Linux-Advocacy Digest #58, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 18:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Mig Mig ("Drestin Black")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (mlw)
Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals. (Michael Marion)
Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Tiberious)
Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Tiberious)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux fails - again (Darren Winsper)
Re: iMacs With iTitude (Darren Winsper)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mig Mig
Date: 13 Jun 2000 15:24:07 -0500
David:
Contact me via private e-mail and I can provide Mig's real name and home
address as well as phone number.
db
"David Smyth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've just discovered "Mig Mig" has splashed my name all over this
> newsgroup. He has my e-mail address but did not take the time to send
> me an e-mail to let me know he was attributing all sorts of things to
> me. But I generally discard e-mails from newsgroups so it may be
> possible he e-mailed me and I deleted it without reading. I would
> have e-mailed him this message but he uses the address <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>.
>
> For those of you who have called me a liar perhaps you may like to
> reconsider.
>
> For those of you who believe I am a student (as indicated by "Mig
> Mig") you may like to check
> http://genepi.qimr.edu.au/general/about.html. Toward the bottom of
> the page will be my contact details. This is where I work. I haven't
> been a student for some time.
>
> As for Mr "Full Name" thanks for the e-mail. However, I think it
> might be time for you to stop tormenting these people. Because of the
> "Mig Mig" guy it seems to have gotten out of hand. Its not much fun
> to be called a liar by someone you have never met just because you and
> I have used the same modem bank (along with about 200 other people).
>
> As for "Mig Mig", I've read some of your posts and all I can say is
> that you are a very foolish. They are recorded on dejanews and I'll
> be sending copies of them along with my complaints to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] You'll probably will just switch to another
> ISP. Frankly I don't care.
>
>
> David Smyth
> IT Support
> Queensland Institute of Medical Research
>
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:54:41 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 23:07:08 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Jeff Szarka wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 01:32:52 GMT, Michael Marion
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >You know how the winvocates have been touting the livewire drivers for
> >> >w2k lately? Well it turns out that if I install the new "livewire"
> >> >drivers for my sblive in w2k I get my first taste of the w2k protection
> >> >program (the one that's supposed to save us from "dll hell"). It gives
> >> >you the option of replacing the system files that changed with the
> >> >proper ones, or allowing them to be replaced.. which equates to: you can
> >> >have system stability but not full functionality of your SBLive, or full
> >> >SBLive drivers but not the stability you're used to. If I do let it
> >> >install livewire and replace those files.. I get many other odd things.
> >> >If I install the drivers for my Hollywood Plus DVD card after installing
> >> >livewire, the machine BSOD's with a short message, but proceeds to
> >> >reboot before I can read it. Yipee!
> >>
> >> Didn't happen when I tried it.
> >
> >Of course not. Windows is very inconsistent.
> >
>
> Or more likely your making it up. A Lino-nut would never pay for W2K, or anny other
>software
> for that mater.
Actually I did not make the original post. However, we Linux/GNU
advocates do pay for software, it is simply that we do not wish to pay
for bad software. So pay for W2k? No, software worth while, absolutely.
I am a standing customer of Applix. I have bought a couple versions to
date.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft W2K lack of goals.
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:57:13 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> sharing) works so well, I almost cannot believe it. Interrupt conflict days
> are gone. I don't even think abou them anymore, I just plug in some USB/PCI
> device and it works. Period. And office 2000 runs much better/faster under
Well then count yourself lucky.. my Hauppage WinTV card (which works
fine under NT4 and 9x) refuses to work under w2k. I've tried older as
well as the latest drivers... complete system hang when I start its TV
app or any other capture software.
If I install the Hauppage driver and my DVD (Sigmadesigns Hollywood Plus
card) driver, instant BSOD and reboot, and then BSOD on boot. I have to
boot into safe mode (which takes freaking forever to boot into) and
remove the DVD drivers.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
Give a man a match and he'll be warm for an hour... Set him on fire and
he'll be warm for the rest of his life
------------------------------
From: Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:58:01 GMT
So I post a true account of an installation of some hardware and
software, and how it is so superior under Windows than under Linux, if
it can even be done under Linux and this is the result:
1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
linux on 486 machines.The hardware works fine under Windows and none of
it is Win* hardware. Of course there will always be some command line
nut who will conjure up some oddball application where he needs 200
scans re-scanned multiple times in succession. Command lines were made
just for yahoo's like that.
