Linux-Advocacy Digest #97, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 12:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: equivalent to Exchange? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Try Linux and see for Yourself how much it sucks. (Neil Cerutti)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Tim Palmer)
Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight (Tim Palmer)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Number of Linux Users ("John Hughes")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH! (aflinsch)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: equivalent to Exchange? (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (2:1)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: equivalent to Exchange?
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 14:56:07 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> One of the ways that MS gets a foot in the door of many businesses is
> MS Exchange. Businesses like the idea of an e-mail/groupware server.
And
> the client software runs (more or less :-) on their Win 9x machines.
>
> HP Openmail provides an alternative, but only the server runs on unix.
> The client software is MS Outlook with an HP MAPI layer.
>
> Lotus Notes is in the same boat. I haven't seen client software for
> Linux.
>
> Having a web interface could be a solution.
[snipped]
HP Openmail for Linux includes a web client.
http://www.ice.hp.com/cyc/om/00/showfile.cgi?100-1458
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: Try Linux and see for Yourself how much it sucks.
Date: 15 Jun 2000 14:57:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] posted:
>http://www.cheapbytes.com at $1.99 will get you started.
>
>
>Make certain you back up everything first though because Linux like
>the VIRUS it is tries to take over your system.
>It WILL erase your data.......
>
>Let us know how you fair..........
K.
I bought RedHat 6.0 plus some Linux Extra disks from cheapbytes
for about eight bucks.
I read a lot of documentation on the CD because I was very
nervous about creating a multi-boot system -- I'd never done
anything like that before, and I didn't want to invest in
Partition Magic and System Commander. It turned out I was worried
about nothing -- my setup made it easy. I had some experience
using fdisk because I had experimented with 500Meg partitions to
get around the giant cluster sizes. Through shit luck, all my
hardware (which had not been bought with Linux in mind) was
supported.
I shrunk Windows to 3/4 my hard-drive. This was pretty easy since
it only supported max 2MB partitions. I simply zapped four 500meg
partitions and earmarked them for Linux. Luckily, my 6.4 Gig
drive doesn't have any cylinder higher than 1024, so I didn't
need a boot disk, and Linux's boot directory could live anywhere.
I had to use a Dos app to make Linux boot disks. I think the new
version of the this program works in Windows, but I had to boot
to Dos to run it successfully with this RedHat.
I stuck in the CD and the Boot disk, and waited. I was amazed at
how much better the Linux version of fdisk was -- it reminded of
using the excellent old Dos program Dosshell. It's very
disappointing to me that this style of textual UI with quick
menus is so dead in the Windows world. I didn't know what
the best design for my partitions was, and I only had 2 free
primary partions, so one became swap and the other became /. I've
since found out that there's a way to get Linux to use logical
partitions, so I may redo this eventually. I clicked check boxes
(using my keyboard) to select the packages I wanted. I wanted
compilers and development tools; for some reason Windows didn't
come with any.
So then I booted up for the first time. It worked. From what I
had read on the net, I expected setting up X to be a nightmare,
but it wasn't; I ran XF86Setup, and It worked.
After that, it was a slow process, with most things turning out
to be easier than I thought they would be. A big plus was that I
already knew vim, since it was my editor of choice in Windows.
The worst problem I had was with PPP setup... it took me 3 weeks
to figure out why I couldn't connect to my name-server. It wasn't
wasted though, since I learned a lot. I read all the Networking
How-to's, and even the Network Guide from the LDP (that's a great
book). It turned out that I had leading zeros in my resolve.conf,
a la:
078.122.027.207
Doh! One day it suddenly occured to me, and the connect scripts
have been working ever since. I had done plenty of entry of IP
addresses in Windows, and you have to type the leading zeroes to
get the numbers to go in... and then Windows removes them. Weird.
I was in the habit of typing them, and it spanked me. Thanks
Bill. It hadn't worked because of basic ignorance on *my part*.
