Linux-Advocacy Digest #92, Volume #27 Thu, 15 Jun 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Joseph)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Alan Baker)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (Jacob W.
Haller)
Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH! ("Rich C")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("John Saunders")
Re: Microsoft invites Canada south (tholenbot)
Re: How vulnerable are we to hackers (ELCID)
Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do .......
("Noone")
Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux.... (billy ball)
Re: Try Linux and see for Yourself how much it sucks. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day ("Rich C")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 19:58:50 -0400
From: Joseph <[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?
Chris Wenham wrote:
>
> Seán Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I totally reject your assertion that Microsoft bundled a browser only
> > to hurt Netscape.
>
> "only"? Okay, I can't argue with that. Perhaps they also bundled it
> to expand the pits-and-flats area of the CD so it would have more
> rainbow-shiney effects ;-)
Why not because MS's interpretation of the past appeal ruling would
support even your humor. The appeal MS refers to with confidence was a
2:1 decision where the dissenter said there has to be a threshold of
consumer benefit lest ANY alternative explanation for IE/Windows
integration protect MS from the law.
The DOJ responded to the appeal by MS using many of e-mails to show
intent and MS was unable to refute the e-mails credibly. Judge Jackson
used intent as a metric for the merits of IE integration. Courts can
asertain intention every day.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
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: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 02:58:33 GMT
On 15 Jun 2000 02:19:44 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 17:10:22 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>>No, it's called an illustration. This particular one is designed to
>>>>illustrate the idiocy of your view that Microsoft must be punished
>>>>because you can't get precisely the Windows configuration you want.
>>>
>>> Actually it's a false strawman.
>>>
>>
>>Did you read what was said, Jed? The guy complained about Windows
>>including stuff he doesn't want. I said, "You can't always get what
>>you want." Strawman my ass. The real problem is that you can't read
>>beyond the point at which your knee starts jerking.
>
>Actually, you started an irrelevant discourse about cars, and used it to
>construct a strawman using the ancient strawman-by-analogy technique, which
No, I was just continuing what had already started, by merely
putting it into a more realistic perspective.
>goes something like this:
>
>Suppose I make an assertion about foo. The strawman goes something like this:
>
>(*) statements about (foo) are equivalent to statements about cars.
>=> (assertion) is true for cars.
>=> (some absurd statement about cars)
>=> contradiction, so (assertion) is false for cars and hence false for (foo).
>
>This is among other things a clever technique to misrepresent someone's
>argument as a claim that (assertion) is somehow applicable to cars.
>
>The obvious problem is that the first assumption (*) that you call on each
>time you make an analogy is almost always false and simply doesn't stand
>up to any sort of rigorous scrutiny. For this reason, I tend to reject
>arguments that depend on such unsupportable assertions. Not only is such
>an argument lacking in rigor, it also reflects badly on the arguers ability
>to construct clear coherent arguments instead of using
>"proof by smoke and mirrors"
The only one indulging in smoke and mirrors at the moment is you.
Gross generalizations aren't a valid way to deal with argumentation.
Consumer demands for more meaningful choice in computer software
is in no way comparable to demanding of a vendor that they provide
custom product when they already provide a far more meaninful
level of choice in product alone, nevermind as a group.
Compared to software, one can infact demand "custom" product from
a car factory even without getting into absurdities..
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: Alan Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:01:06 -0700
In article <8i9fo3$spn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Colin Day said
>> > >
>> > > And why would you copy files to an unmounted mount point?
>> >
>> > Because you *thought* it was mounted.
>>
>> I never did that accidentally, although I did it on purpose out of
>> curiosity. It would be an annoyance, but you're not losing data.
>
>Not being able to find your data is functionally the same as having lost
>it.
You and I disagree about a lot, Chris, but it's good to see that there
are a few dopy behavours we can agree on.
Good on ya, mate! <g>
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that
wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the
bottom of that cupboard."
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jacob W. Haller)
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:05:04 GMT
Jean Hoffmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If a system is judged by its gui, linux wins, without, any doubt
> more guis for linux than for windows, am I wrong ?
If it's judged by its GUI, without a doubt
Then its GUI's judged. Do you see?
So if GUIs' judging is fair (now don't pout)
Then you must install Linux for free!
> 'some' points, you're being kind to your fav :-)
If by 'points' you mean 'points' then of course you are wrong
When you imply that Windows is good.
Take you off to alt.alien.vampire.flong
And don't darken this nice neighborhood!
> then you should have learned better how to use linux instead of win
> the mouse is handy in some case like browsing, huh, I don't see others
> case, in fact :-)
While the mouse can be handy sometimes, like when browsing,
It's clear no more cases exist,
Though you search for them endlessly, ceaselessly dowsing
You'll find that they've turned into mist.
