Linux-Advocacy Digest #694, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 03:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: vote on MS split-up (Smitty)
Re: X Windows must DIE!!! (Drew Roedersheimer)
Re: Linux good choice for home desktop. (Terry Porter)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?) (WickedDyno)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (Terry Porter)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (ajam)
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition (ajam)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (David T. Blake)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ (Marty)
Re: vote on MS split-up (ajam)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Terry Porter)
Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs (Pete Goodwin)
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Peter T. Breuer")
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Terry Porter)
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX (Terry Porter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 04:30:46 GMT
Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > [1] Having two separate "enlightenment" and "enlightenment-nosound"
> > packages that differ only in their dependencies is, in my opinion,
> > broken packaging.
> You *do* comprehend the concept of virtual packages, don't you?
If it means that my opinion is wrong, then no, I do not.
> (That is, `this is not a bug. This is a feature.')
I'd drop the sound-based dependencies from E - because if E works
without them, they obviously aren't required - and then suggest the
packages that differ between the two.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: Smitty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:35:28 -0400
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> Gerald Willmann wrote:
>
> > CNN is conducting a poll whether MS should be split up and if yes into how
> > many parts. Please take a minute to vote for a good cause.
> >
> > -> http://cnnfn.com/poll/microsoft_breakup.html
> >
> > thanks, Gerald
> >
> > --
>
> Justice is not the product of opinion polls. Besides, I want
> Microsoft destroyed by Linux, not the DOJ.
>
> Colin Day
Hear! Hear! Crush them in the market place where they live!
Smitty
------------------------------
From: Drew Roedersheimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: X Windows must DIE!!!
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 00:07:26 -0400
I *echo* that
-DR
Richard Crossley wrote:
> >
> > I still laugh at some of my friends who upgraded from win95 to win98se and
> > discovered that (a) they got no new features that they actually used,
> > (b) they got a less stable system which rarely gets past a weeks uptime,
> > and often goes comatose if left idle overnight (c) they had basically paid
> > to have the splash screen number increased by 3.
> >
>
> I have Win98se and Linux on the same PC. Guess which is easier and more
> automated to setup. It isn't the one with 98 percent market share :) Win 98
> keeps prompting for stuff during the upgrade. Press a key here, do something
> there. Linux is nice and easy. Enter all the details, press OK and have a
> beer. Nice and easy.
>
> Richard
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux good choice for home desktop.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2000 13:06:59 +0800
On Thu, 25 May 2000 10:15:04 -0400, Dave Rolfe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Frank Rizzo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote on Wed, 24 May 2000 19:04:45 GMT
>> <hJVW4.38357$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> It depends on the user.
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>
>I agree! I know some folks that think windoze is impossibly difficult to
>use. My suspicion is that about 15% of computers in homes just sit there
>being unused because the owner cannot figure out how to do anything with
>the machine.
I'd think that figure was more like 50% ;-)
>And of course, I know folks who have 3 or 4 operating systems installed.
>But, I do think that linux is getting very close to being in the ball
>park for many users. The install procedure and customization stuff is
>still a tad difficult ... but how many folks actually install windows?
>If you bought a machine set up as mine is now, I think you could use it
>without much trouble.
>For myself, the "killer app" was lyx! From time to time I write some
>technical stuff, and nothing I know of comes close to what lyx can do.
>But that is me.
Lyx is a godsend for me also, tech writers heaven, free and way fast, no
crashes, totally 100% dependable.
I know exactly how you feel.
While we are discussing doc/word processors, the thing I miss about Word docs
is that Lyx docs dont have passwords, fax contents and other interesting stuff
imbedded in them as Word docs do. "Strings Word.doc > Word.txt" has made for
a lot of interesting reading over the years for me ;-)
>
>Dave
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 23 hours 52 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary
Split Save It?)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 01:09:29 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>ZnU wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > Edwin wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > > > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > [snip]>
>> > > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
>> > >
>> > > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially dead. Move
>> > > along
>> > > folks. No thread to see here.
