Linux-Advocacy Digest #60, Volume #27 Tue, 13 Jun 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Cihl)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Cihl)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Cihl)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Pete Goodwin)
Re: MS Windows WM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Cihl)
Re: Boring ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS Windows WM (Cihl)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: G4 in space! ("David")
Re: Boring (Cihl)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight ("Michael Guyear")
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Cihl)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Cihl)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS Windows WM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:18:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:35:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 17:30:14 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>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?
> >
> > Repeating lies won't make them any more true, regardless of
> > how many times you repeat the lies.
>
> But you still haven't answered the original question.
>
> So why doesn't Linux......?
> >>It can barely put an icon in a menu when you install a commercial program like
> >>Wordperfect.
> >
> > Neither can Windows, if you didn't manage to hire a reasonably
> > intellegent student intern this quarter.
>
> Every Windows program that I have installed has put an icon either on
> the desktop or in the Starup->program menu and that includes the
> README and other information.
>
> Please provide me with an example of a current Windows program that
> does not?
>
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >
> > scanimage -d /dev/scanner | lpr
>
> Oh that's certainly something Joe Sixpack will remember..
>
> You prove my point all the time....
>
> I prefer clicking on the icon that says "Scan image"
> >>
> >>
> >>> There are even some shiny happy gui tools that do the "scanner as fax
> >>> machine or copier trick".
> >>
> >>
> >>Sane is a bare bones abortion.
> >
> > How do the Windows variants "best it" exactly?
>
> Try them and you will see. I have used both Linux deviants and Windows
> versions and it ain't even close in terms of ease of use and
> comparability between programs.
> >[deletia]
Yeah, it's great to see Windows lock up the operation of your entire
machine until the scanner has finished scanning. Well, it's your
choice. Good luck with it.
I, on the other hand, can just continue my work while the scanner is
doing it's stuff. By the way, my scanner is an HP4100C, which is USB.
So much for lack of USB-support.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:18:16 GMT
A "Shill" is a person who aids a crook or a fraud in seemingly making
the "act" look legitimate.
Example: A person who drives up the price of a bid at an auction with
the intent of collecting money from the seller but without intent of
ever buying the auctioned product.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 16:47:34 -0500, Matt Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>???
>
>WinSHILL'd
>
>> > car seats while Chrysler does? Guess what van the
>> > typical soccer mom drives? Guess why, in part...
>>
>> whoa-ho....
>> so this win-boy-f---'s pa's
>> a soccer mom?
>>
>> >>Are you paid by Microsoft for this, or what? Advocating
>> >>Windows/Microsoft doesn't seem very logical to me. They already have a
>> >>big commercial marketing department. Your whining doesn't do shit.
>> >
>> hey lin-boy...
>> hows your cdrw?
>> cdrom?
>>
>> > So in reality you have failed to address any point
>> > made, which makes YOU a LinoSHILL...
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:19:09 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bobby D. Bryant) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Let us know when Windows runs on everything from a 486 to a mainframe,
> >and then we'll start making comparisons of which has the best "hardware
> >support".
>
> Let us know when Linux supports AHA1520 and SB16 without resorting to hand
> massage certain script files. Oh yeah, Windows supports these without even
> a hiccup.
>
> Pete
ISAPnP support is in the development kernels. It should be out in a
couple of months.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:20:33 GMT
Won?
Slaughtered is a better way of telling it.
The Linoscrews like to say a 50 percent increase in sales.
Well when they have sold 10 copies last year and 15 copies this year,
I guess they are correct.
Windows=90 percent of the market.....
Take that to the bank baby...
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:58:09 GMT,
>But we've already won. You're dead and you just haven't stopped moving yet.
>
>Pete
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:21:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Oh.. I never noticed, actually. I just do [ALT]-[F2] and type 'wp'.
It's much faster that way, anyway.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:22:35 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hello? Pete? Have you been paying attention at all? Linux does NOT
>belong to any business or (evil) corporation, it exists out of a
>community effort.
There's one thing I've noticed about altruistic organisations - they tend
to disappear once the real world intrudes.
>Linux cannot die, ever! As a manner of speaking you could shoot Linus
>Torvalds, Alan Cox and Alexander Viro, and Linux development would
>STILL continue. There's NO WAY of stopping it, EVER. It's estimated
>that the Linux-effort has over 50.000 developers working on the
>various components at any given time!
Oh it can die alright. When the next fad comes along and sweeps all the
Linux developers then you can kiss Linux bye bye.
>For instance, the graphical installation procedures have only even
>existed for the last 3 (three) months. Give it another year, and Linux
>will BLOW Windows AWAY for the installation.
