Linux-Advocacy Digest #362, Volume #27 Tue, 27 Jun 00 08:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students! (2:1)
Re: OS's ... (2:1)
Re: Do not like Windows but ... (2:1)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (2:1)
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? (Steve Mading)
Re: Microsoft and General Stupidity (Sitaram Chamarty)
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Volker Hetzer)
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: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
(John Wiltshire)
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: If Linux is desktop ready ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: If Linux is desktop ready ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Pete Goodwin)
Anyone use Darwin on Intel? (Spidey)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Hallock)
Re: OS's ... (OSguy)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Hallock)
Re: OS's ... (OSguy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux should be #1 choice for students!
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:37:50 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 17:50:06 +0100, mark
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bracy) wrote in <EEM_4.4560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >>>Actually, after reading your posts, I think you'd be better off with
> >>>WordPad.
> >>
> >>It's a better editor than... oh my gosh, what _do_ you write
> >>LaTeX with? Go on, tell me... VI!!!!!
>
> *gasp* What? You don't edit with vi?
>
> >>
> >>Pete
> >
> >I find vi excellent. Mine's not in caps, though - maybe that's not
> >significant in NT - can NT tell the difference?
>
> Of course not. It would break compatibility with Windows programs
> that assume they're running under DOS.
>
> NT still supports the "drive letters" from DOS too.
And windows 2000 still seems to recognise those 8.3 file name
abominations for the same reason.
"Program Files"
under windows 2000 is *still*
progra~1
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:42:55 +0100
Michael Marion wrote:
>
> Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>
> > Do you remember that by 1995 DOS/Windows users were still
> > using DOS 6.22 and Windows 3.11 ? I point that, because I want
> > to denote that Microsoft Windows has done a big and good way
> > since 1995, and that Millenium and Windows 2000 are much more
> > powerful and stable. I mean, in 5 or 6 years, Microsoft has even
>
> Hmm.. so Tim "Im a kkid whoe kant spel" Palmer left... and Pedro "MS has
> done a big and good way" Iglesias comes onto the scene (and starts
> thread after thread of why windows is better) at about the same time
> (about 4-4:30am today).
>
> Seems our player is shifting to another persona.
>
Shaym. It woz fun reeding tim powsts.
-de
> --
> Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
> Harry: "Yeah I called her up, she gave me a bunch of crap about me not
> listening to her, or something, I don't know, I wasn't really paying
> attention." -- From _Dumb & Dumber_ (1994)
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:46:46 +0100
>
> Linux is harder? Bullshit. Heaping, steaming, bletcherous wet soddy
> mounds of bullshit. I may hate Windoze, but Windoze hates me worse.
I agree. In terms of installing hardware, windows is unarguably harder
to use. It's crap. it doesn't work. It gives pathetic error messages.
And why does asking winNT to find a modem take up all of the processor
cycles on a dual pII400 for about 30 seconds?
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:08:49 +0100
> It's all wrong anyway. iirc, winmodems won't even work on anything
> lower than a pentium 233 w/mmx. Just more evidence that tim doesn't
> know wtf he's talking about.
They definitely work on a p200. I have one at home.
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 10:13:43 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 13:10:51 GMT, Peter Wayner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>Well, this was obviously flame bait, but it's still worth noting
:>that it's very hard to count Linux users. There's no central regime
:>collecting taxes, er fees for a copy, so there's no one counting.
:>I've got Linux on 4 machines in my office, but three of them are
:>just old machines I decided to dedicate to experimentation. Do
:>they count? I rarely use them.
: As long as Rex Ballard spreads lies about the number of Linux users,
: people will call him on it. Look, he claims that there are 90 million
: satisfied Linux users. The US is a little less than half of the worldwide
: computer market, so that means that there are 45 million computer users in
: the US, which amount to about 1 in 6 Americans being a "satisified Linux
: user". Which, as everybody knows, is just patently ludicrous. Maybe 1 in 6
: Americans is a user of Linux because they use web pages served up by
: Linux, or fileservers run on Linux, he he touts this as if 1 in 6
: Americans uses Linux at home in a satisifed manner.
: You will note that he is counting _users_, not _machines_. If you have
: Linux installed on 4 machines, but you are the only user, that's only 1
: user.