>> >
>> > If I make a silly statement, llike "if someon mentions Hitler,
>> > the US dollar has no value" will you start insisting on payment
>> > only in gold and silver coin?
>> >
>> >
>> > You speak of Godwin's COMMENT as if it's the Law of Conservation of
>> > Energy.
>>
>> Anyway, we've discovered
>
>Who is "we"?
As has been discussed elsewhere, "we" is us.
>> that the _real_ way to end a thread instantly
>
>How instantly is "instantly"?
Depends.
>> (or at least all useful discussion on one)
>
>Illogical, as discussion (useful or otherwise) occurs in a thread, not
>"on"
>it.
Incorrect.
>> is to turn it into a Tholenbot thread ;-)
>
>Evidence, please.
Unnecessary. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument? Why, nowhere
to be seen!
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2000 13:13:52 +0800
On Thu, 25 May 2000 02:11:12 GMT, win4win <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sorry Unix/Linux geeks.. but Windows Wins..
In the crash, cost$$ and virus competitions, certainly.
>I just installed Red Splat
>Linux and really had to brush the dust off the Unix memories to get it
>running.
Sorry to hear your memory isnt up to scratch.
> I'm so sure that your average user can wade through a Linux
>install and deal with all those Unix-ie messages! Not.
Ahh Mr Average again, do you know he cant even upgrade Win95 to Win98 ?
> Windows has
>NOTHING to fear until Linux can overcome its Unix-ness.
What a load of drivel, please try harder Wintroll.
Your troll score is 1/100.
>
>Phtttt.
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 23 hours 52 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: ajam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 01:58:15 -0400
So the programmers of the code that they are selling are getting a pay
back?! I don't think so!!! They were the ones who did it expecting nothing
in return, and corporations are making money out of it. Note that in part
that is part of getting Linux ahead. That is, by getting corps envolved.
But 2500 bucks for code they did not write!? Okay, RedHat has really helped
the development of Linux in many ways. That is true! But in comparison to
what people all around the world have done, they have not done zilch, and
they are charging every day more for stuff that other people wrote. They,
like other distros, started charging about $20-30; then $40; then $70; then
they went the M$ way with different versions (i.e. Linux RH Professional,
Enterprise, ...). And now a version of (free) Linux for $2500!!!! No, if
this not a rip off, then I don't know what is!
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 19:20:44 -0400, ajam wrote:
> >I wonder what people think about RedHat charging $2500 for its RedHat
> >6.2 Enterprise Edition distro. Are they out of their minds? What a rip
> >off? That's $2500 for what? Motif? That could be $100 - 200, then
> >what else? I cannot believe how selfish these people have become!
> >
> >Comments!?
>
> u could argue that their prices are excessive, but I would hardly call
> paying programmers to write free software "selfish". They are just trying
> to make a decent living writing free software, and I don't think it's
> decent to bash them for doing that.
>
> However, I'm not about to rush out and buy their "enterprise edition" any
> time soon.
>
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
From: ajam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 02:09:54 -0400
Point well taken! And at first sight, I completely agree; but you have to
look a little bit further to realize that this is only the beginning. I
remember when not that long ago they cranked up the price of their distro to
around $70. Well, they have one at one hundred something. How many
commercial applications have you seen lately that say something like RedHat
Ready? Just wait one more year or so!
Christopher Browne wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when ajam would say:
> >I wonder what people think about RedHat charging $2500 for its RedHat
> >6.2 Enterprise Edition distro. Are they out of their minds? What a rip
> >off? That's $2500 for what? Motif? That could be $100 - 200, then
> >what else? I cannot believe how selfish these people have become!
> >
> >Comments!?
>
> I consider this a non-issue.
>
> a) It's $2500 for largely a service offering.
>
> b) There are still $2 Red Hat 6.2 CDs.
