Linux-Advocacy Digest #417, Volume #27 Sat, 1 Jul 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Tim Palmer)
LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was Re:
Linux is junk)) (Tim Palmer)
Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner? (Tim Palmer)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Tim Palmer)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (was: Re: Windows98) (Gary Hallock)
Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (was: Re: Windows98) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux code going down hill ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! ! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Linux code going down hill (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond (was
Re: Linux is junk)) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
(Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not ready.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 1 Jul 2000 19:26:56 -0500
On 17 Jun 2000 18:50:24 GMT, I R A Darth Aggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:59:46 GMT,
>James Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>+ it. If Linux wasn't here I would be using my Mac more.
>
><stage whisper>You could run linux on your mac...</stage whisper>
>
>...presuming, of course, that it is capable of doing so.
Good luck. You half to be even more cairfull when picking Mac hardwhere for
LIE-nux than when
picking PC hardwhere. Better make DAMN SURE that its a PCI buss and not a new
buss or else LIE-nux
will puke all over it.
>
>James
>--
>Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
>The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
>To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
><url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond
(was Re: Linux is junk))
Date: 1 Jul 2000 19:27:00 -0500
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:16:04 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> DING DING DING...LINUX DAMAGE CONTROL!!!!!!!
>>
>> Sure it hurts when Linux is exposed for the piece of trash that it is.
>>
>> Accept it and go to the setup groups and actually try and help people
>> instead of denying the fact that a lot of people seem to be
>> complaining about and that fact is Linux sucks.
>>
>> Fact is there are a lot of people complaining about the same stuff.
>>
>> Linux sucks the big one.........
>
>
>This guy claims that NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF HARDWARE WORKED
>AND THAT IT DESTROYED ALL OF HIS DATA
>
>Don't you see the contradicton?
You equait LIE-nux destroying all his data with LIE-nux working?
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:15 -0700, "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >This is a Troll. Do not respond.
>> >
>> >Reason: This guy is griping too much. I never had as much problems with
>> >GNU/Linux as this guy has and they all are rather simple to avoid or fix
>> >with a little RTFM.
>> >
>
>--
>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: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Why Linux, and X.11 when MacOS 'X' is around the corner?
Date: 1 Jul 2000 19:27:10 -0500
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 06:59:46 GMT, James Stafford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Default wrote:
>>
>> Having just gotten through reading over 7,000 Linux posts in one sitting,
>> I *still* fail to see the advantages of Linux over Apple's forthcoming OS
>> 'X'.
>>
>> Okay, Steve is still an Assh**e, and Apple Inc., leaves much to be
>> desired. And Apple's present operating system stinks compared to what it
>> replaced (8.6 vs. 9.04). Sort of like Windows 95 vs. 98/2000.
>>
>> And yes, there's PPCLinux for the PowerPC processor (a.k.a. Mac) -- but why???
>>
>> I fail to see why anyone, other those that want to make a living via
>> Linux, would want to be involved in Linux?
>>
>> Disregarding the monetary aspects of this issue, why do those here feel
>> that Linux is better than the other operating systems, and more
>> importantly, why do you feel it will succeed when Apple finally releases
>> 'X'? {And I'm no great fan of Chuckle's forthcoming 'X' either.}
>>
>> Look, I'm *not* trying to start a flame here. I'm merely asking this in
>> light of everything that I've read here about Linux and all its various
>> problems with drivers, fonts, utilities, kernal changes, video cards,
>> mice, etc., etc., etc., and how "forgiving" Windows and the other
>> operating systems are with these items.
>>
>> Care to enlighten me and everyone else who reads this post?
>> I wanted the simplest computer possible -- one that wouldn't break down.
>> I now have a pen and lots of writing paper.
>>
>Well to start out, Linux is here now, MacOS X is still around the
>conner. To get to the main point; Linux is the best OS I've ever used as
>far a stability goes. Turn on my Windows 98 machine and the more I use
>it the slower it gets, and crashes.
Why is it that all you LIE-nux nuts alwase clame that Windo's crashes all the time
when its not trew?
>Downloading files with my Linux box
>is about 66% faster.
PPFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT. What a nice, rownd number. How long it took you to make it
up?
>If I didn't think that Linux was the best I
>wouldn't use it, I just haven't come accross anything better.
Come across this: Windows 2000. It blo's LIE-nux away It blo's LIE-nux away It blo's
LIE-nux away
>
>I would like to give MacOS X a spin, if it doesn't cost $1,000 or $500,
>money I don't have right now. I will admit I do have a Mac and I love
>it. If Linux wasn't here I would be using my Mac more.
>
>keep on computin',
>
>jamess
>--
>"On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section,
>it said 'Requires Windows 95 or better'. So I installed Linux."
>
>-Anonymous
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: 1 Jul 2000 19:27:20 -0500
On 1 Jul 2000 00:34:24 GMT, David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On 30 Jun 2000 18:44:10 GMT, Brian Langenberger
>: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: >I went out and bought a nice Logitech PS2/USB one, plugged it in,
>: >adjusted a couple of config files and had no trouble since.
