Linux-Advocacy Digest #365, Volume #27 Tue, 27 Jun 00 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Linux faster than Windows? (Mike Connell)
Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: OS's ... (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: slashdot (No Name)
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Re: Linux, easy to use?
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Re: MS Windows WM
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: OS's ...
Re: OS's ...
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Volker Hetzer)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Volker Hetzer)
Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451705 (EdWIN)
Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Stuart
Krivis)
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. (Stuart Krivis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:56:55 GMT
> I think you mean to say that Corel has made a really good Linux
> distribution.
In fact no. I have tested and left it on the dust. It is awful.
> Trying to
> make a better Windows than Windows is not the way to create a good Linux
> distribution.
Agree 100%.
> However, I will agree that if MS ever decides to get into
> the Linux game they will create a distribution exactly like Corel's.
> Pretty to the masses, useless to real Linux gurus, and basically a
> functionless, proprietary mess.
Hehehehe, sadly I have to agree, but not because of the programmers team,
just
managers issue.
------------------------------
From: Mike Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 17:29:08 +0200
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Christian Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote on Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:59:04 +0100
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
> >> bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>
> >>>The fact that one compiler is very portable and can generate code for a
> >>>huge number of platforms, and the other isn't and can't, _is_ relevant
> >>>to a fair comparison. Especially since your test is cpu-bound and
> >>>makes no system calls except to get the time. It is really testing the
> >>>compiler rather then the OS.
> >>
> >> I'm testing on Intel hardware. How is multiple platform support
> >> relevant to that?
> >>
> >> Yes, you're right, I'm testing the compiler. The same compiler
> >> that builds the OS, right?
> >>
> >Try this test.
> >Find a bubble sort algorithm, and compile it Windows using VCC.
> >Find a qsort algorithm, use qsort in libc, and compile it using
> >GCC on *nix.
>
> Pedant point: Quicksort has N^2 performance on already-sorted lists,
> and might overflow the stack to boot.
>
You wont get the stack overflow if your quicksort implementation
isn't recursive (although I assume libc qsort is).
> (This is assuming qsort() actually uses quicksort, as opposed to
> some other sorting algorithm, like hashsort or AVL treesort.)
>
> Of course, a bubble sort *always* has N^2 performance.
>
Think about bubble sort on an already sorted list (best case).
best wishes,
Mike.
--
Mike Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] +46 (0)31 772 8572
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.flat222.org/mac/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows
Date: 27 Jun 2000 10:16:37 -0500
In article <L9265.155$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because MicroShit provides no tools to do so.
>
> Because most people do not want or need to work on their
>computers, just want to use them as useful tools as the could
>do with a TV, video, and the so.
So we don't really need all those computer, office supply,
and mail order stores that sell components because
nobody uses them? Or the dozens of magazines that
review the components and give instructions for installation?
>If GNU/Linux had the same
>market share than Microsoft does, a comparable people number
>would never fix bugs themselves.
Which still leaves a lot that do.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: 27 Jun 2000 10:18:22 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Welcome to the club... These people don't care what anyone thinks...
>>> They're just Microsoft ver 2.0. I mean really... doesn't the whole "WE
>>> WANT DESKTOP DOMINACNCE NOW!" remind you of someone?
>>
>>Who exactly is saying that, jeff?
>
>Redhat... Corel... Mandrake... many more.
You must be special... They never said that to me.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [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 15:21:49 GMT
On 27 Jun 2000 09:42:42 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>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.
Of course they do. They're running Upgradeware to begin with.
Even if they don't consciously intend to, the external pressure
will certainly be there.
>
>So, if you can foretell the future, they are OK...
>
>>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.
>
>Win9x has a lifespan that should already be over. Maybe the
>printer will work with what they want to run tomorrow, maybe
>it won't.
That's a fun thought: what if your printer is still perfectly
functional but your hardware vendor doesn't want to go to the
trouble to actively support it anymore?
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:26:55 GMT
On 27 Jun 2000 13:01:55 GMT, Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Donal is saying that if he changes his drive name, he WANTS all his
>>> aliases and links broken. That's a tech support nightmare waiting to
>>> happen.
