Linux-Advocacy Digest #237, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Craig Kelley)
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do .......
("James")
High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (PowerUser)
Re: Windows98 ("James")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Daniel Tryba)
Re: The MEDIA this year! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy ("John W.
Stevens")
Re: Linux, easy to use? ("Rich C")
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows98 (abraxas)
Re: Windows98 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (Ciaran)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 21 Jun 2000 16:11:31 -0600
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
> Browne) wrote:
>
> >KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
>
> Another thing pops to my mind as soon as I hit send on my last
> message... Notice how there is no argument that KDE (whatever the fuck
> it is) is a pathetic Windows 9x style UI clone that is ugly and slow.
>
> You should really write a flame e-mail to whoever writes the
> installers for Linux distro's since many call KDE a window manager.
> It's the Linux way...
>
> Flame first, think latter. Anyone up for some Mindcraft quotes? Those
> are my favorite. The "cum guzzling queen" one still makes me laugh.
> Linux. I'm really starting to value it. It's just such a joke to
> everyone but Linux users. It's not a bad product at all but when you
> start TELLING users they will use it and love it and push it on the
> markets where it belongs least it will fail. It's the same exact
> problem MS had with Win CE.
>
> Linux... Who do you want to flame today?
>
> I think I like the Microsoft solgan better.
I would agree with you, except that *you* started this little flame
fest (that's par for your course, IMNSHO).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
.......
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:11:08 +0200
> >I am using W2k Pro right now. Sometimes I use Mandrake 7.1. Admittedly
> >only to tinker with.
> It shows.
>
Nope, it does not. You have no indication of my technical expertise. One
man's tinkering may be another's universe.
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:49:36 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > But this newsgroup will be very boring if everyone
> >> >just praises Linux.
> >> Why ?
> >> Theres a lot to praise, unlike the OS *your* using right now.
> >>
> >I am using W2k Pro right now. Sometimes I use Mandrake 7.1. Admittedly
> >only to tinker with.
> It shows.
>
> > Prefer IE5/OE to Netscape 6 for Linux.
> Me too.
>
> > The latter is
> >functionally crappy and very slow - especially as a newsreader.
> Ewwww, use SLRN, or if you must, Forte Agent.
>
> >
> >W2k has many praises and is certainly miles ahead of any Linux distro -
as
> >an *effective* desktop.
> Nonsense, you don't have a clue about the real meaning of "effective".
>
> You only know what youve been told,and you have accepted the limitations
of
> your OS (Windows), from this place of ignorance you think its "effective".
>
> The only one who misses out, is you, unless you explore and discover other
> ways.
>
> I have come from a Windows background, admittedly the last time I really
> used Windows was 1997.
>
> Has it really changed that much ?
>
> These questions concern Desktop use.
>
> Does it do remote GUI now ?
> Does it allow me to run programs *on* other networked pc's.
> Does it come with thousands of free high quality programs ?
> Does it have a choice of Window Managers ?
> Can I have a WM that does NOT use icons, as I hate icons ?
> Can I run a http, a irc and a ftp server from my *desktop* ?
> Does it include all the C development tools I need, and for free ?
> Will it stay up for weeks between power outages?
> Can I have the 22 Virtual desktops I have now ?
> Can I leave the 14 apps open continuously that are open now, spread
> across the 22 Virtual Desktops ?
>
> This is my idea of "effective", whats yours ?
>
>
> > Hell, I read that W2k even beats Linux in server
> >benchmarks!
> Hell I read that Elle McPherson is a great lover.
>
> > But if Linux is better I would use it. Pity it is not.
> How would you know ?
> Your a self admitted tinkerer with Linux.
>
>
> Kind Regards
> Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 1 week 14 hours 53 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: PowerUser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:57:01 -0400
Looks like it's the usual "We troll the internet because high school
is out and we don't have a girlfriends" group is back for the
summer...
Now instead of a little msg. here and there, these jerk-offs have time
to post a lot of shit under different names, that is, when they are
not jerking off...
LINUX IS HERE TO STAY, AND AT THE RATE THAT IT IS GROWING/DEVELOPING,
IT WILL BE THE MAJOR OS OF THE FUTURE.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:18:27 +0200
Yup, kill all Linux critics. I must be a WinTroll and FUD-mongerer!
Long live Linux.
"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 23:50:02 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Cihl,
> >
> >Don't take this as personal. Linux critics - even Steve (if you can
believe
> >that) - serve to point out shortcomings, that the Linux community respond
> >to. In the end it adds value to the Linux development effort. I
sincerely
> >look forward to the day that Linux is an excellent desktop OS.
