Linux-Advocacy Digest #184, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy? (John Wiltshire)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
Re: John Smith fucks his sister daily!!! (Arjan Drieman)
Re: Boring (Tim Palmer)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (Tim Palmer)
Re: Boring (Charlie Ebert)
Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors] (Charlie Ebert)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Gary Hallock)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux+JBuilder vs Win2K+JBuilder (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (Gary Hallock)
Re: Processing data is bad! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Gary Hallock)
Windows98 ("David Cancio")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:13:55 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:20:31 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:36:23 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>>The NT 3.x is quite similar in design to Linux/XF4 if you look at it.
>>Wonder how long it takes them to move X into the kernel to improve
>>speed? ;-)
>
> Even if that happened, our kernel is modular. The wise sysadmin
> would still be able to rip it back out if necessary. So, the
> whole point is moot.
Not necessarily. Just as you practically need perl, python and half a
dozen other scripting packages to run a full featured Linux
installation, so you will probably end up needing the GUI.
>[deletia]
>>>>That's because real-mode never made its way into Windows v3.x.
>>>>In order for Microsoft to move forward, they had to leave some
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter what the excuse is. The 386 was out by then,
>>> they had more than enough information to plan ahead with. They
>>> just chose not to.
>>
>>The 386 was out, but the target platform was the 286. Windows 3.x
>
> So, they could have designed it with both the future and the
> present in mind.
How? You obviously have some idea, don't you?
>>just introduced 386 enhanced mode which provided most of the things
>>standard mode did with a few extra bonuses.
>>
>>>>things behind... real-mode applications were one of those things.
>>>>By your logic, we should all be driving cars that still have
>>>>oil lamps on them.
>>>
>>> ...not quite. Computers much like cars are using the same
>>> core technology they have been from nearly their inception.
>>> Windows is a bit younger than DOS and can't use the same
>>> excuses for it's design myopia.
>>
>>Windows ran on DOS. The design of Windows was inseparable from DOS.
>>What are you talking about?
>
> Windows didn't NEED to be built that way. Microsoft merely
> choose the path of least effort, and it shows.
Microsoft developed Windows NT to run on the 386 and better, and
Windows 3.x to support all those people who had 286s. Would you care
to explain to me exactly how you would have designed Windows 2.x and
3.0 with the "future" in mind and keep as much of the software base as
possible? Most notably, how would you have incrementally upgraded
from DOS to a GUI without breaking all those DOS programs and keeping
286 users (90% of the user base) still running?
>>>>Would you suggest that every software company simply cater to
>>>>every single old-timer out there who doesn't want to upgrade
>>>>their ancient OS/application installations? That makes no
>>>
>>> No, they should design for the future more than the have
>>> been (in the case of Microsoft). Software doesn't wear
>>> out and OS vendors shouldn't be essentially sabotaging the
>>> capital investments of both companies and home users.
>>
>>So Linux should have a standard binary driver API, or do different
>>rules apply to different systems?
>
> You're trying to change the subject.
No, I'm just saying that what's good for the goose is good for the
gander. If you want old binaries and DOS apps (which required
drivers) to run on the latest versions of Windows then Linux 1.x
kernel modules and binaries should all run seamlessly on Linux 2.4.
If you have a different rule for Linux to Windows then you are a
hypocrite (by definition).
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:15:25 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:41:05 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Wiltshire wrote:
>
>
>>
>> As for X windowing and Motif windows being separate things, do you
>> really understand X?
>>
>
>Motif is a widget library, and one can run motif applications on X,
>just as one can run qt or gtk apps on X.
My point precisely. So why was 'X Windowing system' and 'Motif
Windowing system' listed as separate subsystems?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 11:18:03 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 09:23:28 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As for X windowing and Motif windows being separate things, do you
>> really understand X?
>
>Yes, I do understand X.. My referece to Motif and X appearing sepperate are
>based on the wording of a magazine interview that was some of the
>prepublicity for NT while it was still in development. X is a one of the
>results of Project Athena. Motif is a Widget set, a set of libraries, a
>windows manager, and a set of programs which are all dependent on X. When
>they made the reference to X, I interpreted it as a user interface for NT
>that would be based on the standard X from MIT. On the other had the Motif
>interface was not as free as the standard X for them Microsoft to use.
>Motif is not free and would have required a lincensing agreement and maybe
>the payment of royalities by Microsoft for access to Motif. Today, we have
>a free Motif workalike called Lesstif, but at that time it was not
>available, since it had not yet been developed. Since, they discussed Motif
>and X as sepperate entitiies, I suspect that Microsoft was going to
>implement them as sepperate interfaces.
