Linux-Advocacy Digest #488, Volume #26 Sat, 13 May 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: How to properly process e-mail (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: An honest attempt ("Clifford W. Racz")
Re: What's the difference between.... (mlw)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!! (Roger)
Re: An honest attempt (Thomas Phipps)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Charlie Ebert)
An end to the disposable! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: From Linux BACK to Win 98SE (Julius Apweiler)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Julius Apweiler)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Julius Apweiler)
Re: What's the difference between.... (Full Name)
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: Things Linux can't do! ("ax")
Re: An honest attempt ("Raymond Swaim")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 13 May 2000 12:29:47 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> If I would add to my ~/.mailcap, the following line:
>> application/x-sh;/bin/sh %s
>> it would also "auto-execute" shell scripts. The difference is that this
>> is highly uncommon for Unux MUAs and highly common for Windows MUAs.
>
>This latter example is more accurate to Outlook's behaviour.
Yes, but you will have a hard time finding such a line in any of my
mailcap files.
Also, Outlook seems to disregard mime-types and only uses the filename
extension when handling mail attachments. I recall a situation where a
colleague of mine sent an Outlook user a plain text attachment with the
name "network.figure" and Outlook barfed that it could not find the
correct application for it. When resent with the name "network.txt" it
could. But by now I do understand why this happens. Outlook is not a
Mail User Agent, Outlook is a shell. It was ShellExecute() that barfed
on the name "network.figure".
>It's still a far cry from "auto-executing" though.
Still nitpicking on the word "auto"? As I explained many times over I
use this word because Outlook bypasses the normal shell program to
execute email content.
>> If I hit enter on a shell script or ELF binary in Mutt or click on it in
>> Netscape, it will not execute. If I hit enter on a jpg image in Mutt it
>> will use Imagemagick to display it. If I hit enter on an AVI file in
>> Mutt it will use xanim to display the move. If I hit enter on an mp3
>> file in Mutt it will play it via mpg123. Do you finally see the
>> difference between open and execute?
>
>I already know the difference.
Then tell me, what /should/ happen when I "open" an email attachment
that contains a Visual Basic Script?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
I wonder why half the world is crying, while the other half of the
world is crying too...
-- Janis Joplin
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How to properly process e-mail
Date: 13 May 2000 12:52:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8fh137$sem$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Opening jpegs, C files, zips, etc, launches programs on your system
>> that were installed by *you* and that you *know* (hopefully) are
>> safe.
>
>And opening a vbscript runs it, as I would expect.
If I were in a shell instead of a mail reader.
>> Exactly how does that compare to running unknown code from
>> an unknown source at the click of two buttons. You were right.
>
>Because from the mailer's perspective it is *identical*. All the mailer
>knows is that the user wants to open the attachment, so it hands the file to
>the OS/shell saying "the user wants to open this, go perform the default
>action on it".
Which is the very thing RFC writers have been warning against 8 years
ago.
>This is exactly the behaviour I would expect.
If I were in a shell instead of a mail reader.
>> > > Sendmail has been able to pipe email through programs for
>> > > decades. That has many useful applications, such as the vacation
>> > > program and email filters.
>> >
>> > Which is, to all intents and purposes, exactly what happens in
>> Outlook.
>>
>> Not even close.
>
>Almost identical. The only difference in Pine is that you have to specify
>which program.
No, not by a far cry. Even if I wanted to, I cannot execute a binary
executable attachment from Pine the way Outlook launches .exe
attachments. I can pipe any attachment to STDIN of any application I
choose or I can execute a predefined application with the attachment as
argument via the mailcap mechanism. The latter is what outlook does *if
the attachment is not executable* and it chooses the application based
on the filename and the same definitions that the shell uses. So it is
not even remotely similar to Pine's behaviour, not even when you use
Pine's "pipe" functionality.
>> MS's feature requires the recipient to
>> be sitting at his workstation and click on a button that launches
>> software supplied by the sender. Get the distinction? Sendmail is
>> doing what you want it to do without requiring you to even be there.
>> Outlook (excuse me) visual basic is doing what the sender wants you
>> to do and you don't even know what that is.
>
>No, Outlook is doing exactly what the user told it to do - "open this
>attachment".
Where "open" can also mean "lauch", and that from within a mail reader.
>> And Bill Clinton didn't inhale. Totally irrelevant. I don't care
>> how MS does it, just that they do it.
>
>Every mailer can do it.
But outlook has it as default behaviour and also chooses for you how to
do it.
>> Such as delete files or any other bad thing that the sender can think
>> of.