>>
>> No, what Donal is saying is that if he changes the system level
>> volume identifier he wants the result to be considered by the system
>> to be considered unique from the previously identified version and
>> for there to be no possibility for any two volumes to ever have the
>> same identifier.
>
>I have no idea which planet either of you two are living on, but I was
>merely saying that the user visible filesystem abstraction is just a
>view of the real filing system which is quite possibly very different.
>Why the pair of you feel it is necessary to completely misinterpret
>what I write is something I don't feel like prying into right now.
>
>There's nothing wrong with having abstractions of course, but I do
>question the wisdom of a scheme which lets users get into the position
>of wondering which of some bunch identical looking files a particular
>change was made to! (Mind you, users can get confused with any system
Precisely. If an end user is never aware of the OS level unique
ID, just how are they supposed to deal with namespace collisions
when they occur? There's quite likely a unique "first inode id"
for any file on an ext2 fs, not that it would do me much good
distinguishing between /etc/postfix/main.cf and
/usr/local/etc/postfix/main.cf.
>you care to choose - they can even get muddled with a single drawer of
>a filing cabinet - so problems with all computer FS's should come as
>no suprise to anyone...)
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (No Name)
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: 27 Jun 2000 15:13:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:07:40 -0400, Jeff Szarka said:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:07:25 -0700, Salvador Peralta
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> Your origonal point was a good one. Perhaps if Hotmail went down Linux
>>> Advocates would start pointing fingers at NT.
>>
>>Why would they? micros~1 can't get hotmail to work on nt. Hotmail runs
>>on Sun Solaris b/c nt can't handle the load. IBM had a similar problem
>>with NT at their rochester campus when they tried to replace 12 AS/400's
>>with more than 1000 nt boxes, found that nt couldn't handle the load and
>>went back to using the 400.
>
>I'll ask yet again... Where is the proof MS ever tried to run Hotmail
>on NT?
The unsurmontable antilogic situation in which M$ does not use its own OS
has been explained here maybe hundreds of times.
If you don't get it don't hope we will enligthen you once again.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:33:44 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 01:46:09 GMT, Christopher Browne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Rich C would say:
>>"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:KtL55.238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>>a) You don't always get binaries
>>
>>b) doing a ./configure; make; make install can work on your system (if you
>>meet the requirements of the configure script) when a pre-compiled binary
>>might not
>>
>>c) It exposes your kids to the guts of what makes software work
>>
>>d) It exposes YOU to the guts of what makes software work
...I wouldn't go quit that far.
[deletia]
>I have been "exposed" to all of the above, am reasonably comfortable
>with all of the above, and, all the same, have to say...
>
>_Hogwash_.
>
>It may be a reasonable idea to have _some larger population_ of people
>that are exposed to the things you suggest.
>
>But to consider that _everyone_ be expected to be involved with this
>seems quite unlikely to me to be feasible.
>
>-> We don't all learn how to do maintenance on our refrigerators,
> stoves, and televisions, which are rather _simpler_ than our
> computers.
You think?
Perhaps it is GOOD you believe this. You would likely get yourself
KILLED poking around in some of those devices.
>
>-> Knowing how to cope with any problems that come up if anything goes
> wrong when running "./configure; make all; make install" requires
> _some_ degree of "education" in some _rather_ technical matters.
Then defer to the experts. Claiming that one NEEDS to be able to
cope with the error messages that come out of a makefile is just
as assinine as claiming the novice end user needs to be able to
debug an installshield script when it breaks.
[deletia]
This distinction between two types of install scripts you make is
quite arbitrary and artificial.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:36:54 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:28:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8j9fq5$lg8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I'm looking at it as
>> > an alternative to Windows.
>>
>> That's nice but don't expect Linux to be like Windows. It isn't.
>
>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.
Let's be clear just what it is that are whining about for those
in the audience that have not yet come to the conclusion that
you are just a troll. You are whining about the corruption of the
user configuration for the superuser.
While that is somewhat disquieting from a purely technical standpoint,
the net effect on any sensible user should be a big fat ZERO.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:40:47 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:11:17 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:22:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:49:09 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Best way of upgrading whatever is always backing up, installing
>>>and restoring.