Fair enough. Ignore my other reply to Colin then.
My impression is that Microsoft really didn't know what the hell it
was going to build when it was working on NT, so it covered all bases.
When Windows 3.x skyrocketed in popularity they decided to run with it
and we now have the monopoly we know and love today.
...oops, that's right, they aren't a monopoly. They just control most
of the market. ;-)
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Arjan Drieman)
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.hardware.overclocking,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,free.uk.guns,alt.night-club.review.uk,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.linux.os,alt.startrek,alt.uk.teens.london,at.troll,alt.trentworthington.sucks
Subject: Re: John Smith fucks his sister daily!!!
Date: 19 Jun 2000 11:26:42 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:21:28 -0400, Trent Worthington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>First of all, if you had a fucking brain, you'd know that Agent can
>mark messages with keywords in them. Second of all, how do you manage
>to drink liquids without drowning yourself, you unbelievable imbecile?
Second of all, if you all had some sense, you'd take this elsewhere
and learn how to quote messages. Lusers.
Arjan
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: 19 Jun 2000 07:38:16 -0500
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:12:54 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
>> >>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
>> >>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
>> >
>> >
>> >I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
>>
>> Uhm, no. Not even close.
>>
>> >What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
>>
>> The government can't do anything to them until the appeals proscess is over. By
>then, this whole
>> UNIX revival thing will halve blone over.
>>
>> >
>> >If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
>> >what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
>> >
>>
>> That it sucks. Just like the KDE befor it. You can put Windos like environmant
>ontop of UNIX, but
>> thats' still UNIX under theare,
>
>Thank goodness, I like having a stable OS.
You cant make a easy-to-use OS on top of UNIX. Thatts the point. No matter what you
do, you
can't get rid of the eccentrictys of UNIX accept by getting rid of UNIX alltoggether.
>
>
>> and you can't get rid of the limmitations of UNIX except by getting
>> rid of the UNIX. That is why UNIX+KDE fales now just like UNIX without it did, and
>UNIX+KDE2 will
>> continnue to fale in the future.
>
>What sort of limitations? No GPF's or BSOD's?
No surround sound. No coppy-protected DVD. No SBLive support. Limmited video support
>
>>
>>
>> Just face it: UNIX is the PAST. Leave it in the 1970s whear it belongs.
>>
>
>It's also the future.
It cant evan play DVDs. You call that the _future_?
>
>
>>
>> >I think the Microsoft community realizes that there is no competing with
>> >Linux as the Linux community comes out with a new version roughly once
>> >every 6-9 months.
>>
>> Yeah, and you accuse Windwos of making peopal upgrade.
>>
>
>But Linux companies don't charge as much, and one can upgrade
>a few packages at a time?
You can do that on Windos too.
>
>>
>> >This in comparison to Windows 2-4 year revisionary
>> >history,,, with complete writeups from the ground floor up.
>> >
>> >Charlie
>> >
>
>Colin Day
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 07:38:26 -0500
On 19 Jun 2000 02:36:46 GMT, JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>
>Um actually multiuser is quite a nice feature. The same program can be run by
>hundreds of different users unlike Winblowme which won't let me play QuakeII
>off my buddues box while he's doing it. And by the way genius, passwd's are
>disabled by typeing "passwd <usrname>" and not entering a new passdwd. Holy
>shit that was hard.
It only works in a DOS-box wont let you unless your root.
>
>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.
>
>
>A: DOS can't do it because it's flat out shit. B) Multitasking is cool at the
>cmd line, I can run CRACK, type a letter, browse the net, and what ever the
>hell else i want. Try that with Winblowme
You can do it in Windows too. Its easy. And grafficle.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
Date: 19 Jun 2000 07:38:36 -0500
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:10:24 GMT, mike burrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.help Nathan Woodhull <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I am a student at Medfield High School who is working on a project to
>> replace a room of 24 typewriters with X-terminals running Linux. Hopefully
>> we plan to have the system up and running by next Christmas, but the issue
>> of funding will be a problem. Do any of you know of any companies or
>> organizations that would be willing to fund such a project?
>
>> We will need about $10,000 to complete the project
>
>i couldn't say for sure. i see that most (nearly all?) of your money is
>going to the application servers. you might try hitting up some of the
>big hardware companies (dell, gateway, patriot, maybe even va linux,
>penguin, etc.) or local shops to see what kind of educational discount
>they're willing to give you. i know that patriot computers (if you're in
>canada) are especially cheap to schools, but their computers suck ass (last
>time i checked), so you might want to avoid that.
