Linux-Advocacy Digest #705, Volume #26 Fri, 26 May 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Nix)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux (Nix)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Mig Mig)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Mig Mig)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Saddest anti-Linux site on the web? ("Mike Lacey")
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome ("Mike Lacey")
Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition ("Mike Lacey")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Wally Bass)
Re: democracy? (Salvador Peralta)
Re: democracy? (Harlan Grove)
Re: who is linux really hurting the most (Salvador Peralta)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Josiah Fizer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
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 22:29:13 +0100
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need ./configure --prefix=/usr --sysconfdir=/etc usually. If I am
This is what a site-config file is for, making `usual' options vanish.
> overwriting a system installed version, that is. Followed by
> a find /usr /etc -type mount -cnewer . > /tmp/file_list, and some
Again I say `this is what GNU stow is for'.
I have --prefix=/usr in my site-config file, but I *install* into
/usr/packages.bin/{package}/{version} and stow from there into /usr.
After all, --prefix at configure time specifies where the compiled code
looks for its data, not necessarily the directory where it is
installed. (Sites that use AFS or Coda are *very* used to this kind of
hack.)
> : The point of automation is to avoid such manual futzing.
>
> If I could be bothered to type the above into a command, I would.
Site-config files. Site-config files. Site-config files. Set the
CONFIG_SITE environment variable and write one, as documented in the
autoconf manual.
e.g. (this is mine)
#
# config.site - this file is run by configure automatically
# to set default values of environment variables
test "$prefix" = NONE && prefix=/usr
# esperi has little memory so optimize for size there.
if [ "$(hostname)" = "esperi" ]; then
SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS=-Os
else
SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS=-O2
fi
test -z "$sysconfdir" && sysconfdir='/etc'
test -z "$CC" && CC=gcc
# flip on gcc-2.95 and egcs-specific flags.
if [ `$CC --version` = 2.95.2 -o `$CC --version | cut -d- -f1` = egcs ]; then
test -z "$CFLAGS" && CFLAGS="$SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer
-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -march=$(uname -m) -mwide-multiply -pipe"
test -z "$FFLAGS" && FFLAGS="$SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer
-fno-exceptions -fno-rtti -march=$(uname -m) -mwide-multiply -pipe"
if [ `$CC --version` = 2.95.2 ]; then
test -z "$CXXFLAGS" && CXXFLAGS="$SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer
-fpermissive -march=$(uname -m) -mwide-multiply -pipe"
else
test -z "$CXXFLAGS" && CXXFLAGS="$SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer
-march=$(uname -m) -mwide-multiply -pipe"
fi
else # antique gcc
test -z "$CFLAGS" && CFLAGS="$SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer
-mwide-multiply -pipe"
test -z "$FFLAGS" && FFLAGS="$SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer
-mwide-multiply -pipe"
test -z "$CXXFLAGS" && CXXFLAGS="$SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS -fomit-frame-pointer
-mwide-multiply -pipe"
fi
test -z "$OBJCFLAGS" && OBJCFLAGS="$CFLAGS"
unset SITE_INTERNAL_OPTFLAGS
# Give Autoconf 2.x generated configure scripts a shared default
# cache file for feature test results, host-specific. Kill this if
# feature tests go wrong.
if [ "$CC" = "gcc" ]; then
if [ "$cache_file" = ./config.cache -o "$cache_file" = config.cache ]; then
cache_file="${HOME}/.configure/config.cache.$(hostname)"
fi
fi
Bingo. That sets sysconfdir and prefix, points the cache files at a
single per-host persistent cache file, and sets the compilation flags to
a value dependent upon the version of GCC and the hostname, and does it
all in an overrideable fashion.
> But neither my brain nor my memory is sufficiently weak to encourage
> me to do so. If some day I forget, it would take me all of ten minutes
> to work it out again, and maybe I'd learn something new. Really
> I should save the config log. That would be handy.