Another year...
>Give it another two years from now, and Linux will support all
>hardware, old and new.
Another two years...
>Desktop environments are evolving so fast you won't believe it! Look
>at the difference between KDE1 and KDE2, for instance! Look at the new
>Gnome! They all get slicker with every new version, which appear about
>every 3 to 4 months!
Getting slicker...
>The X-environment is getting a hook into the kernel (DRI), which
>ensures the same performance as in Windows.
Getting a hook...
> Linux is developing a new
>3D-audio library (http://www.openal.org), after which the SB-Live
>drivers will come out for Linux.
...is developing...
Congratulations! You've proved my point! Linux is lagging behind Windows!
Linux is playing catchup! Thank you! Thank you!
Now, how many years does it all add up to I wonder...
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:24:15 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:54:21 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmm.. Could you repeat these complaints to the KDE and Gnome teams?
>They should be very interested in what you have to say. They'll
>probably actually do something about it. That's one of the main
>strenghts in open-source.
Ok so why does Gnome keep crashing all the time?
I have more of those tiny Time-Bomb icons around than I care to.
KDE is much more stable, but doesn't look as smooth to me.
Neither is anywhere near to Windows GUI for consistency with
applications and look and feel.
Not even close....
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:24:28 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Won?
>
> Slaughtered is a better way of telling it.
>
> The Linoscrews like to say a 50 percent increase in sales.
>
> Well when they have sold 10 copies last year and 15 copies this year,
> I guess they are correct.
>
> Windows=90 percent of the market.....
It used to be 95 percent. Is it dropping that fast?
Oh, well... Linux success cannot be measured in sales figures. Linux
is not a commercial business. By the way, SuSE sells bigtime in
Europe.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:24:44 GMT
Linux is based on Unix?
Care to prove that?
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:56:50 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux is based on UNIX.
>
>Windows 9x is based on MS-DOS.
>
>Which one would you prefer?
>
>(That's it)
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:28:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:54:21 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Hmm.. Could you repeat these complaints to the KDE and Gnome teams?
> >They should be very interested in what you have to say. They'll
> >probably actually do something about it. That's one of the main
> >strenghts in open-source.
>
> Ok so why does Gnome keep crashing all the time?
>
> I have more of those tiny Time-Bomb icons around than I care to.
It never crashes with me. Are you sure it isn't X that's crashing?
Which videocard do you have?
> KDE is much more stable, but doesn't look as smooth to me.
Look at the screenshots for KDE2.
> Neither is anywhere near to Windows GUI for consistency with
> applications and look and feel.
It's coming. Just wait and see.
> Not even close....
That's your opinion.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:28:18 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>ISAPnP support is in the development kernels. It should be out in a
>couple of months.
Ahah! Another example of Linux lagging behind Windows!
------------------------------
From: "David" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: G4 in space!
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:29:42 GMT
"Lawrence DčOliveiro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Just saw this item <http://www.spaceviews.com/2000/06/11a.html> about a
> company that wants to put the first satellite into orbit containing a
> Web server--and they're going to use a Mac G4!
Great! That means less to have to look at here on Earth. =)
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:29:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Linux is based on Unix?
>
> Care to prove that?
Linux tries to be as POSIX-compliant as possible. This means it's a
Unix-derivative. Don't you think it looks like Unix, too?
Even some of you WinTrolls say it's based on Unix.
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:56:50 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Linux is based on UNIX.
> >
> >Windows 9x is based on MS-DOS.
> >
> >Which one would you prefer?
> >
> >(That's it)
------------------------------
From: "Michael Guyear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:34:38 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:34:12 -0500, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >True surround sound and 3d enviromental mapping are the reasons to use a
SB
> >live card. For DVD and games a SB live card makes a big difference. For
>
> Enviromental audio doesn't require 4 channel audio, so ultimately
> any soundcard should do. The real problem would be hardware
> acceleration and whether or not a contemporary CPU is capable of
> overcoming the computational overhead involved.
>
Yes but surround sound is different from enviromental audio and cannot be
done with a standard 16 bit stereo card.
> >listening to an MP3 or CD audio a SB 16 id just as good.
> >
> >
> >
> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:40:04 +0200, Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >
> >> >The hardware I used was anything from a P166 to PII333 and AMD K6-3.
> >> >
> >> >So... Am I just lucky or what is this about hardware?
> >> >
> >> >O, before I forget - if you want to reply negatively - just keep in
mind
> >> >that these are *training* PC's and therefor don't need DVD and all
these
> >> >fancy stuff. In fact, I still don't understand why people use
> >> >SoundBlaster Live except if they are in the music industry. I just
> >> >coupled my ESS card to my hi-fi and I think I have pretty good sound.
