Linux-Advocacy Digest #180, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Illya Vaes)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Tim Palmer)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[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: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:43:44 +0200
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>>I am not aware of any case where MS stuck with decades old
>>>Unix technology without at least trying to make *some* improvements.
>But seriously, folks, Unix security is kinda weak. It's a smidge of
>identification and a bit of filesystem security, but not too much of
>either.
>It's also nice to have a bit more subtlety than the Unix
>owner/group/world/superuser system.
So "decades old Unix technology" boils down to 'kinda weak' "Unix security".
Talk about sweeping remarks (not to mention all the Unices that have ACLs)...
>These aren't insurmountable problems in Unix, but there *is* a case to be
>made for doing a better job rather than kludging Unix some more.
Yeah, let's put in ActiveX, Visual Basic for Viruses^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
Applications, ...
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 19 Jun 2000 09:41:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was asking Simon, the Windows-for-everything advocate, as to
> why WinCE isn't the preferred choice for handheld units. It's
> supposedly low overhead, runs on cheap hardware, and has an
> industry standard (read: sucky-as-all-shit) GUI. :-)
One of the largest problems (from a user's PoV) with CE *is* its GUI,
especially in the handheld market where the weight of the standard
elements (which are really quite reasonable on an 1024x768 screen)
starts to bite hard. Taking up a substantial fraction of the narrow
dimension of an already narrow screen blows chunks...
[...]
> Or, if one wants to use Transmeta, ARM, or other such chips, one
> can do that, too. I'm not up on the quirks in the embedded hardware
> market, but presumably the idea is to make it as cheap and as quick
> as possible.
Low power usage and low electromagnetic interference are highly
desirable properties too, since they get you longer battery life
(i.e. longer between recharges) and better interaction with other
electronic systems in the environment (avionics systems are notorious
for their sensitivity, but low EMI helps in many other areas too.)
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:54:31 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Charlie Ebert would say:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>> 1. It scails down
>>>
>>> Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of
>>> RAM. Windows runs on todays computer's, and the fact that it doesn't run
>>> on some obsoleat piece-of-shit computer from 1991 doessn't mean shit.
>>>
>
>I think Tim is acting as if the Linux community went out of it's way to make
>their OS compatible with older PC's. This is not true.
>It was Microsoft who chose to make their latest OS incompatible with previous
>generation CPU's. They claim it was because the new software wouldn't run
>under such underpowered CPU's.
>
>Linux on the other hand, WILL have a greater degree of backward compatility
>because they have no GOAL of making your PC obsolete. This is not a part
>of Linux criteria, to obsolete machines before their time.
>
>You actually HAVE to make it a goal to obsolete machines like 386's
>and 486's to do so.
... Perhaps ...
Microsoft certainly finds it in their interests to encourage
obsolescence of hardware; increased selling of MSFT licenses walks
hand-in-hand with increased sales of new hardware.
-> If a new version of Windows requires more RAM and disk, and a
faster/fancier set of hardware, this is in the interests of the
vendors of those components;
-> If the newer hardware won't support the older version of Windows,
then Microsoft gets to sell more licenses.
One could read too much into this, but these parties involved will
certainly find it _somewhat_ valuable to "churn" product by making the
old products _forcibly_ obsolete.
>>> 2. It's multi-user
>>>
>>> Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user. All that meens to
>>> me is that I have to remember a password just to be able to get into my
>>> own computer. Users want to get their work done, not waist time "logging
>>> in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that can't even be
>>> disaballed, and having to remember the "root password" every time
>>> somethign goes wrong. Those "other users" that UNIX is dessined to
>>> support through VT100 terminals can get the're own computer, and the
>>> "administrative identities" aka daemon, nobody, mail, news, bin, sys,
>>> and uucp, can all go to hell. It's not the '70s anymore.
>>>
>
>It's multi user in the sense that MULTIPLE users can actually use it
>all at the same time. Microsoft tried this and failed in 1995-96
>years.
You're missing the point that WinTel folk don't see any _value_ in
having this ability.
You can argue, and I'd have no trouble agreeing, that what is
happening here is that they are _blind_ to the value, in great part
because they haven't seen it, and thus have no real idea why it would
be valuable to them.
>Finally after several years of effort, Microsofts remote gui terminal
>is now available and on the market. It isn't selling well due to the
>poor performance of the system. But they are working on it. It is a
>goal of Microsoft to provide business a true multi user experience.
Ah, but it's not intended to be of the same kind as that provided by
UNIX.
The WTS service is _not_ about the ability to connect up arbitrary
sessions between one host and another; it is about providing the
ability for a bunch of hosts to access services that a particular
server has been configured to provide.