If you want to look at it that way, then be fair and make it go
the other way too - one machine used by multiple people counts
as lots of users. How many webservers run Linux again?
--
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven L. Mading at BioMagResBank (BMRB). UW-Madison
Programmer/Analyst/(acting SysAdmin) mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
B1108C, Biochem Addition / 433 Babcock Dr / Madison, WI 53706-1544
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sitaram Chamarty)
Subject: Re: Microsoft and General Stupidity
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:37:46 GMT
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 04:47:36 GMT, glen vajcner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>As an avid Linux user, I am here asking for your help. I am in the
>process of writing a little term paper for a university course on the
>troubles surrounding Microsoft. My standpoint is that Microsoft is
>responsible for general user stupidity (per se) and ignorance, as well
Tale from before I switched my home machine over to Linux as the default:
Our TV went blank due to a problem on the cable company's end.
While I was fiddling with it in order to determine the cause, my
son (then 7) suggested I switch it off and on again.
No prizes for guessing where he got such a stupid idea! So I
guess you may be right in your thesis.
Can you please post the URL of this paper when you are done
writing it. I would love to read it! Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 10:43:47 GMT
> ...and apparently a completely uninformed one.
Well, at least you add "apparently" to your sentence, that is
really a nice susprise in this group. Well, may be uninformed or
just my own experience based. Little experience ? May be. When
I say "desktop" I mean all those kind of things to be done at home
just like multimedia and games ... if you say that a 1995 Unix (or
a nowadays one) could achieve that okay, well, that's not my
opinion, I repeat. Only GNU/Linux can nowadays start being
a desktop alternative, while Solaris, FreeBSD or SCO are far
from that, do you say that 1995 ones were better ?
------------------------------
From: Volker Hetzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:07:40 +0000
"Kenneth P. Turvey" wrote:
> >Yes, however this is based on the assumption that the workers form the
> >majority of the population and therefore simply enforce a majority decision.
>
> Even majority decisions may be unjust. Mob rule is not identical to
> just government.
Wo said democracy is just? Democracy IMHO means that the population
cannot blame someone else for bad decisions. It certainly doesn't
prevent a population from making them.
Greetings!
Volker
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:21:57 GMT
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000 13:14:41 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim
Richardson) wrote in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 10:04:14 GMT,
> John Wiltshire, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
>>On 20 Jun 2000 14:47:52 GMT, James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever installed a minimal Red Hat configuration (ie less than
>>>> 100M install) and then figured how much junk you need to get XFree86
>>>> 4.0 with Gnome or KDE to run? I know it's not false because I've done
>>>> exactly that a few times and been left each time wondering how Linux
>>>> zealots can call Windows bloated.
>>>
>>>You don't have to run Gnome or KDE. I run blackbox on this x86 solaris.
>>>Also, if you don't like XFree, try one of the strip-down commercial X
>>>servers. They are much smaller and also faster because it strips out
>>>other things it doesn't need.
>>
>>Sure, but you also lose all that functionality that is present in
>>Windows. Ever tried embedding a spreadsheet in a document by dragging
>>and dropping without something like Gnome or KDE?
>>
>>John Wiltshire
>>
>
>
>Sure, use Siag, you can also embed a netscape navigator in your spreadsheet,
>or an xterm, or pretty much any program you want.
Interesting. Is the embedded data (html or whatever) stored inside
the saved document, or is it just a program running in a subwindow?
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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:24:09 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:58:01 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:
>John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:45:02 GMT, Mathias Grimmberger
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[M-x giant-snip]
>> >> Some things like that annoy me so I just find other ways around, like
>> >> using the command prompt or scripting.
>> >
>> >Fear the day MS decides to revive MS Bob and make it the UI of their
>> >OSs. There will be no way to get a command prompt or script anything.
>> >:-(
>> >
>> >Maybe Apple will beat MS to it, in the name of ease of use.
>>
>> I think the whole WSH thing is the MS answer to a command shell. On a
>
>Hmm, hmm. Wsh still can't hold a candle to a Perl port. Or Cygwin. Wsh
>is probably the right thing to use for working with COM objects.