>
> c) If RHAT can convince some people that it is worth paying them
> $2500 for [whatever is in the box], then this occurs because
> the parties involved consider [what's in the box] to be worth
> _more than $2500_. [Basic economics: You pay $2500 for something
> because you value that something more than you value the $2500 in
> your hand...]
>
> I won't be paying RHAT the $2.5K; surely you won't; if someone else
> considers what they get to be worth the $2.5K, then there will be the
> happy result that everyone will have some degree of satisfaction.
>
> If $2500 is regarded as _too much_ for the Enterprise Edition, then
> it _simply won't sell_.
>
> Life is too short to get disgusted over such a non-issue.
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
> "NT 5.0 is the last nail in the Unix coffin. Interestingly, Unix isn't
> in the coffin... It's wondering what the heck is sealing itself into a
> wooden box 6 feet underground..." -- Jason McMullan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David T. Blake)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 24 May 2000 21:48:30 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
George Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 23 May 2000 13:07:01 GMT, David T. Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> The right is non-exlusive. That means everyone can get that right. I
> >> think TrollTech is just trying to prevent forking of the Qt library
> >> here.
I did not write this. Please set your attributions properly.
> Forking is allowed. Distribution via patches from pristine
> source - just like what dpkg and rpm source files can do for you.
> Is that too fucking hard?
You specifically MUST distribute Trolltech's version of QT along
with whatever patches you distribute with them. That hardly allows
forking. You may not think of using patch as much of an
impediment to acceptance, but it is sufficient to prevent 99.9%
of end users from EVER using a fully functional port. It prevents
forking, plain and simple.
Note followups.
--
Dave Blake
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 06:14:43 GMT
WickedDyno wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >ZnU wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> > Edwin wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Loren Petrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > > news:8gcd95$cd4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > > > Bill Altenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > [snip]>
> >> > > > Much like Adolf Hitler's policy of never retreating,
> >> > >
> >> > > According to Goodwin's law, this thread is officially dead. Move
> >> > > along
> >> > > folks. No thread to see here.
> >> >
> >> > If I make a silly statement, llike "if someon mentions Hitler,
> >> > the US dollar has no value" will you start insisting on payment
> >> > only in gold and silver coin?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You speak of Godwin's COMMENT as if it's the Law of Conservation of
> >> > Energy.
> >>
> >> Anyway, we've discovered
> >
> >Who is "we"?
>
> As has been discussed elsewhere, "we" is us.
Evidence, please. Where is "elsewhere"?
> >> that the _real_ way to end a thread instantly
> >
> >How instantly is "instantly"?
>
> Depends.
Having specificity problems, WickedDyno?
> >> (or at least all useful discussion on one)
> >
> >Illogical, as discussion (useful or otherwise) occurs in a thread, not
> >"on" it.
>
> Incorrect.
Yet another example of your pontification.
> >> is to turn it into a Tholenbot thread ;-)
> >
> >Evidence, please.
>
> Unnecessary.
Typical unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
> Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
Open your eyes, WickedDyno.
> Why, nowhere to be seen!
How ironic, coming from someone who is nowhere to be seen.
> Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Irrelevant.
> SCSI is *NOT* magic.
Yet another example of your pontification.
> There are *fundamental technical reasons*
Such as?
> why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat to your SCSI chain now
> and then.
How often is "now and then"?
> -- John Woods
You are presupposing the existence of "*fundamental technical reasons*".
------------------------------
From: ajam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: vote on MS split-up
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 02:30:05 -0400
Gerald Willmann wrote:
> CNN is conducting a poll whether MS should be split up and if yes into how
> many parts. Please take a minute to vote for a good cause.
