Linux-Advocacy Digest #181, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 06:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (Tim Palmer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (Tim Palmer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs? (Tim Palmer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:01:52 -0500
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 19:40:50 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 17 Jun 2000 17:36:13 -0500, 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.
>
>Agreed. The lie here is that if you run KDE and Netscape on that 386
>and you're not gonna have much fun.
>
>>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.
>
>Agreed although it can be useful for an average user. Of course, who
>doesn't own more than one computer these days? Would have been a
>useful feature for home users 5 years ago maybe.
>
>>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.
>
>Linux is more flexibbal than Windows but most people hardly ever learn
>how to use all of Windows so they're never going to care about
>removing parts they don't use or adding other things.
>
>>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.
>
>This is actually very useful to anyone. Of course, Windows does it as
>well. I remotely administrate my server and when I'm at work I can
>logon to my home system using PCANYWHERE or other free tools.
But it doesn't force you to tipe password EVERY TIME you use Windows like UNIX does.
UNIX makes
you tipe a password even when your on the consoul.
>
>Note, Whistler, aka Windows 2000 Consumer includes remote login using
>a scaled down version of Terminal Server.
>
>>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.
>
>Same as above.
>
>>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.
>
>or you could open two cmd.exe windows and do the exact same thing.
>Wiin32 console apps provide network support for command line based
>tools.
But LinuxLosers like to brag that their CLI can multitask without the GUI running. I
say who cares?
>
>>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've never felt that I didn't have choice. With Windows 3.1 you could
>happily run DOS if you didn't like Windows. With Windows 95 you could
>happily run OS/2 or even still DOS. Before you could always buy an
>Amiga or ST.
>
>Now there is still choice. There is the BeOS. Linux could be a choice
>but not to average users. You could always buy a Mac if you wanted to.
>
>>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 love computers but I have SO many better things to do than read man
>pages for hours to achive what I can with a nice little UI in 15
>seconds.
>
>I really do wonder if most Linx users are 13-19 years old with lots of
>spare time. Thats the point in my life that I would happily spend
>HOURS setting up something for the fun of it. That's when I couldn't
>afford anything other than freeware tools and I had to suffer with
>their poor quality.
>
>>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.
>>
>>10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that alreaddy shipped
>with UNIX
>>to beagen with.
>>
>>Yawn.
>
>Exactly.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:02:02 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:42:51 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>> >Actually the store people will do what they do no matter what you ask
>> >them. They will stand there scratching thier heads going "DUH" and
>> >drewling.
>>
>> Learn to speal "drool", morron.
>
>You are the last person who should criticize anyone for spelling.
>
>>
>> >Unfortunately, until they hire competent people for customer
>> >service at computer stores, this will be what happens.
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >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..
>> >> >
>> >> >Actually, generally speaking, Linux does a better job at scaling than
>> >> >does NT. The one thing that NT does better is to assign processor
>> >> >affinity to devices. Other than that, Linux handles process scheduling
>> >> >and memory management much better.
>> >>
>> >> NT can handall 2 network card. All Linsux fools have to say about that is "one
>network card
>> >> ought to be enough for anybody!"
>> >
>> >Um, I hate to break this to you, but I have two servers in the room
>> >right above me that each have four network cards in them. You were
>> >saying?
>>
>> Linsux slows down to a crawl when it has to handall more than 1 NIC. NT can run
>circels around
>> Linsux with 2 NICs. Linux loser's only answer to this is 'why would you ever want
>to run a server
>> with 2 NICs?'
>
>This is, of course, a lie. Linux does not handle 2 NICs as well as NT,
>but this does not imply "crawl." I actuality, Linux does other things
>much better than NT: Process scheduling for one. A better process
>scheduler impacts the performance of the entire system, not just one
>aspect of it. So yes, two netcards are better handled in NT, but
>multiple processes feeding this netcards will run better in Linux. The
>ONLY way NT was able to take advantage of those two netcards in the
>Mindcraft test was to use cached static pages. This, as everyone knows,
>is not how a real web server runs.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >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.
>> >> >
>> >> >One can name the modem anything they want. Most distributions create the
>> >> >symlink "modem" to ttySn.
>> >>
>> >> And then you half to drop to Linux's version of DOS in order to correct the
>shortcut.
>> >
>> >I don't know of any graphical file manager under Linux that won't allow
>> >you to create links.
>>
>> I know of a few that will delay forever and a day when you try to lode a folder as
>big as /dev.
>
>Try opening the C:\Winnt\system32 folder. Have fun.
It displays instantly in Explorer. Lets see KFM do that.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >I have yet to use a Postscript printer under Linux, I have not idea what
>> >> >you're smoking.