>>
>> The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
>
>
>So you're saying on paper it works... This guy is saying it didn't. I
>trend to believe real life (TM) over a stack of papers.
...and I am saying that it has indeed worked, in practice.
This includes Slackware->Redhat
Redhat->Mandrake
Minor Revisions of Slackware
Minor Revisions of Redhat
Major Revisions of Redhat
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:41:37 GMT
On 27 Jun 2000 14:38:51 GMT, Darren Winsper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:11:17 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:22:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:49:09 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>Best way of upgrading whatever is always backing up, installing
>> >>and restoring.
>> >
>> > The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
>>
>> So you're saying on paper it works... This guy is saying it didn't. I
>> trend to believe real life (TM) over a stack of papers.
>
>Well, I've never used Mandrake, but I can say that Debian can
>painlessly upgrade itself. At least, it seems to work fine when I do
>it (Every few days).
That's not even the issue. That's a stronger claim than I made.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:47:43 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:09:10 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> That's not a part of the desktop, strictly speaking. That's
>> more of an OS level protocol. GNOME and KDE both support
>> such things. Gnome even supports DnD between legacy Motif
>> applications.
>
>If it is OS level, GNU/Linux certainky does not include, and if KDE
>and GNOME do (I know both do) it is not a OS issue, what's more
>if it was a OS issue, KDE 1 and GNOME should have had from the
>beginning a compatible drag and drop, shouln't they ?
Yup. The K boys decided to drag their feet on this. This
is one of the many reasons I'm not enthusiastic about KDE.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 27 Jun 2000 16:48:25 +0100
>>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hyman> Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The massive upsurge of demonstration that we see in the US and
>> many European countries, and also the global nature of this, is
>> new, but undirected.
Hyman> The "upsurge", at least in the US, is tiny. It was simply
Hyman> organized well enough to garner media attention in Seattle,
Hyman> where the authorities were stupid enough to try violent means
Hyman> of suppression.
There were something like 100,000 people at Seattle. If you
have ever tried to get 10 people together for a darts march in the
local pub, then you would realise that 100,000 people is a lot of
people.
Hyman> It's helped along by organized labor, which is grasping at
Hyman> straws trying to get protectionism back.
Funny. There has been an organised boycott among the
longshoremen, in support of the Liverpool dockers in recent
years. Protectionism or solidarity?
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:49:45 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:01:33 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Oh really now? Care to quote representatives from each company, exactly
>what
>> they said, and exactly when they said it?
>
>I do not say that Jeff is right, but your question sounds as unanswerable as
>when
>a policeman suddenly asks : where were you 1993 March the 16 at five ?
...except this is the web where everything is recorded for posterity
and conveniently indexed for your retrieval...
[deletia]
In particular, Redhat has shied away from the goal of 'desktop
dominance' and tended to concentrate more on servers and higher
end workstations.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:50:42 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 11:11:18 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
...how exactly?
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 27 Jun 2000 16:52:11 +0100
>>>>> "Hyman" == Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hyman> The requirement of rising above the noise and surviving
Hyman> demonization is exactly what filters out the weak and loony
Hyman> ideas and lets most people live out their lives in peace,
Hyman> safe from the revolutionaries who would wreak havoc on
Hyman> society.
Which is an argument for the status quo. Without the
revolutionaries "wreaking havoc" you would still be paying tax to the
British Monarch, and I would probably have been executed for sedition
a long long time ago.
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:58:00 GMT
On 27 Jun 2000 11:25:56 +0100, Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Kenneth> On 26 Jun 2000 17:19:04 +0100, Phillip Lord
> Kenneth> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[deletia]
> 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.
Nope. Actually in the beginning the states had certain powers
and the federal government had certain powers thate were spelled
out and mutually exclusive.
That too has mutated over time.
>
> 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.
Your rhetoric points out the problem of the "tyranny of the majority"
which can be found in the writings of the founding fathers. This is
why the US is a constitutional republic rather than a democrcy.
"abuse the bill of rights" is typically a sure sign of those who would
be the first to repress someone else's liberties merely because it
offends your sensibilities. The Bill of Rights is meant to prevent
the federal government from doing just that.