>
>beyond discounts, though, i can't think of too many ways to get funding off
>the top of my head. you could try to offer your students as slave labour
>("give us $2000 and we'll take your new computers and get our classes/clubs
>to do accounting, graphic arts, programming, etc. work for you for free),
>which is always fun, since students love work experience.
>
>really, though, do high schools do anything *but* raise funds? :) it seems
>that schools are constantly doing a bake sale or a fashion show or
>something. high school students are probably the most imaginative people on
>earth when it comes to fund raising, so maybe you should be asking them.
>
>> Here is a PDF file with a more detailed version of our plan. It is a bit
>> outdated and grammatically incorrect, but it gets the point across.
>
>> http://medfield.net/xterm.pdf
>
>btw i liked you calling C a "modern" language :D
>
>oh one more thing. i only skimmed through the document (hey, it's pretty
>long): what are you planning to do with those old macs that you're
>replacing. there's a mi/x x server for macs which could very well run (it
>might be ppc-only though; i'm too lazy to check). if you can find a decent
>mac x server, though, it would be worth-while keeping them around to save
>you refurbishing costs in the future (when you presumably expand your
>operation).
>
>also, universities love to sell things like hp/300s for really cheap. the
>hp300 linux port is pretty weak, but running netbsd on them would be great
>(especially considering they were designed to run netbsd). most of the
>hp300s i've seen have 1024x768 fixed-freq monitors (many are B&W, but there
>are quite a few that are colour), and they were actually *designed* to be
>simple X boxen (e.g. they don't come with hard drives or floppy drives or
>any of the nonsense, and they come with really cool-looking mice). sure,
>they're what, 10? 15 years old? but they do the job all right.
>
>personally i think a heterogenous environment would be great in a school
>lab, especially with a common denominator like X that would give each
>machine access to exactly the same apps.
>
>okay i'll leave you alone now. good luck.
>
>--
> /"\ m i k e b u r r e l l
> \ / ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> X AGAINST HTML MAIL
> / \
"Healp me my text-baste UNIX mailreder cant rede HTML!"
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:15:52 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:12:54 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
> >> >>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
> >> >>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
> >>
> >> Uhm, no. Not even close.
> >>
> >> >What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
> >>
> >> The government can't do anything to them until the appeals proscess is over. By
>then, this whole
> >> UNIX revival thing will halve blone over.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
> >> >what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
> >> >
> >>
> >> That it sucks. Just like the KDE befor it. You can put Windos like environmant
>ontop of UNIX, but
> >> thats' still UNIX under theare,
> >
> >Thank goodness, I like having a stable OS.
>
> You cant make a easy-to-use OS on top of UNIX. Thatts the point. No matter what you
>do, you
> can't get rid of the eccentrictys of UNIX accept by getting rid of UNIX alltoggether.
No Tim Palmer, that's not true.
>
> >
> >
> >> and you can't get rid of the limmitations of UNIX except by getting
> >> rid of the UNIX. That is why UNIX+KDE fales now just like UNIX without it did,
>and UNIX+KDE2 will
> >> continnue to fale in the future.
> >
> >What sort of limitations? No GPF's or BSOD's?
>
> No surround sound.
I have that.
> No coppy-protected DVD.
I have that.
> No SBLive support.
I have that.
> Limmited video support
I have several ways to watch a video, dozens and dozens...
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Just face it: UNIX is the PAST. Leave it in the 1970s whear it belongs.
> >>
> >
> >It's also the future.
>
> It cant evan play DVDs. You call that the _future_?
Yes you can. I am.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >I think the Microsoft community realizes that there is no competing with
> >> >Linux as the Linux community comes out with a new version roughly once
> >> >every 6-9 months.
> >>
> >> Yeah, and you accuse Windwos of making peopal upgrade.
> >>
> >
> >But Linux companies don't charge as much, and one can upgrade
> >a few packages at a time?
>
> You can do that on Windos too.
No you can't. Windows is all or none.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >This in comparison to Windows 2-4 year revisionary
> >> >history,,, with complete writeups from the ground floor up.
> >> >
> >> >Charlie
> >> >
> >
> >Colin Day
> >
He never signes his mail to me...
I'll sign it for him.
> Tim 'Clueless in computerland' Palmer.
Thank you Tim.
Tim, people are actually getting smarter every year using Linux.
You should attempt to get smarter.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:19:15 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
{snip}
Microsoft will be disected into 3 seperate chunks per the judge.
Then fed to the fishies.
And that will be the end of Micropoopoo.
Bye Bye...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:23:16 GMT
Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> >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.
>
Here is the reason why .vbs scripts can take down the world wide
internet...
Idiots who don't care about security.
Idiots like Tim Palmer.
Thanks for noticing.
Charlie
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:24:22 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Its' easy to use, unnlike RMP.