-jw"Yes, I'm bored. A state which this thread is doing nothing to
change, btw."gh
--
"Today's programming lesson is brought to you by the operators := and *,
and the word BEGIN."
-Paul Martin in alt.sysadmin recovery 5 March 2000
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake Update: DOH!
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:23:46 -0400
"Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Heheheh. That's because Linux knows when a Wintroll is working at it.
> There's a WindowsUser-daemon which makes the system do something
> unexpected once in a while. Makes the Windows-users feel right at
> home.
Now THAT would be innovative!
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "John Saunders" <[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: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:22:50 -0400
"Chris Wenham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If that had truly been their sole intention, they
> > would have had no reason to redesign IE prior to bundling it. In fact,
> > the version that was bundled (unlike the original version) was about
> > as far away from a typical end-user application as it could be. It had
> > been redesigned from the ground up as a system component. That's why
> > it not only added Web browsing capabilities to Windows, but it also
> > enhanced the help system, the desktop, the file manager, and the API.
>
> That's also exactly what they'd do if they wanted to hurt
> Netscape. If they made it practically part of the API then there
> would be no way to remove it without breaking the programs that
> assume it's part of the OS.
>
>...
> But the existance of OLE (and OpenDoc in particular is an excellent
> proof of concept, despite its demise) shows us that Microsoft didn't
> need to cement IE's feet into Windows. They could have provided a
> double-ended API: one for writing "browser enhanced" applications,
> and one for writing the browser module that enhances them.
>
> I should be able to make Quicken display web pages with Brand X
> browser module the same way I can choose Brand X word processor as my
> text editing component in any OpenDoc document, or chose Brand X
> window manager for my desktop.
You are correct. They could have created something like your suggestion.
They already have such a thing with the network provider interfaces.
However, in order to be effective, it would be necessary for some other
browser vendors to break their browser into COM components to implement
these "browser provider" interfaces. Have any of them demonstrated any
interest in doing this? Consider that any work spent to implement COM
interfaces will be Windows-only. Do any of them really want to do this?
If so, then I would agree that Microsoft should create such an interface
ASAP.
If not, then this isn't an issue. In fact, this issue came up in the trial
only to point out that AOL went with IE because IE consisted of COM
components and Navigator did not.
--
John Saunders
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invites Canada south
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 23:49:25 -0400
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > et>,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TholenBotPro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > X-Face:
> > > > > > > &'`TcHchf{Dv=[je~bQVYl/3/UyvgwH.r{Vp"kPk_yV^%KhO3ZAfB,^[o@-d,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > i<87P$$Vh/Y8zPCSSunqSrl{%__y3k/g4/r2/VEUUlRbpn]`a6-3-3P9vSW
> > > > > > > =`A*
> > > > > > > ]T^O
> > > > > > > z
> > > > > > > uAe!\b#:+G,;/!^*a`/E'4i-0@#nV9#sW\BjGv#dq'ad0=W;kFd6uX',
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical invective.
> > > > >
> > > > > More evidence of your lack of X-Face interpretation skills.
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect.
> > >
> > > Liar.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> I don't see that which is not there, Eric.
Non sequitur.
> > > > > > I wonder how the Borg would react to this
> > > > > > information.
> > > > >
> > > > > Taking posting lessons from Hugh again, Eric?
> > > >
> > > > Who?
> > >
> > > http://liberty.uc.wlu.edu/~madams/3rd.of.5.html
> >
> > Illogical. A URL is not a person, Chris.
>
> "A URL"? How rich.
Of what relevance is this remark?
> > > > > Typical erroneous pontification.
> > > >
> > > > Prove it. Meanwhile, where is your logical argument?
> > >
> > > How ironic.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> What you mean is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant.
See what I mean?
> > > Meanwhile, you have still failed to answer the question.
> >
> > How ironic.
>
> See what I mean?
How ironic.
> > > > > On the contrary, quite logical.
> > > >
> > > > What is "logical" about it?
> > >
> > > More evidence of your lack of decent logic recognition skills.
> >
> > I see you didn't answer the question, Chris.
>
> Incorrect.
On the contrary.
> Just because your lack of decent reading comprehension skills
> prevented you from locating my response doesn't mean it wasn't there.
Typical erroneous presupposition of a lack of decent reading
comprehension skills.
>
> > Taking failure to answer
> > question lessons from Dave "Master of Failure to Answer Questions"
> > Sutherland again?
>
> Illogical, as I have neither taken posting lessons, nor have I failed to
> answer questions.
