, and actually holding the software co
responcible for their flaws.
But this is a young technology. Rather like a car that works great for a
while, then breaks down for no particular reason, and you jsut restart and
go, and you accept this as a fact of life.
David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: CAguy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: : On 29 Apr 2000 10:54:50 -0500, Ali Hamisheh-Bahar
: : <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : >I had CNN on this morning (I apologize in advance ;-), and noticed
: : >that some calls/emails were taken in response to the news of M$'s
: : >proposed breakup. Almost all were disapproving because they felt that
: : >M$ is innovating and they could not understand what they'd gain with a
: : >breakup.
: : Has it occured to you that "Joe public" might actually like windows?
: What does this have to do with a possible breakup of Microsoft? Who
: really believes that the breakup Microsoft immediately leads to the end of
: Windows and the immediate adoption of Linux by everybody?
: What it means is that those who would like to try to offer alternative
: operating systems or applications might actually have the ability to
: compete fairly.
: If Linux is not ready for "Joe Public" (I believe it's not and it might
: never be), then Joe can keep on using Windows and Office. The fact that
: the two products would come from different companies doesn't immediately
: change Joe's experience. However, if it led to better competition and, in
: turn, better software from Microsoft and others, Joe would certainly
: benefit.
: I think there are many people who still use Windows that would find Linux
: more fun and more useful, and those are the people that we should be
: showing what they've been missing.
: As for the rest, they already know that much of Microsoft's software
: (especially Windows 9X) is unstable garbage; they see it crash on them all
: the time. Often they don't have the technical knowlege to fix problems as
: they appear, often the problems have no solution. They get frustrated
: with it, and they learn to avoid problems by doing such ridiculous things
: as "don't move the mouse when it's thinking" (I heard that from the user
: of an unstable Windows system on Thursday). They make comments about how
: bad the Microsoft software they use is (partly because it's true, partly
: because it's the "in" thing to do), but really there are not currently
: alternatives that better suit their needs.
: To these people, we should explain all of the horrible things that
: Microsoft has done to its competitors and its customers, and how these
: actions have led to the retardation of progress. We should let them know
: that this case is not about Microsoft's "freedom to innovate" but about
: others' freedom to compete. If they understand that restoring competition
: won't lead to the end of computing, or even to the end of Microsoft, but
: that it might actually lead to better software for them, perhaps they
: would support the DOJ's actions.
: --
: David Steinberg -o)
: Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 07:15:48 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 20:56:27 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>>Well, as it happens, I've just spent about 16 hours over the space of
>>the past week trying to get an OSITECH modem/Ethernet card working
>>properly on my laptop under Win95.
>>
>>Happily, Ositech responds promptly and almost exhaustively to
>>requests for technical assistance. And they have drivers available for
>>WinXX, NT, and OS/2.
>
> Yet you've still spent 16 hours on it? That 'spiffy' vendor
> support doesn't seem to count for much in this particular
> instance.
>
Most of that time was expended before I contacted Ositech tech
support. The problem was that:
a) I didn't read all the addenda/errata sheet that came with the
package, and therefore let Windows' plugin support work its magic.,
this resulted in my having to uninstall the drivers, which resulted in
my having to reinstall Windows to get my browsers working again.
b) I went to the Ositech site and got some superseded drivers for the
flash upgrade (for reasons I can't even guess at, there's a site
called www.ositech.com with drivers and other downloadbles for my
card, but the latest stuff is at www2.ositech.com - go figure), so I
wasted some more time trying to upgrade the flash ROM with the wrong
file.
In my experience, any vendor that replies to e-mailed technical
questions within two or three days with some substantive answers is
on my "A" team. Compaq is in the same category.
Iomega and IBM, on the other hand, are off the bottom of my chart.
>>With Linux, you're pretty much on your own when something doesn't work
>>"out of the box".
>
> ...in which case you might have it resolved all by your little
> lonesome in 16 hours or less (or at least come to the conclusion
> that the situation is indeed hopeless by then).
>
Must be something wrong with me, then. I spent way more time just
finding out how to access a Bernoulli drive under Linux. Should I
have given up?
Hell, I've spent more time reading about Linux, and in more reference
books (and way fatter ones) in the last year, than I've spent studying
DOS, Windows, and OS/2 combined in the last fifteen years. And I'm
still not able to do anything useful with it.
