Linux-Advocacy Digest #509, Volume #26 Mon, 15 May 00 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Here is the solution (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Online Banking ("Rich C")
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Here is the solution (Joseph)
Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux (Adams Klaus-Georg)
Re: CVS and Windows (Wolfgang Liebich)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Online Banking ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this.... (Ketil Nordstad)
Re: Here is the solution ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2 ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (ajn)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was Re: The
"outlook" for MS) (javelina)
Re: Things Linux can't do! (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: 14 May 2000 23:09:05 -0500
In article <8fnsje$9ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My original point is this:
>
>Can you show me an undocumented call that you couldn't otherwise do with
>something in the Win32 SDK freely available?? -- such that MS could use to
>their advantage in writing Office or something else.
If you are trying to argue that MS does not have an unfair advantage
here, you would have to show that the same documentation and
tools were available to competing apps developers at the same
time the in-house MS apps developers got them.
>MS whiners try to make one think that these APIs allow MS to develop there
>applications 'ahead of time' or before competitors... however, most of the
>core Win32 API has been around for *years*.
And how long have the MS apps been around and under development?
>Anyway, if you've read this far, hopefully you see my point -- anybody
>should be able to compete with MS head to head -- with or without these
>alleged undocumented APIs.
Not unless you got the information at the same time that the
MS developers had it.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation'
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 14:31:59 +1000
"Gary Connors" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], JEDIDIAH at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 5/14/00 8:12 PM:
>
> > On Sun, 14 May 2000 16:53:58 -0400, Gary Connors
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> MacOS's UI seems complete.
> >
> > Perhaps to you. To someone else, it's woefully inadequate or
> > perhaps simply 'different' enough from Windows to be problematic.
> >
>
> Windows, screw Windows. Windows blows. The more I use Windows, I more I
> think It was compiled in debug more, with all the screwy error codes,
obsure
> dialogs, control panels who primary functions are less usuable than the
ones
> that most people use at home. Why would I need to right click on a PPP
> setup file to input my username and password?
Given that a username and password are unique attributes of each PPP
connection, where else would one expect to find them than in the properties
of the object that makes that PPP connection ?
> Why does the network control
> panel have that many options?
Like what ?
> Windows is some ways less usuable than Linux.
So is the Mac.
> Windows is why the tech support industry cost the US BILLIONS each year.
> Windows is why people beleive that when a computer begins to misbehave it
is
> thier fault. Windows is not even worth using.
Uh huh.
> > ...a good argument for having a wider selection of choices if
> > there ever was one...
> >
>
> A good arguement for standarization on a suite of desktop apps and limited
> and easy to use GUI controls with "power user" features NOT in the default
> install, but as an option.
I always find it amusing the people who argue that there should be a One
True GUI but criticise Microsoft for trying to create a One True OS.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Online Banking
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 01:00:39 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8fn23o$51v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> For Redhat I meant 4.61 not 6.1. I forgot to mention the Netscape 4.7 I
> have has 128 bit encryption and it works with many sites. My bank does
> NOT require a 128 bit browser. They claim to have a global key that
> allows 128 bit encryption with any 4.0 or above browser.
Maybe this "key" is active-X?
> I confirmed
> this in Win 95 where any damn browser works. In Linux NONE of the
> browsers I tried worked. Isn't this bullshit. Has Microsoft somehow made
> some secure server software that is incompatiable with Linux browsers.
> This would only effect banks using some sort of Microsoft garbage.
Call your bank and ask them.
[snip]
--
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 04:48:14 GMT
Yeah, I could believe that there are combinations of hardware and
software that could bring down a Linux box. Instead of flying of the
handle, you may want to report this bug to Sane. They may be interested
in your feedback and may be able to use your input to improve their
work.
In article <8fnjk0$1lur$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
> . wrote:
> > Canoscan scanner parallel port attached.
>
> > Try running the scanner identification program that Sane uses.
>
> > Kills Linux completely...No other terminals to log into. Can't kill
X
> > server. Completely dead.......Red Switch Time....
>
> Hmmm...
>
> Alright, theres one (1) way to kill a linux machine.