>
>Yes. A scripting language that couldn't do things like file management and
>program manipulation wouldn't be especially useful.
Correct. That's why scripts should not be launched by a mail reader.
>> Tell me one good thing that the sender can do on your system
>> and how that would justify taking the obvious risk. Also, tell me
>> there's no other way to accomplish the same thing more securely.
>
>I'm sure there is, but the more security you have the less convenience you
>have, and the majority of people want convenience.
ROTFL!
The multi-billion dollar damage by ILOVEYOU is *convereince*? I think I
should start choosing inconvenience then.
>> Nice try. Unfortunately, it doesn't apply. *Your* system runs
>> *your* WinZip on someone else's data.
>
>And *my* system runs *my* vbscript with a script *I* told it to.
When I read this I get the impression that all those millions of users
were willingly and knowingly overwriting their own datafiles and
registry and sharing the fun with all others they've had mailcontact
with. Is that what you are saying?
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP 0x07606049 GPG 0xD61A655D
No, I'm not interested in developing a powerful brain. All I'm after
is just a mediocre brain, something like the president of American
Telephone and Telegraph Company. -- Alan Turing, 1943
------------------------------
From: "Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 07:54:47 -0500
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fhg5u$v7s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Unless a time effective solution can be found for us, you advocates on
> > comp.os.linux.advocacy have failed to convert me. But, hey, at least I
only
> > spent $25 to buy a Linux box set (I downloaded Corel for free).
>
> Why do you think that it is anyone's intention on this newsgroup to
convert
> *you*?
>
I don't know. I guess I thought that on comp.os.linux.advocacy you would
try to advocate Linux and I typically think of this as bringing people to
use Linux who use Mac OS or Windows, since they have many more users. I
didn't think the purpose of the newsgroup was to flame people needlessly.
Your post isn't funny, nor entertaining... just plain mean.
Cliff
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the difference between....
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 09:07:27 -0400
Jacques Guy wrote:
>
> comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy and comp.os.linux.advocacy?
>
> Answer below (don't cheat! try and figure it out first)
>
One is a forum in which people promote an operating system which has
made one of the richest men in the world, not by quality, not by
integrity, but by marketing and ileagal monopolistic actions.
The other is a forum in which people promote an operating system which
was created out of need and shared due to a sense of public good.
> Same as between
>
> alt.fan.bill-gates and alt.fan.noam-chomsky
>
> (You have to visit them to see: the fans hate
> Gates, they love Chomsky)
I wish to go to neither.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
"We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered the
lobster"
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:32:07 GMT
On 12 May 2000 22:01:55 -0500, someone claiming to be Leslie Mikesell
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>Again, which gaping hole do you see when a user has to explicitly
>>launch the application? A user should not run unknown code, whether
>>it comes in email, is downloaded off the web, or is handed to them on
>>a floppy.
>But they did, and it will happen again as long as the difference
>between code and normal multimedia attachments is difficult to
>distinguish. Unfortunately, nearly half of all people are
>below average...
Ah, so you are of the opinion that these users need to be protected
from themselves, no matter the impact on other users.
I prefer education (from the school of hard knocks, if necessary)
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.fan.bill-gates
Subject: Re: Microsoft: STAY THE FUCK OFF THE NET!!!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:35:32 GMT
On 12 May 2000 21:57:32 -0500, someone claiming to be Leslie Mikesell
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>On what basis can you determine * any * code is safe, prior to its
>>use?
>You never know. But the point is that even the fact that it
>is code is hidden.
Yeah, most users will get tired of reading the name on the icon long
before the get to that .VBS extension...
>>And my basis is to assume that code I did not ask for is unsafe, until
>>proven otherwise.
>Smart move, but first you have to notice the difference between
>code and multimedia.
Well, since I tend to pay attention to what's going on on my screen...
>>>Three
>>>copies of the virus in my mailbox came from the company treasurer
>>>who wouldn't be expected to send anything damaging. And I
>>>suspect that at least some of those were from his attempt
>>>to save and then open the attachment as a file. So, how are
>>>you supposed to figure out what it is when every time you
>>>touch it, it executes?
>>For what values of "touch" does this happen in this case?
>Any of the standard GUI tools that hide the file behind an
>icon and default to running the registered handler.
Ah, so the * two * touches (double-click and right-click / Open)
Of course you can always right-click / Edit. Or save and scan. Or...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Phipps)
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:40:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw wrote:
[snip]
>
>If it was, indeed, an honest attempt, switching from Windows to Linux is
>like quitting smoking. It takes work and your habits are pulling you
>back. I guarantee that if you give it two months, cold turkey, you will
>never go back to Windows, this is what MS fears most.