>
>He bought the hardware, used available software, and and found that it
>supported the hardware. The software supports the hardware. Period.
>
>Jeff Szarka ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>: No... There is where you are wrong. You're not susposed to edit any
>: config files. As far as I'm concerned, Linux does not support wheel
>: mice unless they just work.
>
>Now, because truth seems to get in the way of your FUD, you wish to
>re-define support?
It supports the hardwere only after you force it to. In Windo's it just works. You
half to fight with LIE-nux to make it do annything.
>
>Would you care to use the language we know as English, or would you kindly
>just piss off?
>
>You CANNOT redefine every fscking word in the language to suit your own
>purposes! You cannot say that, if you have to edit a configuration file,
>it's unsupported. You cannot say that you're "not supposed" to edit any
>config files. You ARE supposed to edit config files...that's how you
>do configuration!
>
>If you cannot operate one of the MANY text editors available for Linux,
>please just use Windows. Stop pretending that your own ineptitude is a
>failing of Linux.
>
>: Windows has been doing this for many years now.
>
>Windows has also been mangling registries, causing BSOD's, and rotting
>filesystems for many years now. Linux != Windows. Deal.
>
>--
>David Steinberg -o)
>Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 1 Jul 2000 18:26:48 -0500
In article <8jlq7s$m37$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm arguing for some consistancy in the various types of desktop.
>Diversity is fine but anarchy is just crazy. If each and every desktop
>on Linux redefine the basics like Cut, Copy and Paste, that means if I
>switch desktops, the basic ground rules change. That's what I'm arguing
>against!
Have you found something where the usual
left-mouse select = snarf
middle-mouse = barf
doesn't work?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 19:37:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >> The power around here just isn't good enough for things to run without
> >> interruption for a long time (I am waiting for the next 2 second power
> >> outage any day now --- the Alpha has an uptime of 39 days ;-), but
> >> apart from that... It's not like the older kernels don't work.
>
> >Battery backup systems are your friends.
>
> Unfortunately, they are rather pricy friends when you are dealing with 10
> or so machines --- and while the mass-reboot every month or two is
> inconvenient, it still doesn't waste *that* many CPU cycles that buying
> a new machine instead of the UPS wouldn't result in a net benefit.
Here's what you do.
Open it up...you will find a 12.7V lead-acid batter inside (probably
a "motorcycle" battery.
Now....buy a couple of car batteries...and put them in parallel with
the motorcycle battery.
>
> I am the only one using any of these machines (well, except for the
> occasional intrusion attempt ;-), so as soon as a user gets inconvenienced,
> the administrator is there and can rectify the situation ;-)
>
> Bernie
> --
> One more such victory and we are lost
> Pyrrhus
> King of Epirus from 306 BC
--
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.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 19:40:38 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (was: Re: Windows98)
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> ^^^^^^^^^
>
> Lern to speal EXCALLENT you FUCKING LIE-NUX
>IDIAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
What the hell is your problem? Don't you have anything better to do?
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: CommyLinux vs Microsoft (was: Re: Windows98)
Date: 1 Jul 2000 23:56:24 GMT
On 1 Jul 2000 19:25:27 -0500, Tim Palmer wrote:
>Lern to speal EXCALLENT you FUCKING LIE-NUX IDIAT
You are a fucking moron. If you can't get through a
single sentence without making a spelling mistake,
I suggest you leave the literary criticism to your
intellectual superiors.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:02:54 GMT
You get what you *don't* pay for.
Personally, Aix works fine...
On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 23:01:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It seems Linux is really going down hill do the lack of
>proper source control and testing. I have been trying out the
>latest release of Redhat, and the clear command core dumps on me,
>the "xterm" terminal definition is wrong, man pages are
>consistenly wrong, and various include files do not support the
>standards. Code that compiled on earlier releases, now bombs
>trying to include stdio.h! Is this code being worked on by a
>bunch of kids that failed software engineering class?
> I'm convinced Solaris x86 is the way to go for a
>generalized PC OS now. The code is mature, tested, and doesn't
>have every hack with a C book messing it up. It's also free and
>the source code is available. Why bother with Linux anymore?
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! !
Date: Sat, 01 Jul 2000 20:04:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
leg log wrote:
>
> I Installed Mandrake Linux 7.1 two days ago. Thank God for dule-booting. I
> like tinkering around sort of like a hobby, but can not imagine being stuck
> with linux as my only OS.
> Too many things to do just to use the computer productively. How to simply
> install software? Where did the software go? What icon? How to put icon on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It doesn't matter. that's what the PATH variable is for
> KDE desktop? How to put icon on K menu?
> Not enough disk space to install?
> I've got 18 Gigs!
You partitioned it incorrectly.
What did you do, specify / to be 50M, and /tmp to be 17950MB?
> Star Office will be installed without Java support? Its
> year 2000, I just installed this OS and it did not include Java? Can't print
ONLY if you specifically DE-SELECTED Java, you moron!