>
> -----yttrx
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 22:49:16 -0700
From: Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Todd wrote:
> Can you show me an undocumented call that you couldn't otherwise do with
> something in the Win32 SDK freely available?? -- such that MS could use to
> their advantage in writing Office or something else.
You can take a steamship to Europe and I'll fly in a airplane. Both will do
the job.
Your question is bogus - it ignores the fact applications need to be competitive
against MS.
> Even if the above two APIs were undocumented (or secret), I don't see how
> this prevents you from writing an *application* to market.
No one argues ISV competitors cannot make apps - the argument is MS has an
unfair advantage. Why argue an irrelevant point?
> MS whiners try to make one think that these APIs allow MS to develop there
> applications 'ahead of time' or before competitors... however, most of the
> core Win32 API has been around for *years*.
Who cares about the core API? Pay attention.
MS is whining to the courts that they needed and continue to need to add new OS
APIs *specifically* for their Applications - they call it innovation. This
case has cleared the air and made public the tactics MS uses to innovate.
------------------------------
From: Adams Klaus-Georg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Solaris is better than Linux
Date: 15 May 2000 08:07:27 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) writes:
> Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> There is some activity
> >> in products like this for Linux, but still nothing like what's available for
> >> Windows, not even 1%.
>
> > So. Solaris is better because, even thought *it* can't beat Linux, something else
> > can?
>
> Solaris is better than linux because it scales better. While linux can scale
> tremendously well on the small side (embedded systems, etc), solaris scales
> on the large side (E10000+) and remains exactly the same operating system as
> it does on the small side (ultra1-).
Since a couple of months this is no longer true. Now Linux runs on
S/390, the IBM Mainframes. Now Linux scales from the very small side
to the largest machines in existance. And it is the exact same OS for
all machines. I have a report from a company who ported an ORB and
their CORBA application in all of 1 1/2 working days to Linux on
Mainframe.
--
MfG, Klaus-Georg Adams
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wolfgang Liebich)
Subject: Re: CVS and Windows
Date: 15 May 2000 06:29:39 GMT
--snip--
If you have larger or geographically distributed projects to manage
you might also check out Rational ClearCase - a rather complex and
(I guess) expensive beast, but IMHO the most powerful CM solution
you could find right now...
Wolfgang Liebich
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 01:50:51 -0500
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> >
> > Nobody has yet shown me any of this proof. They just point vaguely at
the
> > wine website, which contains thousands of links all over the place.
Care to
> > provide a specific link?
>
> http://www.winehq.com/faq.html#q9 complains about how the documentation
> of many APIs is erroneous or non-existent, and
It does not mention anything specifically though.
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4942/index.html gives lots of
examples.
Yes, lots of examples of undocumented API's. NOT undocumented API's that
are used by MS applications.
Every OS has undocumented API's, even Linux (if you consider the man pages
to be the documentation.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Online Banking
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:41:38 GMT
That is very neat trick. Actually http://www.citifi.com is not my bank,
but when I go there it claims my browser or OS isn't supported. Since
Netscape 4.7 isn't the problem then they must be concerned about Linux.
I'm sure Linux would work if they would let it. I was going to open an
account there but I decided not to because of their wierd choice of OS
preference.
My bank is running Microsoft-IIS/4.0. Just as I thought, but still it
may be a bug in Netscape so blaming Microsoft may be unjustified. But
heck I hate MS so it has to be Microshit's fault. Actually I found a way
to make my account data appear by reloading the frame after I login.
Anyway I emailed the bank and told them to get better software.
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's unlikely since Netcraft reports that:
>
> www.citifi.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on Solaris
>
> http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=www.citifi.com
> --
> "I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
> program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
> will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ketil Nordstad)
Subject: Re: Never saw Linux die? Try this....
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:50:18 GMT
On Mon, 15 May 2000 00:52:03 GMT, . wrote:
>Canoscan scanner parallel port attached.
>
>Try running the scanner identification program that Sane uses.
>
>Kills Linux completely...No other terminals to log into. Can't kill X
>server. Completely dead.......Red Switch Time....