>
> Who are you trying to kid? You are mostly recycling bad FUD and
> exploiting the fact that Linux is not the "market leader" in your
> litany. Your "experience" with linux printing is limited to
> Netscape and your application requirements include an odd exclusion
> of both a SERIOUS vertical application (CAD) and the very latest
> version of the Monopolists Vendorlock-ware office suite.
>
> [deletia]
>
> I'm surprised you didn't throw in a some problems with a
> SoundBlaster Live card for good measure...
>
> --
> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful to
> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely having
> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: 21 Jun 2000 22:21:00 GMT
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Advandage of TS:
:>
:> -It's faster on slower networks.
: I'm not sure I agree with the assessment. I can't argue with your
: perception, obviously, but I think the data exchange requirements are
: higher with TS than with X.
My perception is:
On slower connections TS is faster
On faster connetcions X is faster
My benchmark:
Simply starting applications on similar machines like browsers
development environments. On a switched 10Mbs network TS feels
sluggish, X on the otherhand isn't much slower than when I would
work from the console.
(BTW similar machines == both dual PII 233 with 256Mb in the FreeBSD
machine and 128Mb in the TS).
>From home (across a cable modem) both machines are about at the same
physical as networked location (2 hops/300 meters). But the network
to the X "server" has much more bandwith, even then programs started
on the TS appear faster on my display than an X application even though
for X I use the local windowmanager (tunneled over ssh with compression
set to max) and for the TSclient I get the whole desktop.
(much faster means a university network/backbone vs. a 128kbps leased
line).
:> -It has some default encryption.
: This really isn't an issue if you ssh. (As anyone should if security
: minded)
I even tunnel TS over ssh cause there is no other way to get to the
machine. BTW there was even a vulnerability in low encryption for TS,
if IIRC (fixed in TSSP6?).
--
Daniel Tryba
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:26:40 GMT
I keep asking the same question and have yet to get a concrete answer.
While I agree the press (Infoworld, PCWeek and so forth) was full of
great Linux stories most of last year, the trend has seemed to slow
down quite a bit.
I haven't seen a major article on Linux in Infoworld in weeks.
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:24:10 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>I've never seen so many big name magazines having editorials
>>about Linux before! We must have 6 times the media coverage
>>Windows has in the editorials this year. Magazine after
>>Magazine, some editor is prodding your company to consider
>>the Linux jump this year.
>
>Which ones Charlie. Names please. Let's have some _facts_ in your wild
>posts this time.
>
>And none of this "pick up any magazine in your office" rubbish. If I did
>that I'd be reading about the latest _games_ - and Linux isn't mentioned
>there.
>
>>They are taking polls.
>>They are toughting the benefits.
>>They are drawing networking diagrams of how they did it.
>>They are showing the benefits of doing it.
>
>Who?
>
>>They are ENCOURAGING it THIS YEAR!
>
>Who is they?
>
>>I wonder what next year's magazines will be like.
>>I mean I've NEVER seen the kind of media coverage
>>for Linux that I've seen in the first 6 months of this year!
>>
>>They are pointing out the few advantages of Windows 2000 and
>>their merits as opposed to Linux and saying this year is
>>the year to move to Linux in the office.
>
>All the stuff I've read indicate Linux isn't ready yet. Go and take a look
>at the new articles on LinuxWorld. There's a few there.
>
>>In polls, I've seen 10 reports showing something like 35% of
>>business's polled said they would be starting a Linux movement
>>within 2 years. Another 30% said they are considering it within
>>the next 5 years. These are polls from corporate America.
>>The balance say's they are not sure or won't.
>
>Which polls? Got the names? Or is this more of the hot air you regularly
>seem to spout?
>
>>Those are some pretty serious figures. With those kinds of figures
>>it seems that 60% of corporate America will be under the Linux umbrella
>>by 2005.
>
>ROFL
>
>>Some of the magazines have multiple editorials and even profile stories
>>about Linux in the office place.
>
>Yeah, about how they tried it and threw it out of the office.
>
>>I see these magazines at my office and the offices of others.
>>They are targeted at commerical users. They have ad's for
>>Windows Back office server, and mini-computers, ATM networks,
>>high powered copier/printers, so on and so forth. Not residential
>>magazines.
>
>Which magazines!
>
>>But now that we are on the subject of Computers in the residential
>>section, took a trip to the grocery store to view some of the stories
>>in the magzines on the shelf. It was a virutal replay of the same
>>story.