Thus, you don't install WTS so that a system administrator can do
remote logins to see what might be broken, and fix it, or so that you
can connect to a machine that is "less busy" and do work there. You
install WTS on _one_ host so that 50 users can connect to it to run
the three specific applications that you have configured that server
to run.
>>> 3. It's "flexibbal" (in other words you can turn off the GUI)
>>>
>>> And noboddy cares. Linux is just as useless without its GUI as Windows
>>> is. There is NO REASON to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off
>>> the desktop, and NO REASON to turn off the Window manager. These are all
>>> useless feetures, and Linux gains NOTHING over Widnos for halvign them.
>>> Yet Linux isn't flexibble enough to allow you to turn off the multi-user
>>> "feature". Now THAT would be a somewhat usefull feature.
>
>Not true. I can edit and compile software, maintain databases, write letters,
>work on spreadsheets all from a dumb terminal or the terminal on the console.
>You don't have to have X but it's nice. Linux on the terminal is what I wish
>dos would have been capable of doing years ago.
The notion that it requires "more flexibility" to "shut off"
multi-user-ness is just preposterous as is the notion that "shutting
off the console" requires this same "more flexibility."
There is no value in responding to this seriously when it needs to be
treated as the nonsense it is.
>>> 4. You can logg in remotely
>>>
>>> ...creating the nead for the whole username-and-pasword system. And
>>> since it's a feature that
>>> only geeks need, the only "beneffit" for normal users is that they need
>>> a password (see #2) to keep hackers out, where they don't need one if
>>> they run Windows.
>
>Hey, you can log in remotely to NT...
>I guess you've never done this?
>
>There are a variety of software add on packages which even make the experience
>easier for NT users.
>
>Linux is a natural at remote services. You can remotely control X program on
>a high powered X server and have the gui represenation displayed on your
>desktop.
>
>Windows is just behind Linux/Unix in this area. Maybe that's what he's trying
>to make a point of.
>
>>>
>>> 5. "X" Windows works over a network.
>>>
>>> Another faeture that nobody ever uses. This doesn't make "X" Windows
>>> more usefull to most users. Windows still wins.
>>>
>
>Yeah. X works over a network. Windows can't do that yet.
>Their multi user windows terminal has the same idea however.
>This is their corporate baby! They are trying.
>
>
>>> 6. The CLI can multitask and network.
>>>
>>> ...which still doesn't make it any more usefull than DOS. Multitasking
>>> is only usefull to normal
>>> people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
>>>
>
>I don't get where the cut is on Linux here....
>Dos doesn't multi-task, true.
>Windows don't multi-task either, it timeshares.
>
>Linux offers true multi-tasking with their kernel.
Careful that you don't add nonsense yourself.
The only way you _truly_ get multiple tasks running at once is if you
have multiple CPUs (e.g. - SMP).
Typical multitasking on UNIX and Linux and Windows NT and VMS and TSO
and MVS and GCOS, and practically anything going back to the days of
ITS, _ALL_ represents timesharing.
The term that would distinguish DOS-based multiprocessing from that on
UNIX would be that of cooperative multitasking (CMT) versus
pre-emptive multitasking (PMT). On MS-DOS, and on early MacOS, and
Windows 3.1, they used cooperative multitasking.
Tasks would relinquish control to other tasks voluntarily. In
contrast, timesharing systems have almost exclusively (and I can't
think of counterexamples) provided pre-emptive multitasking, where
processes would be given successive time slices, and would be forcibly
interrupted by the OS if they did not give up resources voluntarily.
Most GUI systems have some combination of CMT and PMT components; it
tends to be possible for some components to take over event loops
thereby establishing CMT even when the underlying system supports PMT.
>>> 7. It gives you "choice"
>>>
>>> ...betwean one crappy program and 50 others just like it. Most people's
>>> "choice" is MS Windows
>>> and the fine MS software that goes together with it. They would never
>>> give up all that just to run Linux and its shitty little beta-test apps
>>> except if they were tricked into it.
>
>I know there is beta software for linux.
>There's alot which isn't beta anymore also.
>
>Linux software is comparable to Windows software if you use the best
>instead of the beta/alpha.
>
>It's all in your common sense. If you have any, you don't have any problems.
>IF you have no common sense then sticking to Microsoft might be your final
>bet then. Just pay them the huge bucks and when you application causes
>your OS to blue screen, which it will, shut up and smile.
There _are_ variations in quality; there's definitely some Linux-based
software, particularly amongst GUIed stuff, that is
less-than-perfectly-resilient. (The latest releases of both Opera and
Mozilla seem to qualify in this category...)