2.I'm called an idiot for not knowing how to manipulate files and data
types. Sure...... Maybe Linux users have to do that but under Windows
point and click and it works. Fax from your scanner program, links added
to menues, just general ease of use. No searching around to convert some
file to the correct format needed.
3. Semantic games are played on the word superior. Well in this case it
works great under Windows, and in fact I can walk into any computer
supermarket chain store and pick up virtually ANY piece of hardware or
software and assuming it is not for Mac, or one of the 10 odd pieces of
Linux garbage they actually stock, it will work under Windows.
4. Personal attacks. Ok that's fine, rats always attack when they are
cornered.
This same result would have been obtained with just about any
combination of hardware and software purchased from the local Compusa.
Heck Windows 98SE even had a selection for my dusty Proprinter II X24E
circa 1988. Mandrake didn't, although it had a fine selection of
DaisyWheel printers.
So the conclusion is that Linux is in trouble. It can't configure and
setup even the most simple form of off the shelf hardware and software.
Tell me, what do you have to compare to Winfax?
Sane?
You're kidding right?
Try the 2 side by side, current versions that is, because a typical
LinoTechnique is to quote problems with versions of Windows 5 years old.
Sorry but Linux loses yet again.
I'll be happy to walk into Staples or BestBuy or comp usa with a Linonut
any day and have them pick out their hardware (SCSI scanners or PS
printers $$$$, excepting the retired and now obsolete Lexmark Optra) and
include software. Install all on Win systems and Linux systems and have
independent 3rd party people test them and see which one costs less
overall and which one has more features and is superior and which one is
easier to install.
I can pick out my selections blindfolded.......
Linux WILL LOSE EVERY TIME except for possibly development tools. And we
all know Joe $ixpack develops applications between beers and
www.hustler.com.
Linux, an old joke, a current joke and the joke of the future.
------------------------------
From: Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:58:13 GMT
So I post a true account of an installation of some hardware and
software, and how it is so superior under Windows than under Linux, if
it can even be done under Linux and this is the result:
1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
linux on 486 machines.The hardware works fine under Windows and none of
it is Win* hardware. Of course there will always be some command line
nut who will conjure up some oddball application where he needs 200
scans re-scanned multiple times in succession. Command lines were made
just for yahoo's like that.
2.I'm called an idiot for not knowing how to manipulate files and data
types. Sure...... Maybe Linux users have to do that but under Windows
point and click and it works. Fax from your scanner program, links added
to menues, just general ease of use. No searching around to convert some
file to the correct format needed.
3. Semantic games are played on the word superior. Well in this case it
works great under Windows, and in fact I can walk into any computer
supermarket chain store and pick up virtually ANY piece of hardware or
software and assuming it is not for Mac, or one of the 10 odd pieces of
Linux garbage they actually stock, it will work under Windows.
4. Personal attacks. Ok that's fine, rats always attack when they are
cornered.
This same result would have been obtained with just about any
combination of hardware and software purchased from the local Compusa.
Heck Windows 98SE even had a selection for my dusty Proprinter II X24E
circa 1988. Mandrake didn't, although it had a fine selection of
DaisyWheel printers.
So the conclusion is that Linux is in trouble. It can't configure and
setup even the most simple form of off the shelf hardware and software.
Tell me, what do you have to compare to Winfax?
Sane?
You're kidding right?
Try the 2 side by side, current versions that is, because a typical
LinoTechnique is to quote problems with versions of Windows 5 years old.
Sorry but Linux loses yet again.
I'll be happy to walk into Staples or BestBuy or comp usa with a Linonut
any day and have them pick out their hardware (SCSI scanners or PS
printers $$$$, excepting the retired and now obsolete Lexmark Optra) and
include software. Install all on Win systems and Linux systems and have
independent 3rd party people test them and see which one costs less
overall and which one has more features and is superior and which one is
easier to install.