Did you try to telnet/ssh into this machine. probably works...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Here is the solution
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:00:00 -0500
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > That is not the argument here. The argument here is that MS is
using
> > hidden
> > > > API's in it's applications that give it an advantage over it's
> > competitors.
> > > > Nobody has yet been able to prove this.
> > >
> > > That's because it's hard to prove something that doesn't exist by
> > > definition. An API is an explained interface into something. If
> > > Microsoft uses internal hooks with Win32 applications (ABI) is already
> > > proven by the Wine team.
> >
> > Nobody has yet shown me any of this proof. They just point vaguely at
the
> > wine website, which contains thousands of links all over the place.
Care to
> > provide a specific link?
>
> There are hundreds of examples, and I would be very surprised if this
> weren't the case with most OSes out there. It's only when they are
> used to give the OS company a competitive advantage (Did Corel
> Office have the same access to IIS5 that Microsoft Office did? -- you
> get the point), and that OS company owns more than 90% of the
> desktops, that you have a problem.
That's just it, there aren't hundreds of examples of undocumented API's that
MS's applications use (which is the subject, not just undocumented API's).
> Nobody would be screaming if Microsoft just made Windows. If they
> just did that, it would be in their best interests to give as much
> functionallity to as many people as they could. Under the current
> situation, they use their monopoly as a club to stamp out other
> markets (see 'Barbarians led by Bill Gates' for more info). Here is a
> casual listing I found over a 5-minute search:
This is not a casual listing of undocumented API's used by MS applications
to their advantage. It's a casual listing of undocumented API's Those are
two different things.
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4942/index.html
No mentione of any MS applications which use them.
> http://www.users.lia.net/chris/win32
Only one undocumented API, and no mention of any MS applications that use
them.
> http://skyscraper.fortunecity.com/gigo/311/winprog.html
I don't see any undocumented API's here, just tricks to perform things that
the OS itself does (using documented API's).
> Go pick up the "Unauthorized Windows [NT\d ]+" books, I have the '95
> version from back when I actually programmed for Win32.
Again, I've seen no reference to MS applications making use of any of these
(other than OS provided applets).
> > IIRC MS *INVENTED* CIFS and sent it through the RFC process (My memory
could
> > be faulty on this one though).
>
> So? They also put it in as the de-facto networking stack for Windows
> desktops. Those of us who choose to have non-NT servers must wast
> time reimplementing this stuff.
I don't understand. You're complaining because MS didn't give you code for
an RFC?
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 00:49:04 -0500
abraxas wrote:
> I think it would be handy to remember that linux is generally developed
> by people in their spare time; very few people actually get paid for
> their troubles.
This is a pro as well as a con, because it also means that things are developed
primarily by people who actually want to use their own product, with the result
that you get a lot of attention to details, reliability, orthogonality, etc.,
that are not very popular with the "How quick can we ship this?" crowd.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Advocacy - Linux vs Windows 2000 vs Be vs OS/2
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 00:45:44 -0500
Brad Wardell wrote:
> Here's what I have so far in a nutshell:
>
> Pros:
> * Reasonable application support
> * Reasonable driver support
Depends, of course, on what the individual finds "reasonable". I have support
for everything I need, but very likely others do not.
> * Ability to quickly and seamlessly switch between user sessions
> * Easy to do distributed computing - You're on a LAN on a 100mB ethernet
> connection you can really go to town.
I may be wrong, but I'm not sure "distributed computing" is the term you really
want here (although Linux is virtually the king of distributed computing, via
Beowulf clustering).
If you are talking about transparent remote access, then yes Linux (or Unix) is
great. At home I have a 100Mbit connection to my "spare" computer, and I very
regularly do things like:
ssh spare projects/apga/apga_demo
to transparently run my apga_demo program on the "spare" computer, and have it
display its GUI on my "main" computer. I could do it between here and
Singapore just as easily, if only I had an account there and a fast connection.
> * Low resource requirements
> * Free
> * Mostly open source software available, OS itself is open source making it
> great to truly make it work like you want it to.