I'd suggest that many of the things that you're calling "Linux
software" that _are_ pretty reliable are only associated with Linux in
your own mind.
- Apache is _not_ tied to Linux.
- Nor is SAMBA.
- The only Linux-specific HTTP server I'm aware of is the one that is
actually integrated into the Linux kernel.
- GCC is not "Linux software;" it ran on other OSes long before Linux
was around, and ditto for Linux "file utilities" and other such
stuff.
>>> 8. It's "free"
>>>
>>> ...but it costs lots and lots of time, a little time at first durring
>>> the installation, and
>>> then more and more time after the installation as one thing after
>>> annother goes wrong.
>
>I've installed 4 seperate OS's in the last 2 years.
>Debian, Redhat, Mandrake, Suse.
>I've had 0 trouble with any of them.
>
>Some had nicer installs and were more user freindly than others.
>But they all worked just fine.
Most of the criticisms I've seen of how awful Linux is to install has
come from people running nearly-deviant stuff like PHAT Linux.
It is eminently evident that the install processes for Linux have gone
through _considerable_ development over the last couple years; while
there are surely some "growing pains" in changing from Windows to
UNIX, blaming difficulties on _installation_ seems pretty nonsensical.
>>> 9. It's Open-Source
>>>
>>> ...but nobody want's to waste time fixing all the bugs it has when they
>>> can just run Windos
>>> like they've been doing and have world-class sofrware.
>>>
>
>Windows won't be a company shortly. We merely suggest starting
>to use Linux or perhaps a MAC so that you might still be a PC enthusiast.
>
>Buying into Microsoft at this time is fool hardy at it's finest.
>Microsoft won't be a major player 5 years from now.
Buying into "open source" because everyone will be happily patching
Apache, Linux, and Gnumeric is _not_ a good argument.
You might buy into it because:
a) Upgrading to a new architecture may be as simple as _someone else_
recompiling the code, or
b) You never need to tell your boss, "It's broken, the vendor has gone
out of the business of supporting it, and we have _NO_ recourse."
Those that trusted Apple to continue to support Newton, or that
depended on Digital's support of RDB, or that were planning to
adopt Taligent, or that were depending on PenOS, or Apple Rhapsody,
or that were burned when Microsoft bought and orphaned FoxBase, can
likely tell fun stories about this sort of thing.
I have heard rumour that around "IT America," proposing to deploy a
project using Apple technologies is liable to get you fired, after
all the "games" Apple has played with de-releasing products over
the years.
>>> 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that
>>> alreaddy shipped with UNIX
>>> to beagen with.
>>>
>>> Yawn.
>
>I'm aware of no factory freebies in the Unix world.
>You can pay to have it installed but nothing free.
The "Yawn" is in that the WinVocate could not care less about PPC,
StrongARM, 68000, or Alpha, because the only architecture that
actually _matters_ is IA-32, whether coming from Intel, AMD, or
"whomever-owns-Cyrix-today."
And they're not entirely wrong:
- The future of Alpha is unclear;
- PPC means either buying MacOS systems from Apple, or _VERY PRICEY_
IBM AIX or AS/400 systems;
- StrongARM is almost exclusively used in embedded systems, and ditto
for MIPS;
- IA-64? Dell, Compaq, and Gateway don't sell desktop systems yet, so
it doesn't matter.
For these architectures, you have a choice between:
a) Something resembling dumpster-diving, or
b) Paying _big_ bucks either for a Seriously Expensive Server, or for
the systems integration involved in constructing an embedded
system.
For desktop PCs, your choices _are_ pretty limited.
>Well, I guess we won't be seeing from you in the near future then.
>Microsoft's freebies are about to end.
>People are going to have to decide whether or not to PAY to have
>Windows 2000 installed at the stores shortly.
>
>It won't just BE ON YOUR COMPUTER anymore.
>And that goes the same for Internet Explorer. It won't be available
>to download or for FREE anymore.
>
>Those days have ended and with them has ended Microsoft.
It'll not likely disappear from the earth terribly soon...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
People can be set wondering by loading obscure personal patchable
systems, and sending bug reports. Who would not stop and wonder upon
seeing "Experimental TD80-TAPE 1.17, MegaDeath 2.5..."? The same for
provocatively-named functions and variables in stack traces.
-- from the Symbolics Guidelines for Sending Mail
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 19 Jun 2000 09:49:01 GMT
In article <8if1lr$180b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What other security is there besides XHost +hostname for limiting who
>> can redirect your X server or plug into your X server?