No need ;)
--
`Q: Why did they deprecate a.out support in linux?
A: Because a nasty coff is bad for your elf.' --- James Simmons
------------------------------
From: Nix <$}xinix{$@esperi.demon.co.uk>
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 23:15:18 +0100
David Steuber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about software that makes system calls in
> Linux? Must that also be GPL?
No, because the license for Linux explicitly states, right at the top
: NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
: services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
: of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
You are just trolling, aren't you? Or did you really not even glance at
the license before coming out with that statement?
--
`Q: Why did they deprecate a.out support in linux?
A: Because a nasty coff is bad for your elf.' --- James Simmons
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:15:16 +0200
Mig Mig wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig Mig) wrote in <8ghjlu$450$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > >I dont believe you.. We have done a dusin or so installs of Mandrake,
> > >Redhat and Corel on different machines and never encountered a problem.
> >
> > Why don't you believe me? Why should I lie about this?
>
> Simply because every installation i have done since RH 5.1 have not given
> me any problems at all.. i have done many of those on RH , Mandrake and a
> few Corel Linux... Not one time was there a problem...and this even on a
> network. So allow me to be skeptical
>
> Try that with Windows!
Maybe i should add that the main purpose was to test the installation and
networking and if the main hardware worked with Linux . Didnt really use
much time testing soundcards, printers and such.
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 23:18:14 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> LIAR........
>
> Check the setup groups and see how many folks complain about EXACTLY
> what he did...
>
> You are in denial...
No i was not in denial... and he just admitted that the problem was his
own error by installing linx4win and not a real install of Mandrake.
Even if he was right then it would not be Linux's problem but the problem
of the hardware vendors. Its simple.. never aquire hardware that cannot be
used properly in Linux. I will certainly not!
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 00:06:17 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I dont believe you.. We have done a dusin or so installs of Mandrake,
> >Redhat and Corel on different machines and never encountered a problem.
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 21:10:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[ snip ]
> I submit that the rest of your argument falls apart, because it's
> based entirely on this misguided notion of yours that Windows must
> embody only the academic definition of the term "operating system".
Sorry, just a small rant.
Apparently, I have to have internet explorer whatever with win 98
or whatever.
I hate that. It is infuriating, especially after visiting Bills
page and reading speeches saying that its _good_ for me. There,
sure I'm not debating intelligently, I'm whining, and I hope the
DOJ spanks M$ good, but there it is nonetheless.
Here's a few questions, why can't M$ give up a bit of dominance
and reintroduce some choice, modularity, and compatibility into
the market place. How can Bill honestly think he doesn't have enough
money? Why is my lack of choice so important to him to achieve?
Why did M$ have to push so hard even when it was so obvious that
they lead the market? Why did M$ so completely flaunt their contempt
of US law that they ended up where they're at now? What is so damn
bad about making IE optional?
What is so wrong with a free market that Bill despises so much?
How can Bill be so arrogant that he feels that he alone knows what
is _my optimal computing experience_? Why did M$ feel they had
to basically STEAL market share back in the days of MS-DOS? WHAT
THE HELL'S SO WRONG WITH COMPETING ON TECHNICAL MERIT?
Think about it, the current computer market is now so totally
hosed, NT/W2K's greatest threat is from a bunch of techno-hippies
with a clone of one of the older OS's, and they have to _give_
it away. Some free market eh?
Anyways, its basically over. We're here where we are at, I lose work in
Office whatever, deal with the crashes, get attacked by the latest
bug/virus/exploit, etc, watch my 'computing experience' hand me
'illegal operation' notices and go home, have a beer, and hope Bill's
greed and thoughtlessness brings him his just reward, a sound
buggering by Janet Reno and pals.
Ok, rant off, carry on with your 'advocacy'.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Lacey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Saddest anti-Linux site on the web?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 21:36:39 +0100
"Cannot find server or DNS Error"
Ahhh - what a shame.....