> to my USB printers? Have to install the same program for every user?
> The industrial strength is there, but the human interface is too weak. Its
You're kidding, right?
> lost. Most people don't care about the computer or OS. Most people care
> about the products of computing. We want to go, oh great StarOffice! Ten
> minutes later, bam!! Making a slide presentation, or understanding
> investments by reading a spreadsheet. Printing a continuous tone color
> photograph on the printer that was purchased for no other reason than
> photo-quality.
> At this point all of these things seem "possible" with linux. But, the
> challenge will drive most reasonable adults to wonder why bother, why not
> "simply" use a different computer? I think they will think computer, not OS.
> Hard computer Vs easy computer, lets see, Hmm. I'll go with the easy one, I
> just want to get something done.
--
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] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 2 Jul 2000 00:05:04 GMT
On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 23:01:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It seems Linux is really going down hill do the lack of
>proper source control and testing. I have been trying out the
>latest release of Redhat, and the clear command core dumps on me,
"clear" works fine here.
>the "xterm" terminal definition is wrong,
Sounds like your curses installation is messed up. You may want to
run a verify on your system.
rpm -Va
I'd guess something might be corrupted.
> man pages are
>consistenly wrong,
such as ?
> and various include files do not support the
>standards.
such as ? gcc adds extra features, but you can turn them off
with (IIRC)
-Wall -fpedandtic-errors
> Code that compiled on earlier releases, now bombs
>trying to include stdio.h! Is this code being worked on by a
>bunch of kids that failed software engineering class?
My bet is that something's wrong with your setup.
Can you give us an example of correct code that bombs ? gcc
has been around a long time, and as a C compiler, it works fairly
well. I've written a lot of C++, which is a lot less standardised
and stable than C, and by and large, egcs does reasonably well
( my code makes fairly heavy use of templates )
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not
resond (was Re: Linux is junk))
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:05:07 GMT
Linux blows/sucks depending upon what side of the hose you are on.
NobodyOn 1 Jul 2000 19:27:00 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 20:16:04 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> DING DING DING...LINUX DAMAGE CONTROL!!!!!!!
>>>
>>> Sure it hurts when Linux is exposed for the piece of trash that it is.
>>>
>>> Accept it and go to the setup groups and actually try and help people
>>> instead of denying the fact that a lot of people seem to be
>>> complaining about and that fact is Linux sucks.
>>>
>>> Fact is there are a lot of people complaining about the same stuff.
>>>
>>> Linux sucks the big one.........
>>
>>
>>This guy claims that NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF HARDWARE WORKED
>>AND THAT IT DESTROYED ALL OF HIS DATA
>>
>>Don't you see the contradicton?
>
>You equait LIE-nux destroying all his data with LIE-nux working?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:15:15 -0700, "KLH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >This is a Troll. Do not respond.
>>> >
>>> >Reason: This guy is griping too much. I never had as much problems with
>>> >GNU/Linux as this guy has and they all are rather simple to avoid or fix
>>> >with a little RTFM.
>>> >
>>
>>--
>>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: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:03:29 GMT
On 1 Jul 2000 14:51:22 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jun 2000 21:05:07 -0400, Colin R. Day wrote:
>
>>I'm not sure that there would be enough demand for such products
>>(as opposed to games) in Linux to justify a port.
>
>FYI, a game that sells about 200,000 copies is reasonably succesful.
>The Linux games will be getting somewhat less sales than that.
...a game that is paying for it's own development and sells 200K
copies is reasonably successful, versus a mere port which should
have already paid for itself...
>
>IOW, you won't need enormous sales numbers for a port to be
>economically viable.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: 2 Jul 2000 00:08:22 GMT
On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 22:05:23 GMT, Cihl wrote:
>Video:
>There are many, many card that work well in Linux. Some brands support
>Linux better than others. Seek these out, like ATI/3DFX/nVidia and
>such.
You forgot Matrox.
>Mouse:
>Cheapest you can find. It's gotta be a cheap computer, no need to lift
>the price over a mouse. :-) PS/2, USB, doesn't matter, it all works.
Go for a three button.
>Printer:
>Watch out for Winprinters, like HP720C and such. Other than that,
>almost all Epson and HP printers work well. (Watch out for Lexmark.
>They're cheap, but have very expensive cartridges. They break down
>easily as well)
Epson's laser printers are cheaper to run than *any* inkjet. I'm
still happy with mine.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box? (Re: I'm Ready! I'm ready! I'm not
ready.)
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:06:14 GMT
On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 13:55:05 -0400, Laura Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>With Redhat 5.2 I got a book fatter than the New York City Phone book
>that was a manual. Good Lord, just the sight of it was intimidating.
>The Windows manual is a ~pamphlet~.
Not many people have phones in NYC these days, eh?
Redhat, at least comes with a manual. It's about the same
size as the manuals that used to be come some of the OEM
versions of Windows.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