> >>
> >> ...a SB16 is certainly sufficient to expose the distortions
> >> in an mp3 encoded at 128K (vs. 192K) despite some claiming
> >> that you need more "expensive" hardware to detect such
> >> "subtle differences in sound quality".
> >>
> >> [deletia]
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> |||
> >> / | \
> >>
> >> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:32:00 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >ISAPnP support is in the development kernels. It should be out in a
> >couple of months.
>
> Ahah! Another example of Linux lagging behind Windows!
Not lagging, it's called playing catchup. It'll take some time before
Linux takes over Windows for some issues. Linux is not that old, you
know.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:32:20 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:22:35 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Hello? Pete? Have you been paying attention at all? Linux does NOT
>>belong to any business or (evil) corporation, it exists out of a
>>community effort.
>
>There's one thing I've noticed about altruistic organisations - they tend
>to disappear once the real world intrudes.
Just like the Linux IPO's are dying one after the other now that the
real world of the corporation has taken a good look at Linux and has
deemed it a mess.
>>Linux cannot die, ever! As a manner of speaking you could shoot Linus
>>Torvalds, Alan Cox and Alexander Viro, and Linux development would
>>STILL continue. There's NO WAY of stopping it, EVER. It's estimated
>>that the Linux-effort has over 50.000 developers working on the
>>various components at any given time!
>
>Oh it can die alright. When the next fad comes along and sweeps all the
>Linux developers then you can kiss Linux bye bye.
It's already dying. Along with BEOS, which Stienberg has withdrawn
support and according to rumour Emagic is the next one.
>>For instance, the graphical installation procedures have only even
>>existed for the last 3 (three) months. Give it another year, and Linux
>>will BLOW Windows AWAY for the installation.
>
>Another year...
Linux is always behind. It has no future....
>>Give it another two years from now, and Linux will support all
>>hardware, old and new.
Yea sure. It will support the same hardware in 2 years that Windows
supports now....
>Another two years...
It will be gone...
>>Desktop environments are evolving so fast you won't believe it! Look
>>at the difference between KDE1 and KDE2, for instance! Look at the new
>>Gnome! They all get slicker with every new version, which appear about
>>every 3 to 4 months!
>
>Getting slicker...
Sure and another 20 meg of convoluted files for the already confused
user to download.
>>The X-environment is getting a hook into the kernel (DRI), which
>>ensures the same performance as in Windows.
>
>Getting a hook...
When you run Linsux you are hooked alright.
Hook , Line, and Sinker.....
>> Linux is developing a new
>>3D-audio library (http://www.openal.org), after which the SB-Live
>>drivers will come out for Linux.
>
>...is developing...
Always the promise, never the present.....
>Congratulations! You've proved my point! Linux is lagging behind Windows!
>Linux is playing catchup! Thank you! Thank you!
By about 10 years......
>Now, how many years does it all add up to I wonder...
total?
I would say 15 years at best.....
>Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:34:07 GMT
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just in time for ISA slots to be eliminated from motherboards.....
At best you can buy a Motherboard with ONE ISA slot....
Typical Linux....
It's there just in time for something else to surpass it.
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:19:09 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>ISAPnP support is in the development kernels. It should be out in a
>couple of months.
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:34:30 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Hello? Pete? Have you been paying attention at all? Linux does NOT
> >belong to any business or (evil) corporation, it exists out of a
> >community effort.
>
> There's one thing I've noticed about altruistic organisations - they tend
> to disappear once the real world intrudes.
>
> >Linux cannot die, ever! As a manner of speaking you could shoot Linus
> >Torvalds, Alan Cox and Alexander Viro, and Linux development would
> >STILL continue. There's NO WAY of stopping it, EVER. It's estimated
> >that the Linux-effort has over 50.000 developers working on the
> >various components at any given time!
>
> Oh it can die alright. When the next fad comes along and sweeps all the
> Linux developers then you can kiss Linux bye bye.
>
> >For instance, the graphical installation procedures have only even
> >existed for the last 3 (three) months. Give it another year, and Linux
> >will BLOW Windows AWAY for the installation.
>
> Another year...
>
> >Give it another two years from now, and Linux will support all
> >hardware, old and new.
>
> Another two years...
>
> >Desktop environments are evolving so fast you won't believe it! Look
> >at the difference between KDE1 and KDE2, for instance! Look at the new
> >Gnome! They all get slicker with every new version, which appear about
> >every 3 to 4 months!