IP addresses can't contain leading zeroes, in case anyone else is
having a similar problem. I keep meaning to write the PPP-Howto
maintainer to get this added to the troubleshooting section. ;-)
PnP setup was fairly simple. The Kernel says it has PnP support,
but I have no idea what that means and the documentation was not
around yet. So I turned it off and used isapnp. sndconfig did not
work for me, for some reason, and it kept wiping out my
isapnp.conf. Eventually I re-enabled PnP support in my Kernel and
tried sndconfig again. It worked this time. In all, setting up a
SB16 with the freeOSS drivers was fairly difficult.
I thought setting up my printer would be a hassle, but with the
graphical printer conf in X, it was incredibly easy. After
printing two test pages and marking the appropriate check boxes
(get rid of the lines-marching-arross the page and send an EOF)
it works fine. Since then, I've learned to read the HowTos only
after trying RedHat's autoconf programs first. The Printing-Howto
had me scared.
There ought to be a POP3-Howto which points to the fetchmail
program... the Networking/email Howtos seem to be geared to
people that want and need to run sendmail or its ilk.
I've had trouble with font-sizes. A quick run of the
font-deuglification-howto helped, but Netscape still interprets
font-sizes correctly wrong. I've heard that the new version
interprets them wrong correctly, like Windows. The other solution
would be a huge font alias file, which I haven't tried yet.
All in all, it's been a great experience, and has provided all
the challenge, education, and character building opportunities
that I had hoped for.
I still play games on my Windows partition, though. It's a good
gaming platform. It's pretty ironic that Micros~1 (heh! I love
that joke!) derided the Amiga as a toy computer because of it's
terrific game support, and now one of the few remaining reasons
to own Win9X is to play games.
--
char NeilCerutti[]= "[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 15 Jun 2000 11:07:45 -0500
JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:16:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>And you are missing the fact that folks want an end result, the
>>easiest path between two points.
>
> His end result is actually better than your "end result".
>
>>Ecommerce, E-Web, E-banking are all examples.
>>
>>Linux is an example of an operating system getting in the way time and
>>time again.
>
> That's why he can access his faxes from anywhere on the planet
> and you can't.
PC anywhere blows the pants off some stupid-ass shell script.
>
>[deletia]
>
>--
>
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: 15 Jun 2000 11:07:56 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I was turned into a believer the first time I heard it.
>
>I have Mackie HR's as my mains powered by a Hafler Transnova amplifier
>putting out about 400 watts per channel.
>
>I have Event 20/20's coupled with a Mackie Amplifier on the rear
>putting out about 600 watts per channel.
>
>Of course I run a recording studio and this is not typical hardware:)
>
>It does shake the entire house though :)
>
>Point is Linux can't do it, at all......
>
>
But it shure can shuffal text around!
UNIX- Shuffles text.
Windows- Does everything else.
>
>
>
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:17:35 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>>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....
>>
>>Yep, 3D sound on four speakers certainly is amazing to listen to. In Unreal
>>Tournament, hearing a rocket blast past you is something else!
>>
>>Pete
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hardware and Linux - Setting the Record Straight
Date: 15 Jun 2000 11:08:06 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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....
Linofreaks don't run games. All they run is text fillters and C compialer. Real
"powerful" stuff.
>
>
>>> >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: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 15 Jun 2000 11:08:16 -0500
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I see it here so often, and so many Linux advocates get dragged down
>this path. It wastes your personal bandwidth and it is a classic example
>of an argument which can not be won, not because it isn't true, but
>because of the great number of variables in the market place.
>
>99% of the machines sold today are sold with Windows. To argue that
>Windows is not "easier" to install is problematic. Yes you have to
>reboot after you install each and every stupid little plug and play
>device, etc. However, chances are that the hardware will be supported in
>some fashion, because the box shipped with Windows, it only follows that
>the OEM distributor put the work in to their n x 1000 boxes to ship with
>all the correct support.
