Linux-Advocacy Digest #197, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How many times, installation != usability. (WhyteWolf)
Re: Linux is awesome! (pac4854)
Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors] (Jimmy Navarro)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Terry Porter)
Re: Be vs. Linux (Cory Rauch)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (Gary Hallock)
Re: Stability of the Culture of Helpfulness (pac4854)
Re: The Linux Challenge (Charlie Ebert)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (Charlie Ebert)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School (pac4854)
Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Christopher Browne)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Christopher Browne)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows (Oliver Baker)
Re: What UNIX is good for. ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(Leslie Mikesell)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (WhyteWolf)
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 23:52:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer wrote:
[snip]
>>>I know of a few that will delay forever and a day when you try to lode a folder as
>big as /dev.
>>
>>yeah? I wannt see that I havn't seen one yet
>
>Look at KFM.
I have ... I"ve opened up /dev/ in kfm ...
it didn't delay forever
actauly it didn't delay at all ..
on a 166MMX system {only 32 megs of ram}
>>and I"ve used most of the most obsecure ones
>>only thing I've ever seen have that problem
>>was a windows box that tried readding a
>>network link to a huge directory over a
>>100/10 it hung the system cause windows
>>didn't know enough to stop reading on it's own
>>I figured that the client at least would have figured
>>out TIME_OUT
>
>Was the remote systam running UNIX?
no ... it was running NT
[snip]
>>no ... what wouldn't be posable in windows is a script
>>that grabs all the headers for updated programs off of
>>freshmeat checks a database that was built with another script
>>of all the programs that you want it to update with the
>>latest stable release transparently of course
>
>On Windows you wouldn't even need to do all that.
so you mean that you don't need to run update?
and wouldn't it be easyer to have it auto update itself
rather then prompt you for everything?
just have a script in cron that grabs the updates you want
and saves them in back up directory?
sounds like something that would make updateing a
computer easyer to me ... and something windows
needs despratly ...
>>>>Let's see, browse the web,
>>>
>>> ...with Nutscrape. Try IE. You'll never look back.
>>
>>tried IE ... 5.0 was when they first started
>>towards the right track ... they really have alot
>>more work to do ...
>
>Netscape has even more work too do.
opininated ... hog wash ...
>>>>watch RealMedia streaming,
>>>
>>> ...with last year's version of the software...
>>
>>nope 7.0 .. which is the latest version for windows
>
>Compleat with the famous "is Backspaice Backspace or is Del?" bug that has haunted
>UNIX since
>the beggining of time.
um ... actualy I never had trouble with that bug ...
course then I know the diffrence between a backspace
and a del and can get unix to understand the diffrence
>>>Don't you mean a few text commands away? Thears nothing on Linux that even counts
>as being
>>>functional to a WinAmp user.
>>
>>
>>nope mouse clicks ... XMMS is a nice little piece of work
>>looks and acts exatly like Winamp ...
>
> ...but its only half as functionall.
when was the last time you ran three diffrent
visual plugins in winamp with out the help
of a spliter plugin?
>>>A program doing the same thing on Windos would'nt crash the system.
>>
>>bullshit ... a program that doesn't have clean up
>>in windows not only crashes the system it
>>has the side effect of leaking into the DLL's
>
>That's just LinoNerd FUD.
um .. no it's not ... I"ve seen programs in
windows that don't clean up after them selves totaly
distroy a system ...
>>--
>>-=-=-=-=-
>>Ever wonder if taxation without representation might have been cheaper?
>>-=-=-=-=-
>
>Why don't you just move to Englund, then?
>
LOL ... oh man ... now your attacking a cron
generated sig file?
the lowest of the trolls I must say
--
-=-=-=-=-
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror,
murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michaelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci
and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had
five hundred years of democracy and peace -- and what did they produce?
The cuckoo-clock.
-- Orson Welles, "The Third Man"
-=-=-=-=-
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:25:41 -0700
Don't feed the trolls.