I can pick out my selections blindfolded.......
Linux WILL LOSE EVERY TIME except for possibly development tools. And we
all know Joe $ixpack develops applications between beers and
www.hustler.com.
Linux, an old joke, a current joke and the joke of the future.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:28:20 -0400
On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Tiberious wrote:
>> [CUT the entire crap]
>>
>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
>>
>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>>are supported by Linux..
>
>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to scan
>something
>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and cibvert
>it to
>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
That seems to be exactly the point, and the very point the Linux nuts are
avoiding.
>>I do not have any problems for my usage.. and i
>>guess 90% og users wont either.
>>
>
>If 90% of users enjoy not being abel to use 90% of their hardware they wo'nt have any
>prolblems.
But the less than 5 percent of the market (based on any survey you want, and I
am being generous here) that Linux owns needs to go through half abortive tasks
to do the same operations.
>>Prepare to write much more of this in the comming months. In lots of
>>European countries it seems that the respective parlaments will force the
>>usage of open sourced software and operatings systems ..
>
>So thats' how Open Sores works. Nobody want's to run you're cruddy sotfwair, so you
>run wining to
>the government so they can force everybody to give up what works for them in favor of
>something
>that is bearly functionall.
Govt's are notorious for choosing garbage. The $750 hammer comes to mind.
Looks to me like Govt and Linux are a match made in heaven.
>Why do you even care? You don't even maik any monney from it.
They are mostly misfits who can't work in corporate world due to their geekness
and let's just say lack of hygiene.
>>In France there is
>>currently a proposol and a majority to shift to open source. In Germany a
>>similar proposal was made and the same is happening in the danish
>>parlament. I dont know of other countries... but this is a start.
>>
>>To make things even worse for Micros~1 major electronic retailers here will
>>offer PC's wiht Linux and StarOffice and one with Corel Linux and Corel
>>Office for the first time.. simply because students are demanding it.
>
>Wow. What a threat. As soon as people sea how slow StarOfice is compaired
>to Microsoft Ofice, theyll take their computer's rite back to the store.
Star"BLOAT"Office is the KING of bloatware. Nothing Billy could ever dream up
could be as bad.
>>
>>The future looks bright... but not yours if youre into Micros~1 advocacy..
>>wich is a joke by it self. Think one of the most profitable companys in the
>>world has some morons trying to market their software for them because they
>>feel sorry for them... What a joke
>>
>>Greetings to all lemmings
The future looks bright when the assassin runs out of bullets. When he pulls out
the spare clip with 15 rounds things tend to look a little different.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:47:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Tiberious wrote:
>>> [CUT the entire crap]
>>>
>>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
>>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
>>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
>>>
>>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>>>are supported by Linux..
>>
>>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to scan
>something
>>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and cibvert
>it to
>>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
>
> Sure they do. My Phoebe works just fine. As far as treating several
> peripherals as if they were one virtual dedicated device, that's also
> trivial.
So why doesn't Linux?
It can barely put an icon in a menu when you install a commercial program like
Wordperfect.
> Any "necessary intermediate steps" can quite easily me made transparent
> to the end user quite without the necessity of some Win-style developer
> needed to dedicate time to the problem.
Yawnnn..... A twist on words.
So if it is so easy, again why does not Linux do it?
> There are even some shiny happy gui tools that do the "scanner as fax
> machine or copier trick".
Sane is a bare bones abortion.
Any other tools?
>[deletia]
>
> Showing the world just how little you know about Unix seems to be
> a fulltime job for you.
Just one look, that's all it took.......
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:32:21 -0400
On 13 Jun 2000 14:28:47 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>>>are supported by Linux..
>>
>>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to scan
>something
>>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and cibvert
>it to
>>postscrit, and thats' just to print.
>
>Heh... Is it so slow and difficult for you to work with files under your
>favorite OS that you have to have special programs to avoid them?
Don't have to under Windows or Macintosh for that matter.
That's the problem with Linux, you guys always ASSUME others are as fond of
playing with files as you are.
For me, I want to fax a document I had to sign by hand.