"Dr. Strangelove" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just take a look at this site, it is clearly the saddest anti-Linux
> site on the web, made by a 14 year old spotty geek:
>
> http://www.startnet-uk.com
>
------------------------------
From: "Mike Lacey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 21:54:48 +0100
<grin>
*something's* obviously bothering you simon - perhaps you'd be better off
going away for a while and sorting out your personal problems -- poor baby
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux has the "suck-factor" to overcome.
>
> Like the commercial says "Just one look, that's all it took"
>
> And bye bye Linux.....
>
> The more folks that try it the more pissed off users there are, who
> tell other users, who tell other users and so forth.
>
> Linux will be dead in 2 years unless it does something dramatic, and
> that is highly unlikely.
> I mean they can't even give the garbage away...
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 25 May 2000 02:11:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (win4win)
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry Unix/Linux geeks.. but Windows Wins.. I just installed Red Splat
> >Linux and really had to brush the dust off the Unix memories to get it
> >running. I'm so sure that your average user can wade through a Linux
> >install and deal with all those Unix-ie messages! Not. Windows has
> >NOTHING to fear until Linux can overcome its Unix-ness.
> >
> >Phtttt.
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "Mike Lacey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: RedHat 6.2 Enterprise Edition
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 21:44:47 +0100
Errrm - Good - is what I think
I have more than a few troubles with the image of Linux at work - anything
that makes it appear more business like definitely has its good side.
If *all* versions of RH Linux were going to cost 2.5k that would be
obviously silly - but that's not what they're doing. As someone else in this
thread has commented - you can still get the lo-cost CD's from RH
Mike
"ajam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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 $100 - 200, then
> what else? I cannot believe how selfish these people have become!
>
> Comments!?
>
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:28:43 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ snip ]
>
> > I submit that the rest of your argument falls apart, because it's
> > based entirely on this misguided notion of yours that Windows must
> > embody only the academic definition of the term "operating system".
>
> Sorry, just a small rant.
>
> Apparently, I have to have internet explorer whatever with win 98
> or whatever.
>
> I hate that. It is infuriating, especially after visiting Bills
> page and reading speeches saying that its _good_ for me. There,
> sure I'm not debating intelligently, I'm whining, and I hope the
> DOJ spanks M$ good, but there it is nonetheless.
>
> Here's a few questions, why can't M$ give up a bit of dominance
> and reintroduce some choice, modularity, and compatibility into
> the market place. How can Bill honestly think he doesn't have enough
> money? Why is my lack of choice so important to him to achieve?
>
> Why did M$ have to push so hard even when it was so obvious that
> they lead the market? Why did M$ so completely flaunt their contempt
> of US law that they ended up where they're at now? What is so damn
> bad about making IE optional?
>
> What is so wrong with a free market that Bill despises so much?
> How can Bill be so arrogant that he feels that he alone knows what
> is _my optimal computing experience_? Why did M$ feel they had
> to basically STEAL market share back in the days of MS-DOS? WHAT
> THE HELL'S SO WRONG WITH COMPETING ON TECHNICAL MERIT?
>
> Think about it, the current computer market is now so totally
> hosed, NT/W2K's greatest threat is from a bunch of techno-hippies
> with a clone of one of the older OS's, and they have to _give_
> it away. Some free market eh?
>
> Anyways, its basically over. We're here where we are at, I lose work in
> Office whatever, deal with the crashes, get attacked by the latest
> bug/virus/exploit, etc, watch my 'computing experience' hand me
> 'illegal operation' notices and go home, have a beer, and hope Bill's
> greed and thoughtlessness brings him his just reward, a sound
> buggering by Janet Reno and pals.
>
> Ok, rant off, carry on with your 'advocacy'.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
So uninstall it (gasp). Despite what MS wants you to think, you can remove
IE and use the onle Windows 3.1 file manager.