The same applies to the applications and toys, as well as to the OS. For
example, I run a non-standard variant of Freeciv on my desktop.
> * Far more options to control how it looks, feels, behaves, etc. than other
> OSes.
Yes. I run the Enlightenment window manager, and I use a theme where I have
hacked up the configuration files to rearrange the buttons and make a few other
changes.
> Cons:
> * Horrible consistency - No universal clipboard support.
Yes, to an extent, although simple cut&paste of text under X is, IMO, much
easier than under Windows.
> * Very little drag and drop or true OO stuff (Gnome is getting there but
> it's not there yet)
> * Always behind the curve in hardware support.
Revise to say "peripheral" hardware. For basic hardware, such as what kind of
CPU you want to use, Linux knocks the others dead.
And of course, word is that W2K is far behind even Linux in peripheral hardware
support right now.
> * No MS Office support (Staroffice and WP Office are both great but without
> MS Office, many corps won't switch)
Many of us count this as a blessing:
o buying MS Office puts you on an upgrade treadmill;
o running MS Office leaves you open to Virus Bearing Script programs.
o MS Office is, in essence, fiddleware. I have only ever seen one Word
document that actually looked professional; most are filled with features that
should have been left out and omit features that should have been put in. If I
want a nice document, I slam it out with LyX and get a gorgeous document the
first try -- no clicky fiddling around for me, please.
> * Netscape the only reasonably good web browers and many people (including
> me) think Netscape is inferior to IE at this point.
Netscape is possibly the worst application running on Linux. I expect to
convert to Mozilla when the next milestone is released. (You should mention
Mozilla, though like GNOME you should say that it isn't really here yet.)
> * Too many rough edges requiring the user to go to a cryptic text base UI to
> do things (setting up VNC, a DNS, or a mail server tends to be a huge pain
> in the butt for "newbies" compared to a nice slick GUI implementation on
> OS/2, BeOS, Windows, etc.).
I occasionally have to use Windows, and I find it every bit as cryptic as
anything on Linux. And a bigger pain in most cases, since you essentially have
to click all around looking for the One True Button that does what you want.
If you are as familiar with Linux as you are with Windows, you just go straight
to the tool that does the job.
> * Overall lack of polish (WM's tend to have various graphic anamalies such
> as title bar text going over the buttons and other harmless but tell-tale
> signs of lack of attention to detail)
I have honestly never seen any such thing on my system, having used two
different window managers for about a year each. Nor have I ever noticed it
when looking over the shoulder of someone using a different WM.
> * No DDE or OLE (or OpenDOC or SOM) style framework which makes it hard to
> advocate Linux as a good platform to run your applications
> * Application selection is worse than Windows and in many cases OS/2.
> Opensource helps Linux a lot but also hurts it by creating an atmosphere
> that seems hostile to commercial software developers.
Are you certain of that last clause? I would think it's more a matter of
commercial developers wanting to get a good ROI, and therefore being reluctant
to port until their potential Linux userbase is large enough to justify the
effort.
BTW, We've started seeing some ports in the last year or so, and they appear to
be comming more frequently now, though of course still a far cry from what is
being done for Windows.
> Some of my cons are based on perception and maybe not reality.
Same with us, of course!
One issue that I would like to see you mention is the distinction between
deficiencies intrinsic to Linux and those that arise simply from a lack of
vendor support. For example, many drivers are done in spite of the vendors
rather than with their help. If vendors wanted to sell their stuff to Linux
users, and thus started shipping things with Linux drivers like they do for
Windows, then it would be almost impossible to distinguish between the two OSes
in terms of peripheral hardware support. Similarly for applications: the lack
of applications is just a sign that mass-market software houses have not bought
in to Linux yet; it tells you almost nothing about Linux per se.
Good luck with the article,
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:05:32 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Look at Windows. This is a prime example of an environment where micro
> computer paradigms that have survived, not because they are better, but
> it is what people have gotten used to.
>
> Just to name one: drive letters.
> Why does one need drive letters? The only reason they exist is because
> DOS did not have a hierarchical file system until version 2.0. 2.0!!! do
> you believe it?