>
I agree once you use it for a couple of months strait ... you won't
ever go back I"ve been windows free for about 3 months now ...
{execpt for a friends computer two nights ago{an talk about confusing
his windows box a 366 Pent II with 160 Megs of ram was running about as
fast as his linux box a 166 Pent with 32 megs of ram .. after not seeing
windows for so long I forgot how Slow it can be ...}
>>
>> P.S. I am still open to trying Linux if I could just understand how... I am
>> just more skeptical now.
>
>I don't think you understood the gravity of what you were doing. Linux
>is a big step for your computing environment. While you do get a GUI
>that can look like Windows, don't be fooled, it is not Windows.
>
Thank the Gods
[snip]
WhyteWolf
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:48:35 GMT
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : Linux can't go bankrupt.
>
> : Linux will never be drawn into an anti monopolistic lawsuit with the
> : Federal Government, or any other Government.
>
> : Linux will never be mis-trusted by the public.
>
> : Linux will be around when Bill Gates dies.
>
> : Linux will be around when Microsoft has long been forgotten and copies
> : of
> : NT are in the Smithsonian on display!
>
> : Linux will most likely outlast several of the worlds governments.
>
> : While it's name might not continue to be Linux, through the centuries it
> : will travel,
> : it will always be with mankind.
>
> : Linux is like a statue which has traveled through time.
>
> : Linux is like the human race - as long as there is love it will be
> : there.
>
> : In a strange way, Linux is like the pyramids in the respect that it will
> : be
> : with mankind for several centuries.
>
> I found the above funny. One thing computer-wise that Linux can't do to my
> knowledge is config a mouse driver for lefty operation. I could be wrong.
> If I'm wrong, it's no problem as I leave the mouse config alone and leave
> it righty while I use it lefty. I do it that way for righty-compliance. I
> would sooner add a toggle switch to a mouse than fuck with a mouse driver
> config.
>
> --
> CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
>
> 4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
IT's part of XFCONFIG and yes lefties are welcome.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: An end to the disposable!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 13:52:02 GMT
Linux is not disposable!
After Microsoft has ended, another company will attempt to throw Linux
off it's royal seat!
The God of operating systems will have 20 years development behind it by
then!
And they will find it quite a feat!
Charlie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 14:08:27 GMT
Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, I can play this game.
>
> Let me give you a better example.
>
> Lets say the "Cancer cure" is sticking a Pineapple up your arse,
> painful but effective, This would be the Linux version, cost minimal.
>
> Lets say someone (MS) develops a different cure, and charges you $100
> for a Pineapple fruit juice in a convenient go anywhere pack with a
> drinking straw.
>
> Which would you choose ?
No, for this example to be correct, the Pineapple fruit juice version
would have the rather frequent result of diereha, forcing the patient to need
to reinject the juice. It would have bad side effects, the lack of fiber in
the juice would be bad for you compared to the full fruit version. Etc.
--
Da Katt
[This space for rent]
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 15:04:01 +0200
From: Julius Apweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: From Linux BACK to Win 98SE
"Sam E. Trenholme" wrote:
>
> [Follow-ups redirected]
>
> >I currently have Corel Linux OS on my laptop and I just don't like the way
> >it works, I've had monitor problems, and a whole mess of things. I want to
> >take it off completely and reinstall Win 98SE.
>
> I remember when all the Windoze users would be like, "you know, Linux is
> like, so hard to install". Well, I guess those days are over, since
> Windows users have a much easier time installing Linux than they do
> reinstalling Windows.
And that's why it's good that there are different distributions - Corel
Linux is one intended for beginners, almost as easy to install and use
as Windows, and just one CD with all you *really* need. SuSE, which I
use, is not as easy to install (the graphical YaST2 setup didn't work on
my PC), but it has 6 CDs packed with almost everything you'll *ever*
need, and is much more configurable. Not 'one windows for everyone', but
'one kernel for everyone', but you can do with that kernel whatever you
like.
>
> Microsoft has this goal of making reinstalling Windows impossible. You
> know that CDROM you get with your Windows machine that lets you reinstall
> Windows, should you pooch your install, have a hard disk die, or when the
> inevitable registry corruption happens? Microsoft wants to get rid of
> that CD, since they worry so much that people are using those CDs to
> pirate Windows.