Windows makes it a one stop operation and I have a Hewlett Packard scanner and
HP printer.
>>FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
>
>Of course they do.
Not to the level that they do under Windows.
Bare bones under linux.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:33:19 -0400
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 18:49:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> Sure it does. You might have missed it since you seem to think
> that Unix interfaces are stuck back in 1984.
They are...........................
>[deletia]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:19:15 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:58:01 GMT, Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So I post a true account of an installation of some hardware and
>software, and how it is so superior under Windows than under Linux, if
>it can even be done under Linux and this is the result:
>
>1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
Winmodems and parallel scanners were called crap here long
before you 'graced us' with your 'valueable pearls of wisdom'.
>a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
>linux on 486 machines.The hardware works fine under Windows and none of
>it is Win* hardware. Of course there will always be some command line
Where are the NT drivers? How about the BeOS drivers? Are there
any OS/2 drivers? Howabout some Solaris drivers? Can the devices
even be hooked up to a Macintosh of any kind.
>nut who will conjure up some oddball application where he needs 200
>scans re-scanned multiple times in succession. Command lines were made
>just for yahoo's like that.
>
>
>2.I'm called an idiot for not knowing how to manipulate files and data
>types. Sure...... Maybe Linux users have to do that but under Windows
>point and click and it works. Fax from your scanner program, links added
...assuming everything is set up just so beforehand and every
fileytype that you're going to encounter EVER is already accounted
for.
The notion that this is the case under Windows is so absurd to be
insulting to the rest of the MS Shills in this (and other groups).
>to menues, just general ease of use. No searching around to convert some
>file to the correct format needed.
Then what EXACTLY, would you do with a PNG or XPM should you
encounter one under windows?
>Heck Windows 98SE even had a selection for my dusty Proprinter II X24E
>circa 1988. Mandrake didn't, although it had a fine selection of
>DaisyWheel printers.
>
>
>
>So the conclusion is that Linux is in trouble. It can't configure and
>setup even the most simple form of off the shelf hardware and software.
>
>Tell me, what do you have to compare to Winfax?
>
>Sane?
>
>You're kidding right?
>
>Try the 2 side by side, current versions that is, because a typical
>LinoTechnique is to quote problems with versions of Windows 5 years old.
What exactly is to compare really? That, and it's SANE.
You're too lame to even get the name right. Why should
we take anything else you have to say seriously.
[deletia]
One has to seriously wonder what aspect of our liberty
inspires such fear in you.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Linux fails - again
Date: 13 Jun 2000 21:27:06 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:43:49 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 22 May 2000 20:44:32 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >He's real name is David Smyth and he's a student living in Australia. He
> >trys to give the impression that he works/spends time at some company but
> >fails miserably.
> >
>
> This is simply a lie.
Prove it.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: iMacs With iTitude
Date: 13 Jun 2000 21:27:07 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:10:20 +1200, Lawrence DčOliveiro
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is what I mean. UNIX has been around so long that people have given
> up trying to even think about fixing its fundamental flaws. And they
> wonder why new users are so put off by it all, and why Linux is
> completely failing to make any headway on the desktop...
That's complete bullshit. Linux is gaining market share at an
increadible rate.
> Under UNIX, the mount point is part of the file path, remember. Consider
> a CD-ROM called "My Photos", with a file on it called "Fred the Cat". On
> a UNIX system, you might or might not be able to use the pathname
> "/cdrom/Fred the Cat". And what if you have both a CD-ROM and a
> CD-writer drive attached (as I do), and you put the CD in the latter?
/mnt/cdrw and /mnt/cdrom. At least that's how it would work on this
guy's system. Oh, and it would likely be /mnt/cdrom/Fred\ The\ Cat.
There is also nothing stopping you from using /cdrom and /cdrw.
> What's the standard mount point for that? On a Mac, you could use the
> pathname string "My Photos:Fred the Cat", and have that work on *any*
> Mac, no matter what drives they've got attached.
What if the Mac has two "My Photos" CDs/hard disks etc?