>
>> side note, found out how to run commands in subshells using cmd.exe,
>> and that parenthesis could be to mark blocks covering more that one
>> line. Am totally amazed at the complete lack of documentation for
>> that very useful feature. Suddenly my scripts look a whole lot less
>> complicated. :-)
>
>Oh yes, I can relate to that. Doing a lot of rather arcane makefile
>stuff I happened to discover the joys of cmd.exe too - and the bugs in
>GNU make for Win32. There is more undocumented stuff in cmd.exe, one can
>AFAIK redirect stdout/stderr separately/at all but it isn't mentioned
>anywhere ("dir foo.bar 1>NUL 2>NUL", looks vaguely Unixy).
>
>Sometimes I wonder what stuff the people at MS smoke, I mean they seem
>to put everything into the FOR statement, even what backticks do in a
>Unix shell. And they can't be bothered to update the help file on it or
>even outright lie in it - the german version explicitly says that you
>can't redirect error messages.
>
>But then I remember command.com and suddenly cmd.exe does look really
>good... :-)
I know. I know.
Sounds like you've been around NT for far too long if you know that
much about cmd.exe. I got really scared when I found some of that
stuff out by trial and error and starting thinking nice things about
it. Of course, a quick look at /etc/rc.d fixed that. ;-)
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 27 Jun 2000 11:25:56 +0100
>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kenneth> On 26 Jun 2000 17:19:04 +0100, Phillip Lord
Kenneth> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Kenneth> Even majority decisions may be unjust. Mob rule is not
Kenneth> identical to just government.
>> This might be true, but I do not think that this is reason for
>> not having majority decisions. Also I think that there is a
>> difference between "mob rule" and government. It is possible that
>> we could form a government involving the majority of the
>> population and that it would not be a mob. Actually this is nice
>> because it gives me a chance to make an on topic point. The free
>> software movement shows that a cooperative society can exist
>> without degrading into mob rule.
Kenneth> I think this is a very good reason for not allowing
Kenneth> majority decisions in the most important aspects of our
Kenneth> life. The whole point of the Bill of Rights (the first ten
Kenneth> amendments to the US Constitution) is to take away the
Kenneth> power of the majority to infringe some select rights of the
Kenneth> minority.
I'm not entirely convinced that I agree with this. The
US government is based around a federal division of power. Surely the
purpose of the bill of rights (like the rest of the constitution) is
to give some coherency to the laws passed in the different states.
Nowadays the bill of rights is more important than that of
course. Although it was not originally written for this purpose it
forms the basis of the universal declaration of human rights, which is
as close as we get to international law.
I can not see how you work out that this is to protect the
minority against the majority. The US has a strongly class orientated
society, which means that the power to abuse the bill of rights on a
large scale is predominately vested in a small minority, not the
majority.
Kenneth> I'm not sure that enough time has gone by to pass any
Kenneth> judgment on the free software movement. I hope you are
Kenneth> correct.
As you say. I think it will be interesting to look back in
forty years time and see what has become of the free software
movement. I hope that it will have a lasting heritage. But who knows?
Phil
------------------------------
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: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:26:34 GMT
On 25 Jun 2000 01:14:41 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote in comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Can I ask how you figure that people "grow out" of these printers?
>>Most people I know that have winprinters are quite happy printing out
>>their taxes and letters to friends on them. The few that aren't are
>>the ones that didn't realize they were a winprinter to start with.
>>
>>The fact is you just keep dancing around the issue that winprinters
>>are cheaper and work well for low use/home use situations. The
>>strawman of "outgrowing them" is simply that - a strawman.
>
>How about about the fact that they are hopelessly tied to the
>CPU and OS that has the driver to run them, and they have
>to be discarded to switch to anything else? I've had printers
>whose lives spanned several computer types and expect it
>to happen again. Are all those people you claim are happy
>with their winprinter willing to consider them disposable
>when they switch computers or OS versions?
That's not a particularly valid question as they have no intentions to
do either. If they wanted to do this then they would have paid twice
as much and got a printer that could.