AFAIK, they do want to include the CD-ROM, but build an authentication
mechanism into it so that it only installs on the PC it came with,
identifying it by the BIOS serial number or something. I mean, sure,
they do have a point - people do pirate OEM windows CDs, and this would
be a good way to prevent that. But what if you upgrade your motherboard
and then need to reinstall windows? Forget it or buy another copy for a
nice big sum of money.
>
> The end result of this idiotcy by Microsoft is that people will install
> and use Linux when their Windoze installs get hozed. A computer is not
> reusable unless the OS the computer runs on is on CD in a convenient
> place.
Exactly. Especially as any Windows installation is dead beyond hope
after a year or so of normal use, or maybe two or three years of office
use (where no software is ever installed), because the registry and
system folders get too cluttered with junk.
>
> - Sam
--
====================
Julius Dominik Apweiler
----
Owner of Julius' Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/ ,
----
Inventor of the Creatures Christmas Calendar:
http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/calendar
----
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
ICQ: 21129422 , no authorization required.
----
Sent from SuSE Linux 6.3
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and
Gates?"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 15:23:34 +0200
From: Julius Apweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
ax wrote:
>
> Is this an "American Dream"?
Maybe more like a "Global Dream"? This is one WORLD, not one America.
>
> No mather how much you dislike Bill Gates, he is still your American pride,
> but Linus is not.
I wouldn't be proud of Bill Gates. All he ever was good at was deceiving
(or, to put it that way, screwing) people and making money from that. He
ripped off IBM by forcing them to use his MS-DOS while he kept the
copyright for himself, so that he was able to licence it to others. He
actually copied DOS from someone else beforehand.
====================
Julius Dominik Apweiler
----
Owner of Julius' Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/ ,
----
Inventor of the Creatures Christmas Calendar:
http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/calendar
----
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
ICQ: 21129422 , no authorization required.
----
Sent from SuSE Linux 6.3
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and
Gates?"
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 15:26:17 +0200
From: Julius Apweiler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
"Clifford W. Racz" wrote:
>
> About the posting:
>
> >Amen, brother.
> >
> >But the sad truth is, that not the best product will be favoured by the
> >consumer, only the best marketet product. And Linux does not have much
>
> This is rubbish. It isn't about marketing. It is that our whole society is
> about fast food, and disposable diapers. Even the piss-poor product that a
> consumer will not have to think about will win over the robust product that
> is much more difficult to use or has a steeper learning curve. Thus Windows
> will continue to sell and Linux will continue to be alrgely ignored.
>
> It's like this (maybe sad, but true):
> IF (Linux = ease for the layperson) THEN (Success) ELSE (Windows wins)
Yes. And (Linux = ease for the layperson) is slowly but surely coming
true. It still has a long way to go, but we're getting there.
====================
Julius Dominik Apweiler
----
Owner of Julius' Web Site: http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/ ,
----
Inventor of the Creatures Christmas Calendar:
http://www.geocities.com/jule-apweiler/calendar
----
E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
ICQ: 21129422 , no authorization required.
----
Sent from SuSE Linux 6.3
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and
Gates?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name)
Subject: Re: What's the difference between....
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 14:19:36 GMT
On Sat, 13 May 2000 09:07:27 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>The other is a forum in which people promote an operating system which
>was created out of need and shared due to a sense of public good.
>
Excuse me while I grab a bucket and throw up.
I find it very hard to believe the majority of Linux advocates
actually have jobs in IT support.
Real Linux experiences:
You'll have to delete Red Hat and install Mandrake - central computing
receives CERT security alerts about Red Hat on a weekly basis.
Sorry, I can't find a (bug free) Linux driver for the PCMCIA card in
your new notebook. We've ordered another card but it won't be here
until next week. We hope the new card will work.
Lost a file? Sorry Mandrake NFS doesn't work and we couldn't backup
your home directory.
You want to use ftp? Sorry, Mandrake disables ftp as it transmits
passwords in clear text and this is not secure enough.
No, you can't run any long jobs yet, we have to take the system down
and build a kernel that might work properly.
You want to put a Linux box on your NT only subnet? Sorry, we'll have
to firewall it first. Linux knows nothing about non-routable
protocols.
You want to put a Mandrake box in a public terminal room? Sorry,
someone only has to type ctr-alt-delete at the console and boot with
the -s option and put in a couple of backdoors. With a bit of
preparation this takes about 3 minutes. They now have a nice platform
from which to attack other machines.
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 14:50:27 GMT
"Bloody Viking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Q%5T4.8830$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> I found the above funny. One thing computer-wise that Linux can't do to my
> knowledge is config a mouse driver for lefty operation. I could be wrong.