See what I mean?
--
Prove that it's just a flesh wound, if you think you can.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ELCID)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: How vulnerable are we to hackers
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 16:06:59 GMT
Long Live WinBlows. It puts butter and bread on my table.. due to
crashes, re-install, tech questions etc..
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:56:03 -0400, John Navas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable]
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, James Knott
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>No Windows here. I run OS/2 both at home & work and also have Linux
>>available at both locations. I provide 3rd level support to users on
>>OS/2 & Windows (and hopefully Linux soon). Based on my experiences
>>supporting Windows, I won't allow anything so crappy on any computer I
>>use. It's a bloated pile of sh*t.
>
>Thank you for sharing that with us.
>
>Follow-up set to comp.os.linux.advocacy and comp.os.os2.advocacy
>
>--
>Best regards,
>John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
> CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE: <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>
------------------------------
From: "Noone" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Thinking of reading anything by simon777 ? Read this first before you do
.......
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:53:26 GMT
Thanks. Hopefully, for the sake of others, he will accept the fact
that he is a very pathetic loser and will stop taking it out on Usenet
users. Good luck recovering Simon! (hint hint, you might want to
get started on developing some real self-worth)
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter) wrote:
> Would you take advice from a Ford salesman, trying to convince you that
> Honda's were crap ?
>
> What if he didn't actually know anything about cars anyway ?
>
> How about if he was so ashamed of his real identity, being a total liar
> and bs artist, that every time you went to that particular car yard, he
> had changed his name ?
>
> This is simon777, otherwise known as "Steve/Heather/Amy/Keys88" etc.
>
> He has been posting here for 2 years, and its always the same Wintroll
> stuff, clever but untrue.
>
> Do yourself a favor if you're a lurker or a undecided Linux user :-
>
> ** kill file him **!
>
> If you do, you'll have a LOT less stuff to read, and will be able to get
> down to the nitty gritty, of good old Linux advocacy, without the lies.
>
>
> Is your time worth more than reading his lies ?
>
>
> Kind Regards Terry
> --
> **** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
> My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
> up 1 day 15 hours 53 minutes
> ** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy ball)
Subject: Re: ApplixWare? More Build It As You Go Along Linux....
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:53:32 GMT
On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 20:30:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip weird diatribe]
>Of course the Linonuts are going to point out the power of ELF and
>they may be right, if the Office Suite has the power of MSOffice
>already in it. Then writing customized routines is icing on the cake.
>Petreley clearly points out that this is not the case.
>
>So go ahead and buy Applix, and happy programming to all of you.....
i've been a user since the suite first appeared for use with Red Hat
Linux, but i've never had to resort to ELF programming...
this suite has been available for Unix for years, and there are a lot of
users out there...
Applix loads quickly... on my laptop, it launches in two seconds, and i
can remote launch over the LAN in about the same time (perhaps less if
i've run it previously)...
i've authored four books using Applix...
the entire suite takes up less than 240 MB if you do a 'full' install...
you get the entire suite for $99 and a printed manual (with upgrades
costing about $35)...
... the older versions still work well...
the suite is robust, recovers gracefully from any problems, and works in
low-memory situations (read 32MB systems)...
what's the problem?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Try Linux and see for Yourself how much it sucks.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:55:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>http://www.cheapbytes.com at $1.99 will get you started.
>Make certain you back up everything first though because Linux like
>the VIRUS it is tries to take over your system.
>It WILL erase your data.......
>Let us know how you fair..........
Well, I fare quite well. And the only data I have ever lost to OS animosities
was back in 92 or 93, when MS fdisk got very very confused about a disk with
a few linux partitions, and decided to start over from scratch. Last time
I used MS fdisk on any disk that had important data already on it ;-)
Bernie
--
Gentleman, I am a Catholic... If you reject me on account of my
religion, I shall thank God that He has spared me the indignity of
being your representative
Hilaire Belloc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:56:00 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:13:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Until that fabled "upgrade path" comes around, and your new version of
>>Windows uses a different driver model from your old version. At that
>>point, you often end up with just a whole bunch of expensive techno
>>junk, where before you had what you considered a "modem" or a "page
>>printer".
>Wrong...
Really?
>A piece of hardware will NOT SELL unless Windows drivers are either
>supported out of the box, or included with the hardware.
Oh my, Steve. Work on your reading comprehension.
The piece of hardware *has* already sold, and it *did* come with Windows
"drivers". However, it *did* come with drivers for whatever version of Windows
was all the rage *at the time*.
But what happens when a couple of years have gone by, MS decides that
some other version of Windows is now what you should have, and you agree?