Once his acne goes into remission, and he graduates from high
school, and he finally gets laid, he'll go away.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Jimmy Navarro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Newsweek US Edition: Microsoft's Six Fatal Errors]
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:28:27 -0700
OSguy wrote:
> Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >http://www.msnbc.com/m/nw/editors_note.asp
> > >
> > >abraxas wrote:
> > >
> > >> > What's going on here?
> > >>
> > >> Microsoft is trying to fool you, and theyve drastically underestimated your
> > >> intelligence and computer experience. I.e.; theyve assumed that you're
> > >> one of their customers.
> >
> > Wow - that's bizarre. The pages claim to be Newsweek's but the
> > navigation menus on the left where you expect them belong to
> > MSN. You have to hunt to find the Neweek content.
> >
> > Les Mikesell
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> C'mon Guys....Can't you read?
>
> It says in the Editor's notes:
>
> "We're pleased to welcome you to Newsweek.MSNBC.com, the new home of Newsweek
> magazine on the Web."
>
> As in Newsweek online has moved their pages/services to MSNBC.
>
> I apologize if I missed something other than Newsweek being a sellout, but I
> don't think so.
I was reading the article at that
http://www.newsweek.com/nw-srv/printed/us/st/a20907-2000jun11.htm on early Friday
morning 03:49 PDT. I check back the article at 12:00 PDT, it was then being
redirected to msnbc.com. I also went to San Jose Mercury News, some of their M$
related articles were too redirected to office.microsoft.com/update/office.
Meanwhile if you want the whole article, except Bill Gates' picture you can go to
my original posting.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Jun 2000 09:30:22 +0800
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:47:11 -0500, OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >Well, when you say Linux can run on a 386 most people expect it to be
>> >just like it would be on a P3-550. After all, Windows 98 will run on a
>> >386 too. Boot to dos mode and you can actually do something useful.
>>
>> No, it will not. It complains that it needs at least a 486, and refuses
>> to install.
>>
>> Win95 *does* install even on a 386SX, but it pretty much takes overnight
>> to do so.
>>
>> I have yet to try installing Win98 on a 486, and then moving the disk to
>> a 386....
>
>I think you're in for rough times. I made the mistake once of changing the
>processor on a Motherboard on a Win98 system (586 ->Celeron 266Mhz). To my
>irritation Win98 identified the Celeron, demanded the installation CD, and
>proceeded to update all the dlls....with multiple reboots and crashes. To
>my further irritation, many of the programs that used to run broke, and the
>dumb machine even BSOD to the point I just had to wipe the Hard Disk and
>reinstall fresh with Win98. Now, while that system is functional, not
>everything runs anymore like it did when it was on the 586. Bummer.
>Fortunately this Celeron System only plays games now for my 5 year old
>daughter.
>
>I can only wonder what will happen with your system as soon as it detects
>the 386 processor.
>
>
>
Same here, when I upgraded my AMD586 to a Cyrix686, Win95 spat the dummy,
safe mode etc.
I was experimenting with Linux in those days, and using Linux more often than
Win95, so it came as a rude supprise when I swapped the hard disk to the Win95
one after running Linux on the new mobo for a week, without any probs, of
*any* kind.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 6 days 14 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Cory Rauch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Be vs. Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:33:28 -0400
Be Inc. originally wrote BEOS as commercial OS similar to the way Windows is
sold. Recently though it released it's OS for free. The major difference now
between Linux and BEOS is the BE Inc. has not released the source code. So
it's a free give away, but still falls short of the benefits of open-source
code.
Cory R. Rauch
OSFAQ.com
http://www.osfaq.com
ax wrote:
> One message from a linux stock message board implies that RHAT (Red Hat)
> does not own its OS, but BEOS (Be) owns its OS. This is confusing. I
> thought Be OS is free. How can the Be own anything from the free Be OS?