>
>The argument that Linux sucks because it can't install on XYZ computer
>is nothing but a wasted argument.
I'm glad you aggree with me.
>To attempt to sustain an argument that
>any version Linux is easier to install on a system that probably shipped
>with Windows on it is silly. Because, as good as Linux is, there is
>hardware out there that it does not support, and in such a debate these
>will be introduced. It follows, however, that a computer, shipped with
>Linux from an OEM, will have the correct drivers and kernel modules as
>well. On that machine, this argument is completely, 100%, winnable.
...untill the user decides to get new preriphrael.
>
>Installation is important, but OEM installation is even more important.
>With OEM installation, the user will never be faced with installation
>and it becomes a non issue. Unlike Windows, Linux does not need to be
>"reinstalled" if something goes wrong. It can actually be fixed in
>place. It can actually be upgraded while running normally!
>
>This leaves the real issues, on which the Windows advocates can't touch
>Linux:
>
>Scalibility
>Windows may "scale" by using a vastly different code base for each
>level, CE, DOS, and NT. Linux scales using the same code base.
..with the healp of OS/390 it scales. Otherwise it's pittyful at scaleing and NT blows
it out
of the water..
>
>Usability
>Usability is more than just point and click. It is about reducing the
>amount of repetitive work required to do a task. It is about how easy
>tasks are to automate. While Linux can drag icons around just as well as
>any other GUI machine, but behind it you have one of the most powerful
>OS metaphors available.
Yeah. /dev/ttyS? for the modam (insted of sellectign it by name), lpr to print (and by
god it
better by a PostScript printer), and about 10,000 one-function programs so you can
shuffal text
around in 1,000,000 ways and still not manage to do anything useful.
>
>Flexibility
>You can have your Linux anyway you want, in almost any form you want.
>You can have very few features, or all of them. And you don't have to
>install netscape if you don't want too. You don't even need a hard
>drive.
So it can shuffel text in more ways or less ways, on a whole computer or haff of one.
>
>Reliability
>I will not say that I've never seen Linux crash, or that I haven't
>needed to reboot. But, when I have it has been for an explicit reason,
>that I understood and could take corrective action. It has not been
>because it was working funny and rebooting it would "fix" it.
>
>Applications
>Windows has a few great applications. There can be no argument about
>that. However, a few really great ones tend to out shadow the really
>really bad ones. All in all, IMHO, the applications on Linux tend to be
>better than those on Windows.
You better be abal to do better than The GIMP.
>
>X11
>People try to slam X. It is true that it is not as fast as its more
>limited competitors, but when one looks at X, they must see that it has
>features over a decade old that Microsoft still does not have right.
>A graphical front end that is completely networkable, transparently to
>both applications and OS.
.and bloated as hell.
>Microsoft's terminal server is a resource hog.
X is a resource hog.
>To run an application server means a very expensive service, you would
>not run it on a heavily loaded web server. However, it is perfectly
>reasonable to run "xosview -display admin:0.0" to get a live visual
>update of a UNIX web server.
Until X crashes UNIX (my bad.. untill it crashes the console, which makes it just as
useless).
>
>
>
>
>--
>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: "John Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Number of Linux Users
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:25:08 +0100
As the number of Linux users BOOMS to 0.3%. Is Linux taking over??!!
http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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?
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:23:37 GMT
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:46:22 GMT, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>Quick edits to their web site require only FTP, no prompts of
>any description are needed for that.
Really? How about that command-line ftp that ships with Win95? We
have to give them a GUI ftp as well.
We even set up Samba so they could edit their stuff by connecting to a
share. That got messy to do after MS improved things with encrypted
passwords though. It didn't really improve security any since it isn't
a full challenge-response protocol, but what the heck. Just put in an
NT server and that'll be all solved.
>If you are making your users learn and use the horrible user
>interface of the Unix command line, they are sure to be unhappy
I didn't "make" them do anything. Mostly, they would read some book
and find out that they could do things on the server.