Your SuperHyperWinModem2000axSE has long since been superceded by the
SuperHyperWinModem2000XXL, which in turn has been superceded by the
UltraWinModem10000Mega, all of which share almost nothing with the piece
of hardware you have. And nobody feels responsible for getting you a driver
that makesYour 2000axSE work with the new version of Windows.
>>And due to the lack of protocol documentation and/or driver source,
>>you can't even hack something up yourself.
>That's the key statement. You don't have to.
Tell that to all the people who can't upgrade to W2000, because it would
mean they can no longer print to their WinPrinter9999SXL ;-)
>Hacks apply to Linux. In fact Linux in and of itself IS a hack.
I guess that's why Linux has a working Buz driver, and Windows (any version)
doesn't?
Bernie
P.S.: I am using a printer made in November 91.
--
When I want a peerage, I shall buy it like an honest man
Lord Northcliffe
British newspaper proprietor, 1865-1922
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:56:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:13:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Now try using that scanner/printer combo while streaming those 48 tracks ;-)
>My system is SCSI based, mostly..........
Ah, what happened to the "SCSI scanners are expensive crap, PP scanners
are cheaper" argument?
>>Still convinced that a parallel port scanner was such a hot idea?
>Nobody in their right mind would do anything CPU intensive while doing
>digital audio or video and th PP scanner or SCSI scanner has nothing
>to do with it.
Really? Is scanning/printing a "CPU intensive" thing? Never noticed
it myself....
>>Can you even print while you scan?
>As a matter of fact yes. And unlike Linux both my ancient IBM
>Proprinter and my Canon printer are supported.
But then again, you don't have one of those devices that linux was
derided for not supporting.
Bernie
--
But what ... is it good for?
Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM
1968, commenting on the microchip
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:56:02 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Wed, 14 Jun 2000 18:13:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Really? You should inform Gert Doering that he has been wasting his time on
>>the "mgetty+sendfax" package.....
>Sorry but he has.
I would tend to disagree.
>You can get so much more and better software, even the stuff that is
>included with virtually every modem you can buy, for Windows.
No, you get glitzier software. "Better" would imply that it was in some way
more useful.
Once again, what happens when a Fax comes in? Can you automatically send an
email? Can you automatically send an SMS message (or page) including the
sending number? Can you automatically make the actual data available on
a password-protected part of a Web server? Can you automatically send
the fax on to other fax machines, once again depending on the sending
number?
Can you automatically parse and recognize a document request form, which
allows people in the field to have any document of their choice faxed
to them --- even when they don't have access to anything other than a
fax machine?
>The name of the game is faxing something now, not waiting for some
>geek to write a program so you can do it.
Uhm, the program has been around for a long long time. And it tends to
just work. You can set up a print queue for it, so that it looks just
like any other printer to your apps. What more do you want? Is the software
supposed to read your mind?
Bernie
--
A child miseducated is a child lost
John F. Kennedy
US President 1961-63
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 03:56:04 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>You left out the switch you used. And scanimage sends its output to
>stdout. What formatt is it in and how much of the MAN page do you
>half to read to get to that part? How many filters to you half to
>pipe it thruogh before its' readabal by GIMP?
Uhm, you *are* aware that xscanimage actually acts as a Gimp plugin, right?
I.e. all you do is to simply scan from right inside The Gimp, if you so
desire.
Of course, the switch used was to direct scanimage at a particular scanner,
which usually is not necessary. And the output is a portable bitmap/greymap/
pixmap, just like almost every gfx-producing program's.
>Now, it's tommorro. What happens when the average user doesnt'
>remember wheather it's "scanimage" or "scanpicture"
I suggest the user type "scan" and then hit the tab key twice. Oh, look,
ot was scanimage. Now how hard was that?
Bernie
--
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety
Isaac Asimov
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:02:53 -0400
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8i8drh$oet$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> What, 20 seconds vs 10 ? Hardly important for an operation that woulnd't
be
> *that* common in interactive use.
>
> I certainly hope you're using all the appropriate keyboards shortcuts
> instead of going Start -> Find -> Files ?
Hmmm.....keyboard "shortcuts".........that should tell you something right
there. Why do you think they are called "shortcuts"? If GUIs were so great,
why should there even BE keyboard shortcuts? True, they are more intuitive
than command lines (UNLESS the command help is properly included) and they
are great for drawing programs, but certainly slower to a trained
individual. So when you are learning a new OS or program, you use the GUI,
then when you become more proficient, you "graduate" to the keyboard
shortcuts, then to the command line. (At least that's the way I did it.)
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