Achim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 07:15:52 GMT
On 28 Apr 2000 15:44:07 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken Lohse) writes:
>
>> Well, as it happens, I've just spent about 16 hours over the space of
>> the past week trying to get an OSITECH modem/Ethernet card working
>> properly on my laptop under Win95.
>>
>> Happily, Ositech responds promptly and almost exhaustively to
>> requests for technical assistance. And they have drivers available for
>> WinXX, NT, and OS/2.
>>
>> With Linux, you're pretty much on your own when something doesn't work
>> "out of the box".
>
>Hmmm, 16 hours at my salary would have purchased numerous,
>good-quality cards. :)
>
Yeah, well there's no warning sign that says "16-hours of drudgery
ahead".
I neglected to read the little one-page warning insert that cautioned
users not to let Windows install the drivers, and ended up having to
reinstall Windows after numerous attempts to fix the mess in smaller
increments.
There's nothing wrong with the card, except that the package and
included documentation was quite old, and the retailer should never
have sold it - it was an OEM package for a Compaq Armada 1100.
Once I got the right drivers and installation information from Ositech
support, it only took a half hour to straighten things out.
Besides, the idea that you can "buy" flawless operation or even
installation if you just pay enough money is laughable from everything
I've read and heard. Dumb luck doesn't have a pricetag.
Achim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 07:15:56 GMT
On 28 Apr 2000 22:03:05 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
...
>
>Usually a driver either exists or it doesn't. If it does, it is
>generally included in the box but not a big deal to download and
>install (assuming you have a working machine for net access). If
>the windows driver didn't exist you would be out of luck there too.
>
In my experience, there are sometimes several possible drivers, and
Windows doesn't always install the right one. Windows prefers its own
drivers, and doesn't care if they work properly. You can force it to
install another set, but if the native ones are still available on
your system it will install them also.
As for downloading, well, it helps if you know which is the correct
file, and where to find it. If you found files that seem to fit at
www.ositech.com, would you think of searching for a site called
www2.ositech.com in case there were more recent drivers there?
Or go look at ftp.iomega.com sometime, and see all the drivers there.
I'm running Bernoullis, a ZIP and a Ditto drive, and would like to
know which of those driver sets, if any, will support all three.
There's absolutely no indication. None on their Website either.
Unlike Ositech, Iomega replies with a robot message when you e-mail
for tech support. No help there. But at least you have the option of
downloading all the bloatware and trying it out to see if any of it
will work.
I guess if I had left everything alone, and called tech support before
I tried installing the card at all, I would have saved myself all but
maybe one hour of work. OTHO, if everyone did that, you probably
couldn't get the occasional free tech support anymore.
Achim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 07:15:53 GMT
On Fri, 28 Apr 2000 23:00:06 GMT, The Cat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Hmmm 16 hours at my salary would have bought a pretty decent Athlon
>system :)
>
>But who is counting :)
>
>
So you toss your system and buy a new one every time something goes
wrong?
What a concept!
Achim
PS. Do you hire someone to read the newsgroups and post your replies?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Achim Nolcken Lohse)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.corel,alt.linux,alt.fan.linux
Subject: Re: Disabled lady needs Linux Corel
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 07:15:54 GMT
On Sat, 29 Apr 2000 01:52:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Christopher Browne) wrote:
..
>
>Strange, "spending 16 hours" trying to get a network card working properly
>doesn't sound to me like a provision of "exhaustive technical assistance."
Once I got the assistance, it only took about a half hour. The problem
was that it was an old package that shouldn't have been sold at retail
at all, AND I failed to notice a warning sheet telling the user NOT to
let Windows install its native drivers.
>
>The _only_ times I've found it "acceptable" to waste a couple of _days_
>on something like this has been in troubleshooting problems when hardware
>was _immensely_ badly supported on Windows.
Exactly the case here. I ended up uninstalling and reinstalling
drivers until neither of my browsers would work anymore, and I had to
reinstall Windows.
>
>I think my "billing rate" these days is around $90/hour. I'd not spend
>more than about an hour on this; any more, and it would be worth
>_writing off_ the hardware in favor of getting some better supported
>piece of hardware where it doesn't cost $1300 worth of time to get it
>to work.