>
> Getting slicker...
>
> >The X-environment is getting a hook into the kernel (DRI), which
> >ensures the same performance as in Windows.
>
> Getting a hook...
>
> > Linux is developing a new
> >3D-audio library (http://www.openal.org), after which the SB-Live
> >drivers will come out for Linux.
>
> ...is developing...
>
> Congratulations! You've proved my point! Linux is lagging behind Windows!
> Linux is playing catchup! Thank you! Thank you!
>
> Now, how many years does it all add up to I wonder...
>
> Pete
Note that these developments are mainly details. The main operation of
Linux is already far superior to anything Microsoft can offer. (not
that it's very hard to do that, but ok)
Linux development is proceeding MUCH, MUCH faster than Windows
development. Linux will overtake Windows sooner or later. There's no
way of stopping it.
(Your turn.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:35:28 GMT
You had better post that ditty to the setup groups because you would
not believe how many people ask the question:
I just installed Wordperfect, now how do I start it?
What a joke this Linshit is.....
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:21:27 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>Oh.. I never noticed, actually. I just do [ALT]-[F2] and type 'wp'.
>It's much faster that way, anyway.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:36:46 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:34:38 -0500, "Michael Guyear"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:34:12 -0500, Michael Guyear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >True surround sound and 3d enviromental mapping are the reasons to use a
>SB
>> >live card. For DVD and games a SB live card makes a big difference. For
>>
>> Enviromental audio doesn't require 4 channel audio, so ultimately
>> any soundcard should do. The real problem would be hardware
>> acceleration and whether or not a contemporary CPU is capable of
>> overcoming the computational overhead involved.
>>
>
>Yes but surround sound is different from enviromental audio and cannot be
>done with a standard 16 bit stereo card.
The LinoNuts won't hear the difference. They are so used to running
with shit hardware and software that they accept it as normal....
They should try running a game with full audio support and hear the
difference some time....
>> >listening to an MP3 or CD audio a SB 16 id just as good.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 12:40:04 +0200, Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >> [deletia]
>> >> >
>> >> >The hardware I used was anything from a P166 to PII333 and AMD K6-3.
>> >> >
>> >> >So... Am I just lucky or what is this about hardware?
>> >> >
>> >> >O, before I forget - if you want to reply negatively - just keep in
>mind
>> >> >that these are *training* PC's and therefor don't need DVD and all
>these
>> >> >fancy stuff. In fact, I still don't understand why people use
>> >> >SoundBlaster Live except if they are in the music industry. I just
>> >> >coupled my ESS card to my hi-fi and I think I have pretty good sound.
>> >>
>> >> ...a SB16 is certainly sufficient to expose the distortions
>> >> in an mp3 encoded at 128K (vs. 192K) despite some claiming
>> >> that you need more "expensive" hardware to detect such
>> >> "subtle differences in sound quality".
>> >>
>> >> [deletia]
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> |||
>> >> / | \
>> >>
>> >> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> |||
>> / | \
>>
>> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:37:48 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:28:18 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 21:54:21 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Hmm.. Could you repeat these complaints to the KDE and Gnome teams?
>> >They should be very interested in what you have to say. They'll
>> >probably actually do something about it. That's one of the main
>> >strenghts in open-source.
>>
>> Ok so why does Gnome keep crashing all the time?
>>
>> I have more of those tiny Time-Bomb icons around than I care to.
>
>It never crashes with me. Are you sure it isn't X that's crashing?
>Which videocard do you have?
KDE rarely crashes so I have to assume it is Gnome.
I have a Matrox G200 with 8 meg..
>> KDE is much more stable, but doesn't look as smooth to me.
>
>Look at the screenshots for KDE2.
I will take a look..
Thanks...
>> Neither is anywhere near to Windows GUI for consistency with
>> applications and look and feel.
>
>It's coming. Just wait and see.
>
>> Not even close....
>
>That's your opinion.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:38:54 GMT
On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:24:28 GMT, Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Won?
>>
>> Slaughtered is a better way of telling it.
>>
>> The Linoscrews like to say a 50 percent increase in sales.
>>
>> Well when they have sold 10 copies last year and 15 copies this year,
>> I guess they are correct.
>>
>> Windows=90 percent of the market.....
>
>It used to be 95 percent. Is it dropping that fast?
I was being kind :)
>Oh, well... Linux success cannot be measured in sales figures. Linux
>is not a commercial business. By the way, SuSE sells bigtime in
>Europe.
Yes it does, and rightfully so. SuSE and Mandrake are IMHO the way
things should be done.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