>
Yes you really will have a tough time installing programs with RMP. But RPM is
easy. You do know, don't you, that there are a couple of very nice GUI interfaces
to RPM for keyboard handicapped people like yourself:
1) Insert CD. It is automatically mounted and the KDE file manager pops up
displaying the contents of the CD with pretty icons.
2) Click on the RPM file. Up pops kpackage
3) Click on install
Now is that really all that difficult?
>
>
> KDE takes forever and a day to load up.
>
KDE loads in a fraction of the time that Windows does. It takes Windows forever
to finish starting from the time the icons first appear on the desktop to the time
the disk stops churning and that hourglass disappears.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:27:09 GMT
mmnnoo wrote:
>
> This post reminded me of when I didn't think
> multitasking was important. I really had
> no clue about all the different ways computers
> are used, by whom and for what. Just like Tim.
Yes,
But with a name like 'Palmer' for his pen name,
it's little wonder he has no time to use his
computer.
Sounds like he doesn't even have time to log on.
Must spend all his time in the bathroom.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux+JBuilder vs Win2K+JBuilder
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:38:15 +0200
Ian Pulsford schreef:
>
> Martijn Bruns wrote:
> >
> > Flacco schreef:
> > >
> > > I am new to Linux. I just noticed that JBuilder on Linux on my P133/64MB
> > > runs as well as JBuilder on Win2K on my P500/256MB.
> > >
> > > Just thought I'd share that.
> >
> > That's probably because Linux doesn't try to sabotage Java. Java
> > is platformindepentent, you know. That very principle goes
> > anything Microsoft has ever believed in.
>
> Borland hasn't tried to sabotage Java like microsoft has. Jbuilder is
> 100% java.
I know. I'm working with it right now. In Windows 98, that is,
and it's really, really slow.
Somehow JBuilder runs much slower on Microsoft OS's than it does
on any other OS it runs on. There's no way anybody can tell me
that bad quality in Microsoft software can truly be the only
cause for this, although the lack of true multitasking support
would be some part of it.
I still get the idea that Microsoft is somehow sabotaging Java in
general.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:41:27 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
Tim Palmer wrote:
NOTHING
Hey, trim your posts, you asshole
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:44:59 GMT
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>However, you DO have the option of doing that as well:
>$ du -a / | grep [your_extension_here] | wc -l
Uhm, while I did the same thing back in '89, under Xenix, it is not a very
good idea --- mainly because the "du" will actually have to work out the size
of each file, thus requiring accesses to each and every inode.
If you use
find / -name \*.ext -print | wc -l
then you only ever look at the directories, and thus things run a whole lot
faster. And it also takes care of cases where the extension you are looking
for occurs somewhere else in the filename --- e.g. you are looking for "txt",
and have "mytxt.ps" or even "thesis.txt.dvi".
Bernie
--
Dream as if you'll live forever...live as if you'll die today.
James Dean
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:48:15 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
Nor does Linux. You can disable the password if you really want to. At least a
Linux password
actually does protect your data, unlike Windows.
I'm waiting for a retraction of your statement that Linux for S/390 reqiures VM. Come
on Tim, be a
man a admit yoor an idiot.
>
>
> But LinuxLosers like to brag that their CLI can multitask without the GUI running. I
>say who cares?
>
Linux can even multitask when the GUI is running, unlike Wiindows.
TRIM your damn posts
Gary
------------------------------
From: "David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Windows98
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:45:15 GMT
Hi everyone. First of all to avoid void flames, I work as GNU/Linux
and Solaris administration, and do not find difficult any of them. I can
manage to do whatever I want be it from GNU/Linux, Solaris, Windows
NT, Windows 98, and the so ... (I've been playing around with computers
since CP/M 2.2, and I like them and I think I understand them ...). This
said, I find that as home OS, Windows 98 is the TODAY option for almost
everyone. Sure it freezes, sure registry is awful, sure it is expensive,
sure it
is a shitty code, but sure that if something can be done with a computer
(again,
home users in mind), then Windows 98 can do it (okay, try do it well at
least,
to be honest). I mean, why have only GNU/Linux at my home when a magazine
gives an English course (for Windows) ? Why can't I test all those new games
?
Why can't I use my hardware (Windows 98 targeted most of it) at full power ?
Yeah, I know GNU/Linux does support most of the hardware, but a lot of
vendors add nice features that are only available with Windows 98 drivers.
Even
Windows 2000 fails at this (and at games and multimedia too). Sure that if
I only do programming and internet, GNU/Linux is the best real option, but
having only GNU/Linux at home, does close unnecessarily some doors that
some day you may cross, doesn't it ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