I just don't understand the idea that people are stupid for figuring
out their requirements (a cheap printer than works with Win9x and CPU
load is no object) and getting exactly that. I'd call someone who
overspent on a printer for the same requirement the one who got ripped
off.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:19 GMT
> BTW: I put in some distortions just to see if you catch them. I'll give
you one
> of them which is the TRS80 used a Z80 micro, not an 8088. What other
> discrepencies do you see?
Are you offering me a job ? If you want to know, I can now remember
several hex
Z80 intructions, just like 3E = ld a, or c3 = jmp or cd = call or c9 = ret,
I liked most
of all ldir with hl, de, and bc set ready for doing work; as well as djnz to
make a good
loop. Ah ! What times ! With 64kb I was the king. Oh yes, don't forget df to
call
Amstrad CPC disk rom routines. That's all; I was 14 years by then, so I
obviously had
not access to industrial machines.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:16 GMT
It was worth the post just to get Rex answering me. I always enjoy
a lot your posts. Thanks for your detailed explanation.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:18 GMT
> Once again the revisionists history. Word won because if an OEM shipped
> a copy of WordPerfect MS would hike the hell out of said OEMs licensing
> costs on the OS, however, if they shipped a pre-bundled version of Word
> they would get a break on Windows licensing. It certainly wasn't
> because Word was the superior product.
Word was better for me than any of their rivals.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:18 GMT
> Oooh, let's pull the "I'm older and more experienced so I automatically
deserve
> respect". OK - I'll call your bluff. When was the last time you
programmed a
> Burroughs L2000 minicomputer? You know, the one where you changed oil
every 6
> months in the Hard Disk Transmission? Or when was the last time you put
your
> program on Punch Cards and Paper tape (remember Teletype Terminals)? I'll
even
> bet you think Bill G. Invented Basic, or do you remember Dartmouth Basic
back
> in the days when it was purely a teaching language only? Do you know that
> Scott Adams, Dilbert's creator, also sold Adventure for the TRS-80s and
DOS
> back when 8088s even came out? When's the last time you manually keyed a
> program into an Imsai 8080 system?
> I might have a tiny measure respect for you if you know or done all of
this,
> but somehow I doubt it. I, on the other hand, have done this and more.
I do not need to say what I was or what I will be to say what I think in an
advocacy
group, need I ? If I think something I'd like to share I try to do it the
most reasonable
and polite than I know (given English is not my native language). I am not
looking for
endless discussions or with-not arguments talkings. I try to be a person,
and I think
that's the only important. Related to your post, well, you have born before
me, do
you want a price for it ? Anyway, I am in computers since I was 12 years old
(now I
am 28), so I guess I've learnt something. May be I am not a kernel guru, but
I knew
how to program Assembler at 14 and no, I do not think Gates created Basic. I
had
programmed several Basic's before. And I knew CP/M too, as well as other
ones.
When I got access to computers, there were not cards, am I guilty ? Does it
mean
I cannot have an opinion ? Be serious and be honest.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:17 GMT
Ok, thanks to everybody, I enjoyed a lot your answers and
nice explanations. I think you're right more than less.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:17 GMT
> Oh, you're a really bright one aren't you. Because Word wasn't dominant,
> it is now because it was better. You might want to stop posting here
> until you gain some semblance of intelligence. Unless you like being
called
> a complete moron or an idiot.
Thanks for your contribution.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:20 GMT
> M$ has tried and failed to make a good OS. What makes you think that
> they can put one together?
The respect to Microsoft programmers, that believe or not, have a good
team (I know at least three of them and are real good ones). And besides,
hasn't done it Corel ?
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:20 GMT
> Hmm.. so Tim "Im a kkid whoe kant spel" Palmer left... and Pedro "MS has
> done a big and good way" Iglesias comes onto the scene (and starts
> thread after thread of why windows is better) at about the same time
> (about 4-4:30am today).
You do not need to offend people. I said Linux had done a good way too, why
do you just hear what you want ?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:31:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mike Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *You* might not be able to run KDE without Linux, but I beleive other
> people can:
Um, I said KDE _on its own_.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Subject: Anyone use Darwin on Intel?