>And learn to use vi or emacs or pico or less. :D
Pico is no harder than DOS edit.
>Freeware is still usually under copyright, really.
The BSD and Artistic licenses permit use in commercial products if
credit is given (more or less). These are not "uncommon" licenses.
>You are desparately seeking any possible excuse, no matter how
>farfetched, rather than saying "MS produced a product people wanted".
They produce a product that people want, and use that to leverage
products that people don't want. That's a big part of the antitrust
case. It isn't my imagination.
I don't have any objection to the idea of Frontpage. Products like it
do make it easier to publish on the web, which is a good thing if
you're an ISP. I do have objection to MS tying it to their platform
even though that was not necessary to achieve the functionality they
wanted.
>Well, I don't explain it that way. My stock explaination (tm) is that MS
>is clever enough to realize what ordinary users want and provide it,
>rather than insisting that the users be force-fit to the technologies.
My problem with your simple explanation is that they often seem to do
things in a way that locks out other products or that forces the use of
some other product of theirs besides the wanted one. That seems to be
what the DoJ has been objecting to as well.
>I don't accept this. I don't see a way to do what FrontPage does
>using only FTP.
That's right, they need more than FTP to do their "bots". But they
could have made it a lot more friendly to the Unix way of doing things.
This was in 1995 or so, remember, and virtually no ISP's were running
NT servers at the time. MS really wanted to change that even though
their product was pretty much unsuitable at the time.
>They add features, you call it "arm twisting".
So what do you call it when they sell a product to the general public
that requires ISP support, and yet that support is barely functional on
the ISP's existing systems? It sure seemed like the plan was to sell
the client and thereby encourage ISP's to put in NT servers to support
it. The Unix stuff was so broken at first that it was really quite a
laugh riot. Oh, and they didn't support it either. The port was done
by a third party company. I'm sure that was just because the multi
billion dollar giant of the software world couldn't figure out how to
do CGI scripting on Unix.
So you give in and now you've got an NT server that requires manual
hand-holding because it doesn't integrate into the existing systems.
It can't do NIS or Kerberos, it doesn't grok NFS, no ssh or rdist, etc,
without third party add-ons that seem to get broken by service packs.
Oh, well, we can solve that, just install some more Microsoft products
to handle your databases and authentication and such. See how it
works? They leverage their dominance in one area into dominance in
another.
Leveraging a monopoly in this way is illegal. That's the reason for
the anti-trust case. The DoJ picked the browser market to argue the
case, but there are many others they could have used.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: 15 Jun 2000 15:26:32 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JEDIDIAH posted:
>On 14 Jun 2000 14:16:04 EDT, Jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>
>>> Lets review that history. After 15 years of relative stagnation
>>> in GUI interfaces, they have still yet to completely replace the
>>> previous paradigm in terms of functionality.
>>>
>>> Much of this seems to be due less to the inherent potential of the
>>> GUI and more the tendency of GUI boosters to run away from CLI's
>>> screaming.
>>
>>Nah. It's just that we're lazy bastards and GUI's get the job done with
>>much less effort.
>
> That rather depends on what you're doing.
>
> Quite often, the GUI can be more work and more time consuming.
That's true. My favorite of the Windows PowerTools is "Command
Prompt Here" just for that reason. The version of NT that I use
at work comes with it preinstalled. I wish I could find a version
of bash for NT that supports long file names.
> Not all of us want to babysit our computers, even those of us
> that have been using GUI's for 10 or 15 years.
--
char NeilCerutti[]= "[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: 15 Jun 2000 15:18:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tiberious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> 4. Personal attacks. Ok that's fine, rats always attack when they are
> cornered.
[...]
Irony, thy name is USENET.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH!
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 11:24:51 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> I thought I would try Linux Mandrake 7.0's update. So, I fired up Kppp and
> tried to connect to the internet. First attempt failed (hmmm... Windows has
> yet to fail), second attempt got through.