>
> There is the Xauthority mechanism, but the easy way is to only allow
> ssh connections in, letting ssh handle the X redirection back to the
> connecting machine over the encrypted and optionally compressed
> connection.
That is best, especially when combined with Xauth to lock out local
users (i.e. only authorised local clients and encrypted remote clients
can get access to the desktop; this should lock out all but yourself.)
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: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:01:22 -0500
On 18 Jun 2000 07:18:42 GMT, Marada C. Shradrakaii <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Noboddy cares if Linxu can run on some geaks' obsolete 386 in 2MB of RAM.
>
>True. It doesn't matter what it can run on DIRECTLY, but the indirect effect
>of this is important. Something small enough to run on a 2M system won't take
>up too much overhead on a 160M system in all likelihood, and I'd rather run
>apps in my RAM than operating systems.
>
>>Linux ganes NOTHING over Windows by being multi-user
>
>One computer for a family. Life is simplified by giving each family member his
>own directory to organize files, and his own user configuration. Even Win9x
>offers primitive multiuser support for that reason.
But moast peopel don't USE it, and it can be turned off.
>
>>not waist time "logging in" screwing around with usernames and passwords that
>>can't
>>even be disaballed,
>
>Run in single-user mode, or set no password. About as secure as a big red sign
>that says "Crack me" but it does what you want.
In Windos you can have no password without getting cracked. You onley need password
for PCAnywhere or Terminnal server, but the password doessn't effect you when you
use the PC.
>
>>There is NO REASON
>>to turn off the GUI, and NO REASON to turn off the desktop, and NO REASON to
>>turn off the
>>Window manager
>If you want to try a different one, there is a reason. If I prefer GEM or
>GeoWorks to the Windows GUI, why shouldn't I be able to unload the GUI I don't
>use? Similar principle will apply for Berlin v. X.
>
>> This doesn't make "X" Windows more usefull to most
>>users. Windows still wins.
>
>That doesn't follow. How is Windows, which provides no over-network feature,
>winning?
Nobody neads an over-network feeture. Windows wins without it.
>
>>Multitasking is only usefull to normal
>>people in a GUI, which is why DOS doesn't do it.
>
>Actually, at least one aspect of multitasking is extremely useful:
>suspend/resume a process. That way, you don't need a new window to pop out of
>an app and perform a task.
>
>>10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy
>>shipped with UNIX
>>to beagen with.
>
>The 80x86 did not ship with a *ix to begin with. The MacIntosh didn't either.
>Nor did the CBM Amiga, Atari 680x0-based machines, or sundry others.
You can list the exceptians, but it doesn't change the ruel.
>
>--
>Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
>Colony name not needed in address.
>DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
>R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:01:32 -0500
On 18 Jun 2000 05:31:28 GMT, WhyteWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>[sniped for bandwidth]
>
>>>Adobe Photoshop probably started out on Macs. (Anyone know for sure?)
>>
>>It doesn't matter wheare it started out. Windows runs it now, and Linnux
>>does'nt.
>
>
>yes it does matter .. sence it didn't start on windows
>means that it has been ported before .. and most likely
>will be ported again .. and again ... and again
To the OS with the most markit shere. In other words, some version of Windows.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure about the GIMP. But then, I'm a Deluxe Paint user
>>>from way back; now there's a program I can use! :-)
>>>
>>>>or even a good LOGO interporator.
>>>
>>>Oh yeah, I want Win2K just to allow kids to program in LOGO!
>>>
>>>Brilliant!
>>>
>>>(IMO, one would be better off buying a used Amiga for that sort
>>>of thing, or perhaps an old Mac II.
>>
>>But not UNIX beacause LOGO is far too advanced for UNIX!
>
>humm .. my mom learned Logo on UNIX ... when
>she was in college for her english degree
>after her Nursing degree and before her CDL
>
>
>and If i remeber right pascal had turtle graphix
>ability built in.
>
>
>>>>And if you do anything with grafix, you can only save a JPEG or
>>>>PNG (forget GIF's! their "pollitacolly incorrect",
>>>
>>>No, they're patented. Anyone who writes a GIF generator may be
>>>required to pay royalties.
>>
>>This only seams ot be an issue on UNIX.
>
>um no it's a issue with all platforms
It only seems to bothers Open Sores programmers.
>besides GIF is supported by UNIX ...
>it's just not as comman there sence it's a
>outdated std. sence replaced by jpg
>windows just hasn't found out yet.
Windows supports .JPG's just fine.
>
>
>>>Oh gosh. You're *really* reaching if you have to go that far back!