> What is Be's business model? Is it similar to Linux business model?
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 21:34:24 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> >
> > Tim Palmer wrote:
> >
> > NOTHING
> >
> > Hey, trim your posts, you asshole
> >
> > Gary
>
> About a century ago, the response would have been to waive
> your torch at the entrance of your cave.
>
> Today we have this.
>
> Charlie
I really shouldn't bother with Tim, but gross ignorance can
sometimes make me quite mad.
Gary
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Stability of the Culture of Helpfulness
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:38:01 -0700
This is bound to be as successful as fielding a new W2K network,
firing all your MCSEs, and just giving the end users the URL for
the MS knowledge base.
I hope this little endeavor goes tits up, and the morons in
charge end up homeless and unemployable.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Challenge
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:44:44 GMT
BR wrote:
>
> http://www.networkcomputing.com/1112/1112f1.html
>
> Read it. Reflect on it. Enjoy it.
Very comprehensive!
The author is saying what I've always said.
Linux is destine to be a major corporate player in the near future.
To think that Microsoft can hold it's ground forever is foolish.
Linux is immortal.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:45:47 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 19 Jun 2000 06:01:42 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> >>Sorry, install shield doesn't come close to RPM in terms of its functionality.
> >>
> >>Nice try.
> >
> >Its' easy to use, unnlike RMP.
>
> (1) Sorry, I have no idea what "RMP" is. I take it that you don't either.
> (2) You can always use one of these graphical tools if you like. They
> are not very hard to use.
>
> >KDE takes forever and a day to load up.
>
> So does Windows. But that's hardly an issue unless you are booting your
> computer every few minutes. But most Linux users don't need to restart
> every two minutes. I leave KDE running for months at a time.
>
> --
> Donovan
>From a COLD BOOT, to get into the KDE takes less time than to get NT up
and log in.
We never tested one machine that this wasn't true of.
Try it.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 01:47:55 GMT
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> > Gary Hallock wrote:
> > >
> > > Tim Palmer wrote:
> > >
> > > NOTHING
> > >
> > > Hey, trim your posts, you asshole
> > >
> > > Gary
> >
> > About a century ago, the response would have been to waive
> > your torch at the entrance of your cave.
> >
> > Today we have this.
> >
> > Charlie
>
> I really shouldn't bother with Tim, but gross ignorance can
> sometimes make me quite mad.
>
> Gary
And by Gross we mean the guy is litterally droolin in our
pond here...
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Jun 2000 10:01:26 +0800
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 23:54:53 -0600, mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
"Tim" is a Wintroll, hes not bonafide in any way shape or form.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 6 days 15 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux Project at Medfield High School
From: pac4854 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 18:59:25 -0700
Don't forget to point out to the original poster that Palmer is
representative of the best brains that the Microsoft advocacy
group has to offer. Yet another reason to switch to Linux....
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Jeff Szarka would say:
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:58:07 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>> The UI IS the OS for desktop users. Command line or GUI, it doesn't
>>> matter. An ugly mess of a UI makes the OS an ugly mess to use. Sums up
>>> Linux as a consumer grade OS almost perfectly.
>>
>>Simple. If you don't like KDE use something else. The chioce is yours,
>>no on is forcing KDE on to you...
>
>The sad part is... KDE is the best window manger for Linux.
The sad part is... Clueless idiots that think KDE _is_ a window
manager, despite _vast_ quantities of evidence to the contrary.
How many times do you need to be told that KDE is not a window manager
until it will penetrate deep enough into your pea brain to take
sufficient hold that you might feebly wonder: "Is KDE a window
manager? Maybe not..."
KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
When you state that it is, you simply make evident your ignorance, so
as to demonstrate that what you say is based on ignorance and
apparently complete apathy to educate yourself.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
"...It is meaningless to anyone unwilling to commit to forever using a
single vendor's operating system. Historically that seems to have
been a bad choice. Are you convinced that times have changed?"