>
>Yawn! Which magazines Charlie! Can't you even remember the name of _one_ of
>them?
>
>[snip]
>
>Pete
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:28:15 -0600
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> Some of it of far better quality. TeX, for example, if one learns
> how to use it, can generate beautiful text.
TeX . . . there is no substitute.
Says I to a previous employer, says I: "Here's a free solution that
outperforms your six million dollar solution!"
"So what?!", sez them. They, of course, are now out of business.
> >How about Napster, Digital Audio, Digital Video and so forth. Think
> >the best programs and hardware are supported under Linux?
> >
> >Think again....
>
> Dunno, since I for one don't use them. Perhaps at some point, I will.
There is a Napster client for Linux, though of course, GNUTella is going
to replace Napster.
> And get stuck on ix86/PCI/AT hardware. What's this crap I have to
> fuss with regarding 16 interrupts, 7 of which are eaten up by the
> base system (timer, keyboard, 2 serials, parallel, fpu, and ide),
> 1 (cascade) which is non-usable because of some weird sort of
> cascading which probably came into use in the 286 days?
Errr . . . no. The original chips used dasiy chaining, and only
supported 8 sources, so to get 15 interrupt sources they had to put in
two chips and use one input source to daisy chain to the other chip.
> That's
> half my interrupts! (At least the 4 serials shared
> the 2 interrups. Nice of 'em, although one wonders if it was
> intended that way originally.)
Nope. Originally, the IBM PC only supported two serial ports. The four
ports on two interrupts thing was an ugly kludge (so ugly, and I was
bitten by it so badly, that I've never since tried to use more than two
serial ports on a PC).
> Partitioning on PC boxes sucks. Sure, one can use the extended
> drive area -- but that's an awful weird hackish workaround; if one
> doesn't use it, one is limited to 4 partitions.
This isn't so bad, really. It is hackish, but livable.
> And then there's conventional memory. Sure, Windows hides it real
> well -- but it's still there, in some form. Not to mention the
> stupid 1,024 cylinder limitation imposed by, you guessed it,
> BIOS (10 bits for the cylinder is all the older ones had!), and
> the egregrious workarounds to -- erm -- work around it. I've yet
> to see a hard drive with 255 heads (I for one am reminded of a tall
> stack of pancakes for breakfast), but my understanding is that
> the computers think that's what they're working with.
Yep. To fit the numbers into limited length fields (why, one wonders,
did the designers think it neccessary to plan for drives with as many as
255 heads? OH, of Course! One byte, right :-), to encode the 3 magic
numbers.
Another example of BG-think ("nobody will ever need more than . . . ").
> 63 sectors
> might not be unreasonable -- on the outermost cylinder, perhaps.
> But the disk drive connects to the interface, which lies to the
> BIOS, and the BIOS may lie to the operating system. The OS is lucky
> if it has a clue....
LBA is the better way to go, but requires semi-intelligent drives, which
cost a few dollars more.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 18:30:37 -0400
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Imagine the following scene...
>
> Example I
> =========
>
> I insert the "Applications 2" CD into my Linux Mandrake 7.0 system and
> click on the CDRom Icon. I'm presented with a web style page of all the
> applications on the CD. Very nice.
>
> I pick one and am led to the RPM's directory. I install it, and... cor
> blimey guv'nor, where did it go? It apparently installed ok (well, I'm not
> absolutely sure about that), but I can't see it on the menu _anywhere_.
Do you have the CD-ROM path listed in the RPM locations? If so, you will see
a folder labelled "NEW." The first clue that your package installed is that
it is no longer in the NEW folder. Do a Find package, and it will show you
which folder it got placed in after install.
>
> I pick another one, and I click on something that looks remarkably like a
> shell script. Nothing happens. I click again... and nothing happens. I
copy
> the shell script to a seperate directory, and click on it... nothing
> happens. I run up an XTerm and run the shell script... ah... checksum
> error. Hmm... checksum error on a CDRom?
The perfect medium for storing files does not exist.
>
> Now, when I clicked on the same file in kfm, nothing is reported. At
least,
> not on the desktop. It _is_ reported but "underneath" X - if I switch to
> the console (CTRL-ALT-F12). X regularly reports all sorts of things, but
to
> the process terminal that created it, and not to anywhere immediately
> useful!
>
> ACK!!!!
>
> This is how Linux is better than Windows?
>
> Even Digital UNIX deliberately put up a console Window so you could _see_
> these rather important messages!