>>>UUCP died out 5 years ago, if I'm not mistaken; Unix boxes have
>>>understood how to find the Internet host for a particular email
>>>address for at least that long.
>>
>>5 years ago.. Did this have anything to do with the rellease of Windows 95? Wasn't
>enough to
>>get rid of VI, though.
>
>no it didn't ... it had more to do with the fact that
>BBS's wern't useing it anymore and the FIDOnet backbone
>slowly got knocked into the internet ring ... {sence BBS's
>were the true last users of UUCP}
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>and look at this it's real kewl! If you want to chat, with the other
>>>>users you can type "write",
>>>
>>>Or 'irc'. (Hey, Unix users can read RFC1459 too. :-) )
>>
>>Same thing. Ugly-ass VT100 crap. Try MIRC. UNIX doesn't even come close.
>>
>
>I mIRCed ... nice piece of work ... altho it's
>broken ... it doesn't reconize ANSI which was
>interduced into the IRC/CTCP/DCC standards
>
>besides kvIRC has a much better scripting style
>based on c/mIRC syntaxing
>
>altho BitchX is much better then either IMHO
>mIRC still hasn't goten built in Flood protection
>right and has been proven to have backdoors up the
>ass {btw I"m a Ex-mIRC scripter ...
BitxhX = ircII + ANSI color
>I usta do things
>in mIRC that windows lacked ... last thing I did
>in mIRC was making a linux interpeter for mIRC
>that made it look if someone logged into
>the telnet port they were connecting to a linux box
>as well as passive firewall system and a telnet client
>}
>
>
>>>cdrom: /dev/cdrom
>>>Floppy: /dev/fd0, /dev/fd1, /dev/fd[01][DH]*
>>>Sound card: various, typically /dev/audio, /dev/sequencer, /dev/dsp,
>>>/dev/midi*, and /dev/mixer.
>>>Printer: /dev/lp*
>>>Modem: /dev/modem (symbolic link) or /dev/ttyS* (unless it's a WinModem,
>>> which sucks anyway)
>>
>>So you went out and found the obscure hardware that Linux does support. Good for
>you. The rest
>>of us want an OS that supports the hardware we alreaddy have. Linux doesn't even
>come cloase
>>in hardwair support. Windows beats _any_ UNIX hands down.
>>
>
>obscure? nope ... could have been like me ..
>just choose a piece of hardware that was around
>lets see ... AzTech 56K pnp modem ... a cheap NIC
>I picked up as a last min. thing at a trade show.
>D-link even {if you don't know
>who D-Link is ya should get out of the computer business}
>sound by ESS ... and hell the CD-ROM my mom
>had installed before she gave me the computer back
>after she bought herself a new one with her tax return
>packard bell ... and i can use everything in it ...
>to it's fullest potental ... it even runs faster
>now .. I showed my girlfriend windows on this computer
>before formatting and converting it to linux
>then showed her linux ... right now my only bottle neck
>is my internet connection being a 56K modem instead of cable
>but that will hopefuly change soon
>
>
>
>>>Graphics card: this one might not have a device proper, although some
>>> variants might use a framebuffer device. There are also OpenGL
>>> libraries.
>>>Scanner: Dunno, don't have one; SCSI scanners might use /dev/sg0;
>>> some distributions might have /dev/scanner.
>>>
>>>You were saying?
>>
>>Windos does it better. Much, much better.
>
>you can talk the talk {alright I lied
>you can't even talk the talk}... but
>I anit seen ya walk the walk
>
>--
>-=-=-=-=-
>Eggheads unite! You have nothing to lose but your yolks.
> -- Adlai Stevenson
>-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:01:42 -0500
On 18 Jun 2000 01:55:36 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2000 17:37:24 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>>There are GUI utilities such as InstallShield that run circals around any
>>slow-as-hell Linux GNOME substituit.
>
>Sorry, install shield doesn't come close to RPM in terms of its functionality.
>
>Nice try.
Its' easy to use, unnlike RMP.
>
>>Applixware is a POS also compaired to MSOffice.
>
>Have you used Applixware ? You sound completely ignorant WRT UNIX that's
>why I ask. What features does Applixware lack that MS Office has ? Are you
>prepared to debate, or are you just going to air uninformed opinions ?
>
>>>BTW, if they don't like GNOME, there's also KDE plus a zillion other choices,
>>>most of which are faster than GNOME.
>>
>>None of them is faster than Windos.
>
>What do you mean by "faster" ? I find that KDE runs "fast" enough, I don't
>find either Windows or KDE "slow".
KDE takes forever and a day to load up.
>
>--
>Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