------------------------------
From: wallyb6@nospam (Wally Bass)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 21:36:19 GMT
On 26 May 2000 14:53:56, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>On 26 May 2000 18:07:47, Wally Bass wrote:
>>Now lets look at operating systems. I used to buy my operating
>>system for $60, and it took about 3 seconds to boot up. Now I
>>buy W2K for $300, and it takes 3 minutes to boot on my system
>>which is 1000 times faster than the one where my old OS would
>>boot in 3 seconds. On top of that, it fills up 500MB of my
>>disk, largely with redundant junk that I don't want, which
>>costs me significantly in time every time I (a) back up, (b) do
>>operating system upgrades/maintenance, or (c) have reason to
>>investigate the operating system structure for some reason.
>What does any of this prove? Sometimes it just comes down to
>"you can't always get what you want". Microsoft believes that
>the configuration they provide suits some section of the market.
>It is their product to design as they wish.
It is indeed all right for Microsoft to design whatever they
want, and it is indeed all right if I can't get what I want,
**IF** I can't get what I want because nobody choses to make what
I want. It's **NOT** all right if I can't get what I want because
a company with monopoly power used that power to put the
companies out of business which made, or might have made, the
product that I want, using illegal business practices which were
specifically anti-competitive and anti-consumer. That's what
Microsoft has done, that's why they are in trouble, and that's
why Joel Kline is obliged to make a case against them in court.
>From other articles in this group, I am aware of the fact that
you just can't get it though your head that this is what this is
all about, but it **IS** what it is all about.
>If anything, the amount of work they've put into it shows that
>they're *NOT* just resting on their laurels as is so typical of
>real monopolies.
I don't see any such property of "real monopolies." IBM was a
monopoly... look at their patent porfolio some time if you don't
think they continued to inovate (disk drives, MR heads, floppy
disks, are all IBM inventions, for example). (And, I'll give you
a clue: without those inventions, Microsoft would be nowhere and
would probably not even exist.)
The IBM monopoly, like the MS monopoly didn't result in lack of
invocation. But, because IBM had too easy a time making money,
the IBM company got bloated with employees (which they eventually
had to 'downsize' when the monopoly ended), and the IBM products
got bloated in terms of complexity and cost, more-or-less because
of the excess of employees.
That's pretty much what has happened at Microsoft. W2K is about
10 times the installed size of NT4... the function in my view is
only marginally increased, and much of the new function (the
Plug-and-Pray implementation, for example) I would rather be
without. But, I would defend their right to make W2K anyway they
chose so long as they don't use their monopoly power to kill
other companies which might make something which I like better. I
repeat -- (if only because you don't seem to hear very well)
destroying other companies by illegal and anti-competative
business practices IS what this is all about.
>You're on the wrong track here, Wally. I didn't call Joel Klein
>an asshole to prove anything. It was just an observation.
I knew that. I also know that pigs fly. I'll bet it was even just
a RANDOM observation.
On Fri, 26 May 2000 11:09:53 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (elsewhere in this thread):
>... Now I realize that you and your fellow McNealy suck buddies
>will never have the decency to admit that publically. But you
>can start by admitting it to yourselves.
You're pretty big on this "honesty to ones self" thing, aren't
you. Ah, er, Pot... Kettle... Black.
Wally Bass
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:49:33 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The U.S. is a federal republic, which is why the preamble to the FEDERAL
constitution contains the phrase "... and to the REPUBLIC ...".
Democratically elected representatives do not possess the full power of
government, which would be the case if the U.S. were truly a
representative democracy. Technically speaking, citizens of the U.S. do
not elect the president (the electoral college does, and for example,
truman was elected with fewer popular votes than dewey had), nor do we
elect other members of the executive branch, or any members of the
federal judiciary.
Mark Wilden wrote:
>
> Salvador Peralta wrote:
> >
> > let's remember that the United States is not now, nor has it ever been a
> > democracy.