>
> Example II
> ==========
>
> KPackage is a nice tool to load RPM's. Unfortunaly, unlike the super user
> version of kfm, it doesn't prompt the user for the root password if it
> tries to do something that requires priv's. So, fire up an XTerm, su, then
> type xfm. Finally you get what you wanted.
Hmmm...it prompts ME for the root password. It even does that when
autorunning a CD with RPM packages on it.
>
> One of the file managers asks you for a password using a Console prompt!
> Nothing like a bit of inconsistancy there, huh?
>
> Pete
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:32:00 GMT
Maybe you better clue him in on it then......
On 21 Jun 2000 04:16:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> So now we have this Charlie Ebert person, who has YET to back up any
>> of his wild ass claims with any proof.
>>
>
>It took all of two braincells and six seconds to find mounds of
>proof of Charlie's claim.
>
>You really are an idiot.
>
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 21 Jun 2000 22:33:38 GMT
James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yup, it is the engineer in me that draws me to Linux, but the businessman
> that sees the weaknesses. I install each new version with excitement,
> rejoice at the improvements, but is always brought back to reality when I
> realise that I cannot perform my job using this system (however, I am sure
> many persons in different, probably non-corp environments, can).
>
Ive had no problems at all using linux exclusively in a corporate
environment for four years.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:37:11 GMT
I'm having server problems here, but I can't wait to see the responses
to this one...............................
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:37:10 +0200, "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Ok, some examples :
>
>1) Installation
>After installation of Redhat 6.2 / Mandrake 7.1 my Rockwell 56K modem is not
>properly configured, and my USB Epson 900 and Perfection 610 scanner do not
>work. Play around with pnptools and setserial to get the ISA modem card to
>work. No problem with W2k pnp. Another way is to set the OS to non-pnp in
>BIOS, but this is a hassle for W2k. Linux requires better pnp.
>Poor system configuration compared to W2k start>settings menu. Eg where in
>Linux is there a full and accurate list of detected/configured hardware,
>well-presented, which can be easily printed.
>
>2) Presentation
>Fonts are ugly. I know it is an old issue (since I first tried Linux in the
>mid 90s). I understand that this is a patent X problem. Saw some paper on
>the xfree website to improve matters, but no real action. Won't be
>surprised if it takes another few years to solve this problem.
>
>3) Printing
>After getting my modem to work I browse the internet and read mail with
>Netscape 4.7. I open a page and then print it (thru /dev/lp0 as
>/dev/usb/usblp0 does not work). Guess what? It is not wysiwyg or even the
>same as the screen fonts, and looks ugly. Not even in colour. Compare the
>printout to that produced by IE5. In Linux printing often do not match the
>app screen presentation.
>
>4) App setup
>Eg download Nescape 6 trial, but cannot print from it. In addition it is
>very slow. It also does not have a proper setup program that I could see.
>With WinApps there is almost always a simple setup.exe to get started.
>Apps, including system apps, often have their own config files which use
>incompatible syntax. Many of these config files have to be manually
>configured, or configured by crude little apps - which were an afterthought
>to the app (like apache configuration).
>
>5) Lack of apps
>In Linux I don't have access to powerful, industry standard, desktop
>applications. Do I need to elaborate here? The apps bundled with gnome/kde
>are really very crude. For example, the newsreader where I cannot quickly
>find a particular newsgroup and the sorting is limited (compare this with
>OE).
>
>Can you provide me with a list of Linux apps to match the following in BOTH
>power and usability :
>
>Office 2k
>Adaptec Easy CD creator
>Adobe Acrobat
>AudioCatalyst
>GetRight
>Windows Commander (an excellent prog, unlike mc)
>MS Bookshelf
>MS Money
>Napster
>Visio
>AutoCAD
>IE5
>PGP Desktop
>
>6) Usability
>Many small things, like having to specify a DNS when setting up my ISP.
>Poor error messages, eg "modem is busy" when ppp cannot find unconfigured
>cua port. Like getting an error message from linuxconf about my system
>clock, just after I have installed the system. Constantly getting garbled
>output in a terminal (which has to be cleared with ^L).
>
>7) Consistency and interface design
>Inconsistent and poorly designed user interface, and poor utilisation of
>screen space. Screens/forms appear and function differently from one app to
>another. Icons and other widgets are often overly large and inconsistent.
>Like not being able to see the full song title in the CD player pick list.
>
>8) Speed
>X still feels sluggish, and programs load slower than in W2k (I only have a
>200MHz machine), even though I have a TNT video card.
>
>And the list goes on. I can cite many other examples - some small, others
>more substantial. In the end however the consumer will be ultimate judge -
>and that verdict is currently crystal clear.