And who is the federal government ultimately?
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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 16:01:23 +0000
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> But how else could it be?
Good question. A good answer is IMHO worth a nobel prize for social science.
Any creative ideas?
IMHO written discussions in the style of the usenet are at the moment
the best we have when it comes to give every idea an about equal chance.
> Should every talker get to change the status quo every time he wants to?
But getting an audience does not mean changing the status quo. It means
getting more people to want to change it.
(About a minority changing the status quo: I agree with you.)
> The requirement of rising above the noise
> and surviving demonization is exactly what filters out the weak and
> loony ideas and lets most people live out their lives in peace, safe
> from the revolutionaries who would wreak havoc on society.
The point is that it's very easy to use this to shut up people with good
ideas. I don't know about you but the average person can just about always
be shouted down by a well prepared, well paid agressive speaker(s) who's
employed by the opposing side. Plus PR of course.
Free speech is *not* about letting money decide who wins a discussion.
So, the current (oral) system doesn't filter out the weak ideas, but the
rhetorically unsophisticated people.
Greetings!
Volker
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
------------------------------
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 16:04:16 +0000
Hyman Rosen wrote:
> It's helped along by organized labor, which is grasping at straws
> trying to get protectionism back.
Protectionism is done by companies to protect their profits from the
competition.
The hard kind goes to the government for import dues, the soft kind
starts a "buy american/british/german/whatever" campaign.
Greetings!
Volker
--
The early bird gets the worm. If you want something else for
breakfast, get up later.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Haakmat digest, volume 2451705
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,nl.scouting
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 09:04:33 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Today's Haakmat digest:
>
>1> Where are you going?
>
>Where were you coming from?
>
Hey Dave, wanna know where I come from? Heh, heh.
>
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: You Should Not Treat Linux Like M$ Windows
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:05:09 GMT
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:40:59 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Because MicroShit provides no tools to do so.
>
> Because most people do not want or need to work on their
>computers, just want to use them as useful tools as the could
...yet they intend to employ those that do (gratis of course).
Debugging will be inevitable. Any system needs to provide ease
of use for those who will be debugging it. Leaving this out is
as grave an oversight as ignoring those who want their computer
to be a TV set.
>do with a TV, video, and the so. If GNU/Linux had the same
>market share than Microsoft does, a comparable people number
>would never fix bugs themselves.
>
>
>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:27:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:57:57 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 23 Jun 2000 08:17:06 +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry
>Porter) wrote:
>
>>>"hangup on install, scsi problem?"
>>Did you email them, and find out what they did ?
>
>I don't care what they did. Mandrake 7 would not install on my system
>unless I used the expert install mode. This data makes it clear... you
>must be an expert to install Linux.
No, you need to use what MandrakeSoft calls "expert mode" to install
Mandrake on your particular hardware.
Mandrake is not the whole of Linux, so your statement applies only to
Mandrake.
It does not follow that we can extrapolate from your experience to state
that "you must be an expert to install Linux."
All we can really say is that there appears to be a problem with
Mandrake's installer that may make it harder to install in some cases.
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stuart Krivis)
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 04:33:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 22 Jun 2000 14:15:56 +0800, Terry Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:54:26 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:31:51 +0400, "Ferdinand V. Mendoza"
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Installed Mandrake 7.1 recently. I got all the
>>>partitions for reiserfs.
>>
>>
>>On the flip side Mandrake 7.1 locks up for me on a system with a 5
>>year old video card while trying to probe for SCSI cards.
>>
>>
>If only Szarka had any credibility, we would listen. As it is hes just a long
>term Wintroll.
I'd like to troll a bit too. :-)
I once had trouble installing Windows 95. Therefore, you have to buy a
machine with Windows already installed, since it obviously is not
possible to do an install of Windows from scratch. Windows is only
usable as a sealed "black-box" rather like WebTV.
Or... I had a hard drive fail while I was running Windows. Therefore,
Windows will destroy your hard drive. I better warn everyone!
--
Stuart Krivis
*** Remove "mongo" in headers for valid reply hostname
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