>
> -> http://cnnfn.com/poll/microsoft_breakup.html
>
> thanks, Gerald
>
> --
This is like the Soviet Union. Now that it is not a direct threat, we have a
zillion people to worry about. Regardless, if it is M$ or someone else, you
always are going to have someone controlling most of the market. I prefer
to deal with an enemy that I know well, than one that I don't plus a zillion
creeping everywhere! My personal opinion is that M$ should be nailed big
time, and regulated left and right, but a break up really won't solve much!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2000 14:53:08 +0800
On Sat, 20 May 2000 00:31:39 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hey is "Steve/Heather/Keys88" the wintroll back with a new identity ?
>Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
>Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
No need to ask Wintroll, people are trying Linux every day, and usually they
LOVE it.
>
>Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use.
Not everyone uses Windows, Wintroll.
> A current
>edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates.
Yeah run out and pay lots of $$$ to appease this Wintroll, makes perfect sense?
Do you get a comission on Windows sales "simple_simon" ?
> This is a
>favorite trick of the LinoScrews, to compare a current version of
>Linux to an outdated version of Windows. Terry "The porter" Porter is
>an expert at this method.
I'm using a 1997 version of Linux himself, Redhat4.2.
>From /proc/version:-
.............................................................................
Linux version 2.0.36 (root@gronk) (gcc version 2.7.2.1) #2 Tue Dec 15 00:27:50
WST 1998
............................................................................
Talk about a bullshit artist, anyone who believes a word of this Wintrolls
tripe, is truely missled.
>
>
>Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
>back here and post your experiences with Linux.
They do all the time, rave reviews are common for Linux.
>
>
>If you like Linux, great, you have found a new life. If you hate
>Linux, let us know why.
If you like Linux, your mind is probably free of blinkers, unlike
"simple_simon" the Wintroll.
>
>Try Linux and see for yourself....
They do all the time, Wintroll. Years before you started posting people were
trying Linux, I was one, and in 1997 I went Linux full time, sold my Win95 CD
and have never looked back.
Linux rules, you sorry excuse for a Wintroll.
>
>Simon
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 4 days 23 hours 52 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Will Linux run MSDOS programs
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 06:58:38 GMT
hauck[at]codem{dot}com (Bob Hauck) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>However, DOSEMU will run most 32-bit DOS apps, such as those that use the
>Rational, Phar Lap, or GO32 DOS extenders. It runs Borland C++ 3.x and
>DJGPP just fine for example.
These are all a bit old now. Borland C++ V5.0 was the last one before
Borland C++ Builder took over. It generates WIN32 console applications and
these can't run under Linux? Still playing catchup I see.
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: 25 May 2000 19:34:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Mark Wilden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:
:> I'm afraid that's just not true. About 80% of driver changes are
:> reactions to kernel changes (this is different for stable kernels, but
: Sorry, by 'current build', I mean the current build with only the
: changes you've made. If you've made changes only because the kernel has
: changed, then I can see that would make it harder to do unit testing.
Those are indeed the only changes I hope to make in my drivers. But mine
aren't hardware drivers. For real hardware drivers, there are also
hardware foibles to react to. But even those aren't immune to changes
in the rest of the software system when apparently _nothing_ has
changed. Something else suddenly taking a favourite interrupt or
dwelling too long with irq's off, for example, due to the time of day.
Yes, I did have hardware that wouldn't work on thursdays ... I think
we narrowed that one down to an interaction between the bridging
spanning tree pulses at boot up, the powerhub configurable routers,
our 3c509's in promiscuous mode, and the protocol used by the
accounting people on the next subnet along to transfer their M$
wordcharts, or whatever they used.
:> There isn't one. There is no agreed interface, even. Linux insists on that.
I meant to say "Linus insiste on that".
: I don't mean to sound flippant, but if a piece of code doesn't have a
: 'contract' ('I will do this if you give me that') then it doesn't have a
: spec.
Absolutley so. I am doing my best to do some formal specification of
parts of the kernel. The real problem is that it changes too fast for
me to understand it, let alone describe it.