-- Les Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:02 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Craig Kelley would say:
>Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> mlw wrote:
>>
>> > And this is why Microsoft spent millions (billions?) making terminal
>> > server?
>>
>> Making? I think you mean copying from Citrix. :)
>
>Hey! They bought that innovation fair and square. Citrix is a
>strategic partner[1] of Microsoft now.
>
>--
>[1] In lay terms: Someone who will shortly go out of business after
>Microsoft sucks any useful ideas out of them.
Citrix has been a "partner" for a surprisingly long time; I'm not sure
why they're _still_ in business, unless the MSFT proboscis got stuck,
and they're trying to be quiet while the DOJ is on the warpath...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
HEADLINE: Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!
------------------------------
From: Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:08:23 GMT
Doc Shipley wrote:
> Oliver, no offense, man, but you're not qualified to do what you're
> trying to do. You keep saying you're not a computer person, and that's
> painfully obvious. This is like a guy without a driver's license
> comparing Kenworth & Peterbilt. I'm not telling you to go away. We/I
> don't WANT to run you off. But you really need some personal
> understanding of the questions you're asking.
> At the very least, you need to start with a blank harddrive, a copy of
> Mandrake, SuSE, or RedHat, and a copy of NT. Workstation will do, Sever
> would be a better comparison. Install. Configure services. Write papers,
> play Freecell, dial up your ISP. Come back in two weeks.
As a science journalist, one doesn't always get to write about what one
knows about or get the time to walk 1000 miles in every relevant
persons' moccasins. You solicit quotes about what the bottom of their
moccasins look like, build a story out of those, and hope for the best.
Yes, there's something to be said for not getting in over your head, and
sometimes you can avoid it. My intuition is that I'll squeek by on this
one. I don't have to get any more technical than I see fit, and as I
appraise the mountain of my ignorance on this topic, I'd say I've stood
in deeper doodoo before.
Oliver Baker
.
.
.
.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:11:17 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:18:06 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
I never claimed that is wasn't, but you said that Logo was not
available for UNIX.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
Didn't see the smiley, did you?
> >>
> >> 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?
>
No. It was Winmodem. Should I blame Linux for not supporting such.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:16:08 -0400
John Wiltshire wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:33:41 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >John Wiltshire wrote:
> >
> >> I think you've blinded yourself to the possibilities. There's a
> >> kernel httpd at the moment which is frighteningly fast. Why not X?
> >>
> >
> >Perhaps the fragility of GUI code?
>
> I accept that GUI code is more complex than daemon code for the most
> part (naturally it depends on the GUI and the daemon). Still, the
> possibility exists and I think it is probably a good option for some.
Gamers, perhaps.
>
>
> John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[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
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:18:58 -0400
Christopher Smith wrote:
> "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8im4s5$12u4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless (a
> > >feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and stuff.
> >
> > Does that mean there is some version of windows now that
> > will find it's mouse without rebooting if you happen to have
> > had the console switch directed elsewhere as it comes up
> > (or any other reason it wasn't seen at boot-up)? I know - I
> > should just buy the expensive KVMs that fake the mouse
> > for windows when the switch is in a different position, but...
>
> NT has always been able to do it. Win9x should be able to with any USB
> mouse, and you shouldn't be plugging PS/2 mice in with the machine powered
Why not? Now I do leave X windows because I can't run it wothout a mouse.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
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: 19 Jun 2000 21:16:40 -0500
In article <8im5dh$rsv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless (a
>> >feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and stuff.
>>
>> Does that mean there is some version of windows now that
>> will find it's mouse without rebooting if you happen to have
>> had the console switch directed elsewhere as it comes up
>> (or any other reason it wasn't seen at boot-up)? I know - I
>> should just buy the expensive KVMs that fake the mouse
>> for windows when the switch is in a different position, but...