Drive letters are a convenience today, not a necessity. NT doesn't need
them, since it can work entirely via UNC. Many apps still use them though,
since the majority of non-new users have been educated to use them.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ajn)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: 15 May 2000 06:57:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>2) The action with my mouse is slower but not that big of deal.
>3) Linux does not play with hardware near as good as, at least, MSWindows does.
>Case in point, even though I am successfully using the same hardware with Linux,
>it was not without a fight. I had MINOR struggles with EVERYTHING. I capitalize
>those two words because one is positive and the other negative. Only MINOR
>problems, which is good, it shows Linux is improving in those areas, but
>EVERYTHING required extensive reading and trial and error. Not very good for the
>masses to flock to this OS.
Why should we want the masses to flock to linux? That might suit companies like
Red Hat and Mandrake which aim to make money by selling linux to the general
public, but an OS that tries to do everything for you in a nice little GUI is
going to be another slow, resource-hungry elephant with a obnoxious interface
just like Windows. The day linux becomes like windows with everything hidden
away in binary files, accessible only through some limit GUI tool is the day
I change to FreeBSD.
Install Shield? Control Panel? Bleh! VI is still the ultimate tool for
configuring your system - along with sed, grep, awk and friends.
ajn
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 02:08:22 -0500
Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Look at all the _calls in Linux before you make such a claim.
> >
> > Every OS has undocumented APIs; It's just that you can see Linux'
> > because of open source.
>
> The problem is not with undocumented internal APIs that different parts
> of the OS itself can access. The problem is with "external" APIs that
> are documented only for other product groups within Microsoft.
Something that nobody has yet been able to provide any proof of in any
software MS has written in the last 5 years.
> For instance, if a GUI OS were to provide an API that sped up window
> redraws, but the API were available only to applications written by the
> same company, while competing companies had to roll their own -- and
> suffer performance penalties -- that would be an unfair advantage of the
> type MS is accused of creating.
If. Again, no facts.
------------------------------
From: javelina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: HUMOR: CSMA has the Tholenbot... we should have the Templetonbot. (was
Re: The "outlook" for MS)
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 06:45:25 GMT
Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>That's just it Matt. You never give any facts _to_
>debate. You only give opinions (your own, or others')
>which cannot be debated. How convenient for you.
You denigrate my chosen method of debate in CSMA.
To win a debate utilizing facts is so common, so
been-there done-that. To win a debate without
any facts at all, tis the Holy Grail!
Alas, I must confess that I was not the first to
believe in this method of debate. I was persuaded as
to its elemental beauty first by a WinTroll posting,
"Macs suck! Muhahahahahaha!"
That's when I saw the Light.
Facts are highly overrated. You can touch them, taste
them, feel them, bah! But opinion, even mere whim, ah,
that's the real pixie dust.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Things Linux can't do!
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 23:28:25 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 13 May 2000 10:15:10 GMT,
Full Name, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sat, 13 May 2000 18:51:33 +1000, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>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 ?
>>
>>Sam
>>
>>
>
>LOL!!
>
>We decided to put Linux on a Dell notebook about a month ago. It's
>still not networked. The local Linux experts have ordered another
>PCMCIA net card for it. The funny thing is that the supplied card was
>specifically chosen to be Linux friendly.
>
A little over 18 months ago my wife bought a laptop for her work, Initially
it was a linux/Win98 dual boot, but windows was too much trouble, so it was
eventually linux only. The only problem (linux wise) with it was the internal
winmodem, which is basically non-functional in linux. The rest of the system
works great, I bought a non-name 10-100 BaseT PC card for it, and under linux,
just boot up, insert card, and you're good to go, windows, while it _eventually_
accepted the card was a struggle from start to finish, and pulling the card
whilst in windows caused all kinds of troubles. pulling the card and replacing
it with a diff ethernet card, never worked in windows, linux did it without
a hitch. So I guess my anecdote cancesl out yours huh...
>I must admit, when I see them hunched over the notebook typing away at
>the keyboard trying to get the thing work they do have expressions on
>their faces like they have pineapples up their arses.
>
>
>
--
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
******************************