If it doesn't have a spec, then I can see that it would be hard to
: create a unit test for it. And if you can't properly test your work, I
: think the Linux team deserves even more credit for the results it has
: achieved than it already does! :)
: Nevertheless, if 'Linux' insists that there is no agreed interface, it
I meant "Linus". It's an engineering decision intended to previde code
becoming too stiff and old. Any kernel interface can change anytime.
I'm still working on understanding how I'm supposed to work the buffer
code in 2.2, as opposed to 2.0. which I had pat.
: sounds to me that more work is being created than necessary. But
: whatever works, I suppose...
: Your test has to take that into account. Look, the only purpose of unit
: tests is to make it easier to do the system test. If you can't do unit
I agree. However, the problem is that there are no rules. If you don't
like a bit of kernel behaviour becuase it shows up a bug in your
application, you can always hope to sneak in a kernel patch that bugs
the kernel so that your application behaves right (I bet realaudio
wanted to try that!). Then let everybody else work out what's going on!
:-)
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: 25 May 2000 19:41:07 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 25 May 2000 04:54:09 GMT,
: Peter T. Breuer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: brought forth the following words...:
:>In comp.os.linux.misc Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: Sure, you can replicate the functionality in RPM or Deb easily enough, but
:>: not with just the ./configure;make;make install mentioned. (At least not
:>: without the connivence of the writer of the ./configure script.) RPM allready
:>
:>setenv INSTALL "pkginstall install -c"
: Having logged it, what tool do you use to check before removing/upgrading
: something?
less and grep.
: (this is slackware you are discussing, right? )
Yep. You can also do a dry run with removepkg or installpkg and the right
flag. I don't bother since I'm hardly likely to remove libc. I do have to
keep remembering not to remove tk/tcl 4.0/7.1 4.1/7.2 etc. etc though!
I.e. there is a nonzero probability that I will upgrade+remove an old
package which will leave some other old utility high and dry, leaning
on nothing. But it's very unlikely, as I "know what I'm doing". I
wouldn't do a remove without looking hard for binaries that used its
dynamic libraries. Meta-compilers have got me on occasion though.
Peter
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2000 15:02:04 +0800
On Sat, 20 May 2000 03:54:39 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Total investment over 5 years:
So you had Win95 in 1995 ?
Odd I thought it came out later than that ?
Whats the Total cost Wintroll ?
Dos, Win3.1, Win3.11, Win95, etc
Or when did you start pirating ?
>
>$89.00 Windows 98
>Nothing for Windows 98SE (online update)
>$149 Win 2000
>
>So that's $238 over 5 years which amounts to $47.00 per year.
My cost has been $6.50 for the Redhat4.2 Cheapbytes CD over 3 years, thats,
umm $2.16 per year. But wait ... there is more, that CD has installed 5
machines, so that makes the cost $0.43, YES, 43 CENTS per machine per year!
>
>I have spent far more on Linux distributions, books and such in that
>span of time and gotten far less USEFUL stuff.
Bullshit, Win98 didnt even have IP masq. You still dont have *multi-user*,
remote admin, stability, free apps etc.
Usefull ???
Write.exe, Internet Exploder, Regedit
Hahahahahahahahah!
>
>
>On Sat, 20 May 2000 01:12:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 20 May 2000 00:31:39 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
>>>Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
>>>
>>>Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
>>>edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
>>
>> ...the only catch with this is the $$$'s. It costs good
>> money to be up to date with Windows, unless you pirate.
>>
>>[deletia]
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 5 days 1 hour 52 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2000 15:04:41 +0800
On Tue, 23 May 2000 00:57:51 -0500, Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Tonight I set up an email server in about 45 mins.
>> Oh yes, I'm running linux on a command promt only.
>> Linux is easy to user, extreamly versitle, and fun. windows is
>> expensive bloated, and
>
>I'm all for linux
Then try using it instead of Win98.
>but at least I can spell unlike this person.
So where shall we send the medal, pedantic speller ?
> Go back to
>school.
Piss off, net spelling cop.
<plonk>
>
>>
>>
>> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 5 days 1 hour 52 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