>> >> >Actually these 10K one function programs build one hell of a lot of
>> >> >functionality. This is a different, and arguably better, method of doing
>> >> >things than the Windows way.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, if you like wrighting a shell script everytime you nead the computer to do
>something that
>> >> would be simpal under Windows.
>> >
>> >Um, no, it wouldn't even be possible under Windows most of the time.
>>
>> What woudlnt evan be possible? A script that takes the second word from every file
>in /etc and
>> prints it all on one line? Who cares?
>
>If this was something you needed to do, you'd care. That is the point.
>Seemingly trivial things are often time consuming repetitive work under
>Windows. Under Linux, (UNIX) they are not.
Stoopid text sheuffling activities like this are the kinds of things that you always
have to
do too keep UNIX working, but never really have any reason to do under Windows.
Windows users
arnt consearned about being able to shuffle text with shell scripts. You expect some
kind of
mass migratian to UNIX because of all these features that no one has anny use for, and
then
wonder why almost everyobody is stayingwith Windos. The truth is that the features
that regular
people have a use for aren't their in UNIX.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:02:12 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 08:10:02 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Palmer) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>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.
>
>Actually I means I could hang onto my older PC and use it as a Samba file
>server. Windows works on it, but see later.
Or you could just sell the POS and buy one that can run NT.
>
>>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.
>
>The fact that I can login into my older PC file server means I can shut it
>down remotely. You can't do that with Windows 98 SE!
But who cares?
>
>>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.
>
>My god a spell checker would be handy here.
I've alreaddy saturated the spealchecker's dictionarry with misspelt words so it
thinks their
all correct now.
>
>It is useful NOT running a GUI as that sometimes gets in the way. Why run a
>GUI on a server? As for not being able to turn off multiuser, why do you
>consider that 'inflexible'?
Because you always half to type password or else you get cracked.
>
>>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.
>
>Yes I do find it useful logging into my Samba file server remotely from my
>Windows 98 SE PC.
Avaradge users don't care if the can log in or not.
>
>No I do not find it useful that Windows 98 SE has minimal security. Even
>Windows 2000 has the full blown username/password thing you don't like.
>
>>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.
>
>It's only really useful if you have a network. Otherwise it's an unusable
>feature. It must also slow things down a bit, as its yet another layer for
>the GUI to work through.
>
>>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.
>
>ROFL. You're kidding right!
Nobody even uses the CLI anymore. You can do everything from within Windows. So why
does it
nead it?
>
>>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 think the complaint against Microsoft software is that its (i) expensive
>and (ii) bloated. Also Microsoft have a lot of bad pratices deliberately to
>keep competitors out of what it considers as its markets.
>
>>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.
>
>My Samba server hasn't gone wrong yet. I switch it on, it's there. I switch
>it off for the night (it's too noisy in the house to leave it permanently
>running).
>
>Contrast this with my Windows 98 SE PC. I switch it on, and recently it
>told me my registry was corrupt and I should reboot to repair it. I reboot
>and it tells me exactly the same thing again, so I kill the ScanRegistry
>crap that doesn't appear to be doing its job. I switch it off and due to a
>bug in Windows 98 SE it hangs on shutdown.
That's never happend to me.
>
>>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.
>
>What bugs in Linux. So far I've seen one 'kernel oops' in software that was
>acknowledged as less than stellar. Yet see above for my regular experience
>with Windows 98 SE.
>
>>10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that
>>alreaddy shipped with UNIX to beagen with.
>>
>>Yawn.
>
>ZZZZZZ
>
>>:
>>:post
>>The post command is unknown.
>>:exit
>>The exit command is unknown.
>>:close
>>The close command is unknown.
>>:quit
>>File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
>>:save
>>The save command is unknown.
>>:s
>>No previous regular expression.
>>:Oh darnit!
>>The Oh command is unknown.
>>:?
>>No previous regular expression.
>>:quit
>>File modified since last complete write; write or use ! to override.
>>:!
>>Usage: [line [,line]] ! command.
>>:! quit
>>File modified since last write.
>>bash: quit: command not found
>>quit: exited with status 127
>>:?
>>No previous regular expression.
>>:DIE YOU PIECE OF LINSHIT!!!!!!
>>The DIE command is unknown.
>
>I'm no fan of vi but even I know q! gets you out.
>
>Pete
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:02:23 -0500
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:02:25 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If you can't do this with Linux after reading "Linux for Dummies" then
>you aimed too high. ;-)
>
>There is nothing that you have asked that can't be done in Linux.
Netscape in 16MB on a 486? Yeah rite. On that kind of system the best you can do with
Linux is
a coupal of virtual consouls and LYNX.
>
>
>
>Flacco wrote:
>>
>> Can Linux do this?
>>
>> We would like to put some "obsolete" hardware to use as web browser kiosks.
>> We have Win95 and IE installed on them now, but I though I'd give Linux a
>> try.