>
> Yes it is. It's a representative democracy. The people do rule, through
> their elected officials (in theory, at least).
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: Harlan Grove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: democracy?
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 14:42:41 -0700
In article <392eb767$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Francis Van
Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Gerald Willmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
>
>The results of these MS breakup polls (consistently 2/3
>against) raise some interesting questions about the
>implementation of democracy (in this case in the USA).
>Why is it that the opinion of the man in the street
>doesn't matter (because they're stupid, stupid! (?)) and
>why is it that one single person (the judge) is to make
>the decision? Shouldn't there be at least a panel or a
>jury?
Majority rule doesn't always achieve just results. It's
quite likely there would have been an absolute majority in
favor of lynching in the southern states in the 1920's.
Should that have made the practice legal? So, yes, indeed,
there are often times in which the man in the street is
stupid (or shortsighted, or biggotted).
Single judges try cases of fact in the US. That this should
be so in antitrust cases (or, indeed, in most cases not
involving individual persons as defendants) is unfortunate.
However, there'd have to be major structural changes to US
civil procedure to alter this, and the US public - rightly
or wrongly - is very unlikely to spend any time or effort
understanding this issue much less forcing such changes.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web
Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
------------------------------
From: Salvador Peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: who is linux really hurting the most
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:04:20 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
abraxas wrote:
> Oh really? Which ones? I wonder if you can find me a "linux solution"
> which will cover our quad e420r (quad procs a piece), running in
> cluster, each dealing with a 3.5 gig in-memory dynamic database?
Are you simply talking about comparable functionality? If so, how about
RedHat 6.2 enterprise running Oracle? Up to 8 processors. Access to 4gb
RAM. Supports > 2 gig file size.
http://www.redhat.com/products/linux_oracle/
--
Salvador Peralta
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.la-online.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 22:00:49 GMT
On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:28:43 -0700, Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
>> Anyways, its basically over. We're here where we are at, I lose work in
>> Office whatever, deal with the crashes, get attacked by the latest
>> bug/virus/exploit, etc, watch my 'computing experience' hand me
>> 'illegal operation' notices and go home, have a beer, and hope Bill's
>> greed and thoughtlessness brings him his just reward, a sound
>> buggering by Janet Reno and pals.
>>
>> Ok, rant off, carry on with your 'advocacy'.
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>> Before you buy.
>
>So uninstall it (gasp). Despite what MS wants you to think, you can remove
>IE and use the onle Windows 3.1 file manager.
What do you think that statement proves?
It only supports his rant. You are either given the choice between
shovelware or a relatively crippled and ancient (abandoned) interface. It
also highlights the fact that interfaces in Windows aren't quite as seamless
as some would have you believe.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 15:04:32 -0700
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Fri, 26 May 2000 14:28:43 -0700, Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [deletia]
> >> Anyways, its basically over. We're here where we are at, I lose work in
> >> Office whatever, deal with the crashes, get attacked by the latest
> >> bug/virus/exploit, etc, watch my 'computing experience' hand me
> >> 'illegal operation' notices and go home, have a beer, and hope Bill's
> >> greed and thoughtlessness brings him his just reward, a sound
> >> buggering by Janet Reno and pals.
> >>
> >> Ok, rant off, carry on with your 'advocacy'.
> >>
> >> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >> Before you buy.
> >
> >So uninstall it (gasp). Despite what MS wants you to think, you can remove
> >IE and use the onle Windows 3.1 file manager.
>
> What do you think that statement proves?
>
> It only supports his rant. You are either given the choice between
> shovelware or a relatively crippled and ancient (abandoned) interface. It
> also highlights the fact that interfaces in Windows aren't quite as seamless
> as some would have you believe.
>
Eh? He was bitching that he is forced to use IE. Removing IE is not that hard. What
you seem to be saying is that he cant remove IE cause then he would be forced to
use somthing other then IE.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