>
>NT has always been able to do it. Win9x should be able to with any USB
>mouse, and you shouldn't be plugging PS/2 mice in with the machine powered
>on.
How do you make it see the mouse after it is switched to the
box? I've never been able to do it, although all of my
NT servers have VNC started as a service so I can connect over
the net and use the mouse from there.
And I never had trouble with Linux boxes when plugging in a mouse
and/or keyboard after boot-up.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:24:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, 13 Jun 2000 22:16:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >>And you are missing the fact that folks want an end result, the
> >>easiest path between two points.
> >
> > His end result is actually better than your "end result".
> >
> >>Ecommerce, E-Web, E-banking are all examples.
> >>
> >>Linux is an example of an operating system getting in the way time and
> >>time again.
> >
> > That's why he can access his faxes from anywhere on the planet
> > and you can't.
>
> PC anywhere blows the pants off some stupid-ass shell script.
Shell scripts worek
PC anywhere.. limps.
hope that helps
>
> >
> >[deletia]
> >
> >--
> >
> > |||
> > / | \
> >
> > Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: mind hours in development Linux vs. Windows
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: 19 Jun 2000 19:27:13 PST
In comp.os.linux.misc Oliver Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As a science journalist, one doesn't always get to write about what one
> knows about or get the time to walk 1000 miles in every relevant
> persons' moccasins. You solicit quotes about what the bottom of their
> moccasins look like, build a story out of those, and hope for the best.
> Yes, there's something to be said for not getting in over your head, and
> sometimes you can avoid it. My intuition is that I'll squeek by on this
> one. I don't have to get any more technical than I see fit, and as I
> appraise the mountain of my ignorance on this topic, I'd say I've stood
> in deeper doodoo before.
If you are writing a story about Linux vs. Windows, and you have some time,
I recommend also doing some research on the history of Unix. Linux did not
just come out of nowhere. It is important to note that Linus was standing on
the shoulders of giants who toiled and strived perfect Unix. This 30 years of
work by the brightest minds in computer science must be included in your mind
hours equation.
Also, if you are going to compare Linux and Windows be sure to look deaper than
just comparing them as desktop systems -- it is essential that you consider
servers and there role in businesses and organizations. For example, ask the question
why is the Linux/Apache Web server software combination considered so far superior
to the Windows NT/IIS Web server software combination? Why is Linux growing so
fast especially in the server market? Why are businesses increasingly looking to
Linux for mission critical applications?
And don't forget that Linux is not just the command line. There are widely used
Windows managers that are as user-friendly as Windows 98.
--
Neil
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 22:31:37 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> >development work with many windows open and someone walks into my office
> >with a question or problem. I just switch to an unused desktop and they
> >can then show me what the problem is without upsetting my whole
> >development desktop.
>
> I would honestly guess there are over 300 virtual / multiple desktop
> programs for Windows. Maybe even more.
>
> www.winfiles.com
So why doesn't Windows come with any of them? Oh, I forgot, Microsoft
was too busy "integrating" a web browser into its OS to be concerned
about such trifles.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:40:11 +1000
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> > "Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8im4s5$12u4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Mathias Grimmberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Ohh, I'm talking Real Servers here, able to be operated headless (a
> > > >feature MS seems to have discovered recently :-), remotely and stuff.
> > >
> > > Does that mean there is some version of windows now that
> > > will find it's mouse without rebooting if you happen to have
> > > had the console switch directed elsewhere as it comes up
> > > (or any other reason it wasn't seen at boot-up)? I know - I
> > > should just buy the expensive KVMs that fake the mouse
> > > for windows when the switch is in a different position, but...
> >
> > NT has always been able to do it. Win9x should be able to with any USB
> > mouse, and you shouldn't be plugging PS/2 mice in with the machine
powered
>
> Why not? Now I do leave X windows because I can't run it wothout a mouse.
Because you can blow the keyboard controller chip on the motherboard (no, I
didn't believe it either until I actually did 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
******************************