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:43:36 -0400
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 20:58:01 GMT, Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>So I post a true account of an installation of some hardware and
>software, and how it is so superior under Windows than under Linux, if
>it can even be done under Linux and this is the result:
>
>1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
>a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
>linux on 486 machines.The hardware works fine under Windows and none of
>it is Win* hardware. Of course there will always be some command line
>nut who will conjure up some oddball application where he needs 200
>scans re-scanned multiple times in succession. Command lines were made
>just for yahoo's like that.
I can buy a K-6 with 64 meg, 20 gig drive, monitor, sound, modem all the
software I could ever want, etc for $200 or so if I surrender to Compuserve for
2 years.
Why in the world would I want to use a 486?
>
>2.I'm called an idiot for not knowing how to manipulate files and data
>types. Sure...... Maybe Linux users have to do that but under Windows
>point and click and it works. Fax from your scanner program, links added
>to menues, just general ease of use. No searching around to convert some
>file to the correct format needed.
Linux is years behind that eye candy stuff. They like to screw with
compilers....
And THEY wonder why Linux is dying on the vine...
>3. Semantic games are played on the word superior. Well in this case it
>works great under Windows, and in fact I can walk into any computer
>supermarket chain store and pick up virtually ANY piece of hardware or
>software and assuming it is not for Mac, or one of the 10 odd pieces of
>Linux garbage they actually stock, it will work under Windows.
You saw 10 pieces of Linux hardware/software?
Must be a miracle.
>4. Personal attacks. Ok that's fine, rats always attack when they are
>cornered.
Linoscrews are a rabid bunch. They are fighting a losing battle and they know
it.
Unseating 95 percent of the PC using population isn't easy.
>
>This same result would have been obtained with just about any
>combination of hardware and software purchased from the local Compusa.
>
Exactly why people buy Windows and run like hell from Linux.
>
>Heck Windows 98SE even had a selection for my dusty Proprinter II X24E
>circa 1988. Mandrake didn't, although it had a fine selection of
>DaisyWheel printers.
>
Linux is great at supporting decades old hardware. This comes naturally since
the audience they play to enjoys using such garbage.
>
>So the conclusion is that Linux is in trouble. It can't configure and
>setup even the most simple form of off the shelf hardware and software.
It can if your hardware and software is at least 10 years old.
>Tell me, what do you have to compare to Winfax?
Nothing
>Sane?
I feel I am...
>
>You're kidding right?
Sad truth is, they are not kidding.
It's a sad story....
>Try the 2 side by side, current versions that is, because a typical
>LinoTechnique is to quote problems with versions of Windows 5 years old.
>
>Sorry but Linux loses yet again.
>
>I'll be happy to walk into Staples or BestBuy or comp usa with a Linonut
>any day and have them pick out their hardware (SCSI scanners or PS
>printers $$$$, excepting the retired and now obsolete Lexmark Optra) and
>include software. Install all on Win systems and Linux systems and have
>independent 3rd party people test them and see which one costs less
>overall and which one has more features and is superior and which one is
>easier to install.
>
>I can pick out my selections blindfolded.......
>
>
>Linux WILL LOSE EVERY TIME except for possibly development tools. And we
>all know Joe $ixpack develops applications between beers and
>www.hustler.com.
>
>
>Linux, an old joke, a current joke and the joke of the future.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:31:49 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:28:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 13 Jun 2000 14:02:55 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:57:13 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Tiberious wrote:
>>> [CUT the entire crap]
>>>
>>>The fun part of you guys posts is that lately you're atacking Linux on its
>>>lack of support for "home devices". This must mean that the server side of
>>>things is allready won by Linux - i can only agree on that.
>>>
>>>Regarding end-user PC's its very simple... simply just aquire devices that
>>>are supported by Linux..
>>
>>And you still cant get the hardwair to work together. Instead of being abal to scan
>something
>>and have it go strate to the printer or FAX, you half to save it to fial and cibvert
>it to
>>postscrit, and thats' just to print. FAX modems just don't work on UNIX.
>
>That seems to be exactly the point, and the very point the Linux nuts are
>avoiding.
The only "nuts" here are you two. I suppose you're glad that
you've finally found someone that shares your dellusions.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