>>
>> Requirements:
>>
>> - Run pretty well on 486/66's with 16MB RAM.
>>
>> - GUI that is fairly easy to use for a non-technical Windows user
>>
>> - Support 3270 connections to VM mainframe
>>
>> - Simple web browser with low memory requirements; must be easy to use for
>> people familiar with IE and Netscape.
>>
>> - Must be able to "lock down" the desktop so that users cannot change the
>> configurations at all. The only things we want these machines to be able to
>> do is browse the web and establish 3270 sessions.
>>
>> - As an added bonus, it would make my life easier if I can manage these
>> machines remotely from my office.
>>
>> - All software components must be freeware.
>>
>> Does anyone have any opinions on the feasibility of this, and suggestions
>> for products (3270 client, web browser), and techniques (ideal Linux config,
>> locking down desktop)?
>>
>> I'm just getting started with Linux, and I really like what I see so far.
>> Thanks in advance for your opinions and suggestions!
>
>--
>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: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:02:33 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 10:03:19 -0500, Bobby D. Bryant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
>> Agreed. The lie here is that if you run KDE and Netscape on that 386
>> and you're not gonna have much fun.
>
>It's only a lie if someone actually says it. I've never heard anyone pushing 386s
>for KDE and
>Netscape, have you?
>
>
>> Linux is more flexibbal than Windows but most people hardly ever learn
>> how to use all of Windows so they're never going to care about
>> removing parts they don't use or adding other things.
>
>That's true. But is it a reason to cripple the power users?
Addign the "power" features of UNIX to Windows wouldent be worth the effort.
>
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.linux,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Can Linux do this? KIOSKS - Lite Linux desktop? Lock-down configs?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:02:43 -0500
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 23:00:25 -0400, Flacco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>Can Linux do this?
>
>We would like to put some "obsolete" hardware to use as web browser kiosks.
>We have Win95 and IE installed on them now, but I though I'd give Linux a
>try.
Your better off sticking with Win.
>
>Requirements:
>
>- Run pretty well on 486/66's with 16MB RAM.
>
>- GUI that is fairly easy to use for a non-technical Windows user
"Run pretty well on 486/66's" to Linux users means "You can run LYNX in text moad to
avoid the
slowness of X Windows and Netscape".
>
>- Support 3270 connections to VM mainframe
>
>- Simple web browser with low memory requirements; must be easy to use for
>people familiar with IE and Netscape.
You can iether use Netscape, which requiars more RAM and a faster CPU, or you can use
AREENA,
which isnt' finnished and probably never will be.
>
>- Must be able to "lock down" the desktop so that users cannot change the
>configurations at all. The only things we want these machines to be able to
>do is browse the web and establish 3270 sessions.
>
>- As an added bonus, it would make my life easier if I can manage these
>machines remotely from my office.
>
>- All software components must be freeware.
>
>
>Does anyone have any opinions on the feasibility of this, and suggestions
>for products (3270 client, web browser), and techniques (ideal Linux config,
>locking down desktop)?
Rede about 6 HOWTO's, some of which are unrellated but halve information you wo'nt
find anywear
else and won't figgure out by yourself.
>
>I'm just getting started with Linux, and I really like what I see so far.
>Thanks in advance for your opinions and suggestions!
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:02:53 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 11:58:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>> I really do wonder if most Linx users are 13-19 years old with lots of
>> spare time. Thats the point in my life that I would happily spend
>> HOURS setting up something for the fun of it. That's when I couldn't
>> afford anything other than freeware tools and I had to suffer with
>> their poor quality.
>
>As it happens i don't have spare time for reboots, crashes, etc, etc.
>Also, I'm no longer 19 (as of yesterday)
So Simon _was_ write!
>
>-Ed
>
>
>
>--
>The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
>http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
>
>remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
>it.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 06:03:04 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:18:06 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >>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!
>>
>
>Logo is available for Linux. I have ucblogo-4.6-2. Now, MicroWorlds
>might be a problem.
Photoshop is avallable for Windows.
>
>
>> >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.
>>
>
>I would suspect not. As for getting rid of vi, isn't that why we have emacs :-)?
EMACS is no better then VI, and besides, Liunx still comes with VI, so EMACKS
do'esnt. get rid of it.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>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.
>>
>> >
>> >>but you'll always be the only user logged in anyway. Oh, and the CD drive,
>> >>sound card, scanner, printer, modem, graffics card, and floppy
>> >>drive arent' working annymore
>> >
>> >They aren't?
>> >
>> >Lessee.
>> >
>> >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.
>>
>
>Almost any external modem is supported. In fact, all I had to do for mine
>was plug it in and use modemtool to set the symlink for /dev/modem.
EXTERNAL? Did Linux not suppoart the inntermal modem that came with your PC?
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