>
>James
>
>"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:25:43 +0200, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >David,
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > But is still has miles to go as
>> >a desktop. Linux is for tinkering. W2k is for work.
>> So you keep saying James, yet you have not supported your claim in any
>post
>> I've seen.
>>
>> Your use of emotional words such as "tinkering", is pointless, you smell
>like
>> a Wintroll at this point.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >James
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Kind Regards
>> Terry
>> --
>> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
>> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
>> up 1 week 15 hours 53 minutes
>> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 21 Jun 2000 22:39:13 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Imagine the following scene...
>
> Example I
> =========
>
> I insert the "Applications 2" CD into my Linux Mandrake 7.0 system and
> click on the CDRom Icon. I'm presented with a web style page of all the
> applications on the CD. Very nice.
>
> I pick one and am led to the RPM's directory. I install it, and... cor
> blimey guv'nor, where did it go? It apparently installed ok (well, I'm not
> absolutely sure about that), but I can't see it on the menu _anywhere_.
>
> I pick another one, and I click on something that looks remarkably like a
> shell script. Nothing happens. I click again... and nothing happens. I copy
> the shell script to a seperate directory, and click on it... nothing
> happens. I run up an XTerm and run the shell script... ah... checksum
> error. Hmm... checksum error on a CDRom?
>
> Now, when I clicked on the same file in kfm, nothing is reported. At least,
> not on the desktop. It _is_ reported but "underneath" X - if I switch to
> the console (CTRL-ALT-F12). X regularly reports all sorts of things, but to
> the process terminal that created it, and not to anywhere immediately
> useful!
>
> ACK!!!!
>
> This is how Linux is better than Windows?
>
> Even Digital UNIX deliberately put up a console Window so you could _see_
> these rather important messages!
>
> Example II
> ==========
>
> KPackage is a nice tool to load RPM's. Unfortunaly, unlike the super user
> version of kfm, it doesn't prompt the user for the root password if it
> tries to do something that requires priv's. So, fire up an XTerm, su, then
> type xfm. Finally you get what you wanted.
>
> One of the file managers asks you for a password using a Console prompt!
> Nothing like a bit of inconsistancy there, huh?
>
> Pete
You are whining about KDE, not about linux. The fact that you do not know
the difference between the tough betrays your lack of credibility in the
first place.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:40:15 GMT
I will try it per your instructions Gary.
Thanks.
Simon
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 23:20:45 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Learn to read asshole...
>> I said Caching (not cashing like YOU prefer to call it) only applies
>> to repetitive tasks. For example opening the same directory 15 time in
>> a row.
>>
>> The first opening will be x time, the subsequent openings will be x -
>> some factor due to caching (not cashing like you call it)....
>>
>> The bottom line is, that kfm is several factors slower than Explorer
>> in opening, for the first time, cold boot, a directory of a similar
>> number of files.
>>
>> And in my experience it aint even close....
>>
>> Explorer is instantaneous and kfm churns on and on and on....
>>
>> Prove it asshole.....
>>
>
>kfm is a little slow, although not nearly as slow as you want to pretend. Windows
>explorer takes quite a long time to start up and display my C disk. And that really
>doesn't have many files in the top directory. In any case, KDE developers realized
>that kfm was a little slow and came up with konqeror. Try displaying the contents of
>/dev with konqeror. Don't blink or you'll miss it. And, as I have said before, if
>you
>don't want to download konqeror now and can't wait another month or two until KDE 2.0
>is released, then use gmc. It is quite fast and easily beats Windows explorer.
>
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:42:34 GMT
Like I said, it's the typical Linonut semantic argument designed to
take the focus off the real question/topic/problem and instead focus
on splitting words.
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:31:19 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Another thing pops to my mind as soon as I hit send on my last
>message... Notice how there is no argument that KDE (whatever the fuck
>it is) is a pathetic Windows 9x style UI clone that is ugly and slow.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:44:09 GMT
Won't matter, it still won't run Linux due to the proliferation of
WinHardware in these machines.
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 07:13:51 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Soon that best deal with be HP Linux or Gateway Linux. Just think, take
>away M$ software and you can sell the computer for, at least, $100 less.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:43:04 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aaron Kulkis) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>Explain the Unix task scheduler.
>
>Why? What relevance does a task scheduler have to an
application writer?
Its extremely relavent. Understanding the scheduler and and how
it affects your process running at different priorities in (for
example) multithread and SMP environments is something that
should always be understood to some degree by the coder.
Cheers,
Ciaran
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