>
>The only way it was a good deal to spend 16 hours getting that card
>working is if your time is worth less than $5/hour.
Well, I counted all the time it took me to get Windows and my browsers
working again. Should I have tossed my laptop too?
>
>If you value yourself less than a fast-food burger-slinger, then the
>"superior support" provided on Windows is probably worthwhile.
>
>As for me, if it costs more than an hour or two to get it running,
>I'd toss it into the bitbucket and get a card I _know_ is well-supported.
If people applied that same reasoning to Linux, Red Hat and Corel's
stock would plummet tomorrow. I didn't plan to spend so much time on
this card, but at least I've got something that works in the end.
I'm heading towards the two hundred hour mark (very rough estimate!)
in time expended reading about, acquiring hardware, installing, and
getting Linux to run in the past year, and have got absolutely
nothing to show for it, except the joy of dual-booting to Windows
instead or just powering up.
I guess I'm a masochist, as someone recently persuaded me Corel Linux
was easier to install and use, so I spent five bucks on a CD-ROM and
another few hours trying to get it to install, and searching for
answers on why it wouldn't and how to fix it. Another total dead end.
Having got absolutely nowhere with Corel Linux, and spent several
months chipping away at Red Hat without any returns, I'm now
considering trying Mandrake or Caldera. Is that stupid? At what
point should I write off Linux?
One line of reasoning I just don't buy is "don't waste your time,
just toss your old piece of junk and buy a decent machine (or card, or
modem, etc., etc.)" This attitude has been around for years. I heard
it over and over when Windows 95 came out, ditto for OS2/Warp.
Five years ago I introduced a friend of mine to the use of PCs with an
old 8086, an EGA monitor, and dual 10MB Bernoullis. He'd wanted to go
right out and buy the latest and greatest 486 to start with, but I
talked him out of it, figuring that the above setup was more than he
knew what to do with for starters, and he might actually learn
something in the process. I got him started on e-mail, and using
BBSes with an offline reader, and slowly worked him up to using the
Internet.
Then I moved out of town, and within a few months, he'd bought a
Pentium MMX system with 256MB of RAM, and a year's prepaid ISP
subscription . I have no idea why he needs all that hardware. So far
as I know, all he does on line is chat via the keyboard (he hasn't
been able to get his voice recognition program to work properly), and
download utilities.
You'd think though, that he wouldn't have had any downtime with his
new system. On the contrary! He's been out of commission for
months at a time while his system was shipped somewhere to fix
something or other under warranty. Meanwhile, my succession of old
486s are rarely down for more than a day or two (ok, I've had the odd
literal meltdown, but I've always got another system standing by).
>On the PCI bus side, I'd order/pick up a Netgear tulip card for about
>$20, or for PCMCIA, look at the compatibility list at D-Link cards.
>
>Life is too short to value time at Burger King wage rates, unless,
>I suppose, you're a Winvocate...
Oh sure, hit me below the belt!
I'm all for open source operating systems and applications, and
there's nothing I'd like better than to be able to run all my apps
entirely under Linux. Unfortunately, all the installation modules and
reference texts I've come across for Linux seem to be written by
people who can't differentiate between essentials and non-essentials,
and continuously neglect the former or manage to hide it under a pile
of other stuff.
A few weeks of following some Linux security threads on the usenet
have convinced me it's just not safe for me to go online with Linux,
and I doubt very much that I'll ever have the time to learn how to
make it safe with the current distributions.. The only reason I'm
still pursuing it is that I expect eventually, the Linux community
will be able to recruit some programmers who can come up with a
user-friendly installation (ie. not one that amounts to "here's a
loaded gun, with the safety off, go shoot yourself in the foot"), and
maybe even some writers who can come up with coherent installation,
users', and reference manuals.
Achim
------------------------------
From: "Jim Ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux KILLED MY SYSEM!!! IT SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 03:09:18 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Fucking pice of shit Linux killed my system... Even the rescue disk
> won't work... To everyone thinking of running Linux. thik again...it
> really sucks...
I feel Linux sucks as a desktop system.
Please streamline it.
. . .> BUY MSFT AND BECOME RICH!!!
>
Don't feed the monopolist!
They lose their fear of people and then you have problems . . .
Jim Ross
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