>
Failed connects happen all the time in every OS, depends a lot on the
lines between you and your ISP. This is not a problem with Linux.
> Clicked on Updated, invited to select local mirror. Selected UK mirror, and
> waited... and waited... ah mirrors down. How do I get back to select the
> mirror again... ah I can't. So, close window. Run update again - it goes
> straight to the same mirror... um...
Downed/busy server is a problem at the server youy tried to connect
to. Not a problem at your end. As for rerunning update, it went to the
server you told it to go to.
> Killed internet connection, suddenly screen files with 'failed connection'
> from several updates and I had to click on OK to kill them all.
I have used the Mandrake Update, it always worked for me.
Most likely you clicked on some button multiple times. Opened a new
instance each time.
> Tried again, same result, goes to mirror that's down. Killed internet, got
> a button that said 'select mirror', tried that, reconnected and finally got
> a mirror that worked.
And downloaded your update(s) and went on your merry way.
> That was far more complex than it ought to be! Comparing that to Windows
> Update, which worked just fine, whoever designed the Update needs shooting!
As compared to Windows Update?
Where certain updates cannot be applied at the same time as others,
causing you to connect to the update site multiple times.
Where you have to use IE or else it won't work
Where your updates are deleted after you apply them, so you need to
redo your updates when you need to reinstall Win9x.
Where you need to reboot after you are done -- so the updates can
"take"
Seems to me like Windows Update is broken, not Mandrake's Update.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:56:30 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 14 Jun 2000 20:36:22 -0500...
...and Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:12:58 -0400, Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> >
> >> Does anyone know the dates?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >According to www.x.org the first commercial version of Xwindows was released in
>1986.
> >
> >Gary
>
> The first version of Windows was written in 1983.
The Jargon File (IIRC) told me they both released their first versions
in 1985. But let's not forget that Windows up to version 2.0 was a
joke, and X1R1 probably was a lot more usable than Windows 1.0 :)
mawa
--
Level 2 - Data Link Layer
User is a major player in the development of XYZ package which is
included in all distros of Linux.
-- Cliff Pratt
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: equivalent to Exchange?
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:48:18 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:49:01 -0400...
...and Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having a web interface could be a solution. Exchange has one that allows
> you to access most of the functionality. I don't know if it likes
> Netscape or not though... A web interface would provide for a mix of
> desktop OSes too.
>
> Has anyone seen anything that's viable and doesn't cost an arm and a
> leg? Perhaps with a database backend?
Addendum to my previous post:
At http://freshmeat.net/appindex/web/applications.html, there are
currently 606 applications listed. Among them:
Achievo, a Web-based project management system
acmemail, a multiuser POP3/IMAP to Web gateway with MIME and mod_perl
support
ADict, a shared event calendar for independent organisations
Apache Jetspeed, an open source Groupware/Portal
BoboMail, a Web mailer in python
...
I stopped reading here; I suppose that for someone who wants to run
something groupwarish on Linux, there is a lot of raw material.
mawa
--
If you believe in nothing, honey, it believes in you.
-- Dan Schmidt.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 15 Jun 2000 15:41:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But if the system doesn't give you any indication that anything unusual
> has happened all you'll see is a directory whose contents are no longer
> what you expected to find.
Exactly how often does this happen? Or is your thesis that there are
hordes of evil sysadmins rampaging about, changing where directories
are mounted under everyone's feet?
> It's called transparency in interface design terms (IIRC). Making things
> behave only in ways that reflect what's really going on.
It isn't always a good idea to do that. It might be better instead to
make the representation presented to users reflect a virtual model
whose implementation on actual hardware is something they simply don't
need to know.
> It's why the Mac's rules for what happens make more sense than Windows'
> rules. They reflect what has to happen with the various objects involved.
Making more sense than the 'Doze rules isn't tough. :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:46:20 +0100
I thinck it mite bee tim too puut him inn a kil fial
-De
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