From: Spidey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:45:36 GMT
Just wondering if anyone out there has downlaoded Darwin, Apple's new
operating system. It's open source and will compile for Intel machines.
http://www.publicsource.apple.com//news/2000-04-05.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:45:12 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> Oh so because I lump Linux with KDE I'm a moron. Can I run KDE on its
> own without Linux perhaps? Oh, look I can't can I?
Yes, you can run KDE without Linux. Many people do.
Gary
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:54:37 -0500
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
> I do not need to say what I was or what I will be to say what I think in an
> advocacy
> group, need I ? If I think something I'd like to share I try to do it the
> most reasonable
> and polite than I know (given English is not my native language). I am not
> looking for
> endless discussions or with-not arguments talkings. I try to be a person,
> and I think
> that's the only important. Related to your post, well, you have born before
> me, do
> you want a price for it ?
You're the one that brought up age and was trying to silence me with the "I'm
more experienced than you in computers" arrogant attitude. As you have just
found out, you are not the most experienced in computers in the world. Here's
a bigger shock, there are people here that have even more years in the industry
than I do. Some have been retired for a good number of years.
> Anyway, I am in computers since I was 12 years old
> (now I
> am 28), so I guess I've learnt something. May be I am not a kernel guru, but
> I knew
> how to program Assembler at 14 and no, I do not think Gates created Basic. I
> had
> programmed several Basic's before.
FYI: I built my first Heathkit Digital clock at 12 years old. The Burroughs
(long since absorbed by UniSys) L2000 computer was my first exposure to
assembly language and computers when I was 16 (4K total firmware & program on a
permanent Hard Disk...no cores, no solid state memories). Home computers
weren't generally available to the public when I was 16. I am now 43 with over
20 years of actual job-related experience in the computer field. Maybe you can
see why I might want to take down some 28 year old person trying to claim they
have more experience than I do (Especially when at age 28, your career in
computer has really just started).
> And I knew CP/M too, as well as other
> ones.
So, is this your tie to MSDOS (ripped off version of CPM)? BTW, I've used
Northstar computers running CPM too (I think I still have my source for my
accounting/billing program around here for that machine).
>
> When I got access to computers, there were not cards, am I guilty ? Does it
> mean
> I cannot have an opinion ? Be serious and be honest.
Bingo! You can indeed have an opinion as long as you are serious and honest,
and quit representing yourself as the ultimate computer guru because 'you
played with computers before others were born'. But also expect that you WILL
get dissenting opinions to your own.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:50:39 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Oh I can see that. I can see the inconsistancies, the holes and
> mish-mash of ideas. This is the system that is trumpeted here as the
> downfall of Windows. Yet I can't even do something as simple as an
> Upgrade with one distro.
>
> Linux (+KDE or +Gnome) is nothing like Windows. Windows I can expect
> things to work together. Linux doesn't even do that! I tried drag and
> drop between KDE's Window Manager and KDE's Explorer - blimey! - doesn't
> work! And that's just one of the holes I've found so far.
>
If you mean dragging from kfm to the desktop, it works just fine for the
rest of us. You seem to have all sorts of problems that no one else does.
Gary
------------------------------
From: OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:05:28 -0500
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
> > BTW: I put in some distortions just to see if you catch them. I'll give
> you one
> > of them which is the TRS80 used a Z80 micro, not an 8088. What other
> > discrepencies do you see?
>
> Are you offering me a job ?
Nah, I would worry about the number of reboots installing your program.
> If you want to know, I can now remember
> several hex
> Z80 intructions, just like 3E = ld a, or c3 = jmp or cd = call or c9 = ret,
> I liked most
> of all ldir with hl, de, and bc set ready for doing work; as well as djnz to
> make a good
> loop.
You forgot the most important instruction, 00=NOP.
> Ah ! What times ! With 64kb I was the king. Oh yes, don't forget df to
> call
> Amstrad CPC disk rom routines. That's all; I was 14 years by then, so I
> obviously had
> not access to industrial machines.
Gee, you had disk rom routines to call? Wow, I didn't have that luxury until I
got an Apple II and the Merlin Assembler for it (formerly the AppleCorps
assembler)....<Next thing the rest of you will know will be us discussing
whether we had ones or zeros to make our programs with. >.
How are you with 32 and 64 bits assembly....and the ability to know when the
compiler final product is correct?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