> If I'm wrong, it's no problem as I leave the mouse config alone and leave
> it righty while I use it lefty. I do it that way for righty-compliance. I
> would sooner add a toggle switch to a mouse than fuck with a mouse driver
> config.
>
Linux is copy-LEFTed and everything will follow to the "LEFT" slowly but
surely,
including your mouse (I suppose).
COPY-LEFT means COPY-is-RIGHT. COPY-RIGHT means COPY-isn't-RIGHT.
Confusing?
> --
> CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
> First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
>
> 4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: "ax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 14:55:16 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Oh shoot! Did I forget to mention Linux actually works whilst Microsoft
> products really don't.
>
> Let's not forget that NEW technology is great, so long as it works.
>
What makes you believe Linux is NEW technology? What's NEW?
> Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Raymond Swaim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An honest attempt
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 10:06:06 -0500
I agree that switching from Windows to Linux can be a huge step --
especially
when you have a wife and kids and don't have the time to spend reading books
and playing around with it. But, at the same time, I don't think it's
really
much different than what you had to go through when you ran DOS 5 and
Windows 3.1
Remember how you had to edit your autoexec.bat and config.sys files in order
to
free up memory for DOS applications? Remember how you had to mess around
with
jumpers and dip switches in order to properly set you IRQs, DMSs and IO
Addresses?
Linux isn't as user-friendly as Windows, but it's getting there -- very
quickly.
Nevertheless, you have to make sure that your hardware is supported. Check
the
hardware compatibility lists. You have to do the same thing in the Windows
world:
don't assume that that sound card or video card that works so well in
Windows 95/98
will work in Windows NT/2000. Don't assume that that SCSI controller that
works so
nicely in Windows NT/2000 works under Windows 95/98.
If you're new to Linux and don't have a great deal of time to learn on your
own, then
why buy a Linux distribution from a company in Canada, or a Linux
distribution that
only offers support via *email??* I'd recommend that you try Red Hat
Linux -- not
because it's a better distribution than another, but because you get free
tech support
by *TELEPHONE.* And it's an 800-number, so the call is free too. Think
about it:
that's something you'd do in the Windows world. Buy from someone who offers
tech support by telephone, so why treat Linux any differently?
RSS
"Clifford W. Racz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fh8go$b33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> After much hearing about how much better Linux was than windows, I tried
it.
> I installed Corel Linux first, but had trouble with it and didn't like it.
> Next, I tried Linux Mandrake 7. In my opinion, out of everything Linux I
> have seen, Mandrake is the most straightforward, user friendly, easy Linux
> for the "Unix Illiterate Dummy" like myself. I had the easiest
installation
> I could possibly ask for (it did virtually everything).
>
> My system is a PII 350 with 128Meg Ram, a SB AWE64 card, a Creative DVD
> Blaster, Creative Modem blaster. It is not old, nor does it contain odd
> hardware (maybe the modem blaster, so I tried removing it when I had
> problems). Anyway, I was still not able to get my sound card to work, the
> modem only intermittently and I cannot figure out how to do simple things
> like change the boot option from automatically loading the X login or the
> console login, install and use software (like Star office), etc. It had
> really neat games, was really smooth running and was stable. But, being
> used to Windows, I don't know how to DO anything else.
>
> Anytime that a less-than-completely-dedicated Linux convert in the making
> wants to do anything, what we first need to do is to find someone who is a
> completely dedicated Linux person and pester them until they want to punch
> us with stupid questions like "Uhh... how do I uhh... what do I do?" and
> "Uhh... how do I say Linux?" Then when we have honest questions, we just
> get answers like "read the book." The problem is, the books don't answer
> those questions in a timely manner.
>
> It all boils down to time. I get tired of Windows crashing and having to
> reinstall it! I get more tired of Linux not working correctly unless I
> change my xconfigurator settings, my .whatchamacallit file and tweak the
> flux capacitor. In windows, it just works... now. I have a wife and
> children, so my days of playing with big toys, like Linux are over.
>
> Unless a time effective solution can be found for us, you advocates on
> comp.os.linux.advocacy have failed to convert me. But, hey, at least I
only
> spent $25 to buy a Linux box set (I downloaded Corel for free).
>
> P.S. I am still open to trying Linux if I could just understand how... I
am
> just more skeptical now.
>
> P.P.S. I am not stupid, nor lazy... don't flame me for that. I am a
> physicist who has better things to do than chase lost causes (not that
> Windows is not a lost cause... just the better alternative for me here.)
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
