Linux-Advocacy Digest #431, Volume #27 Sun, 2 Jul 00 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux code going down hill (Paul Wilson)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Roy.Culley@@switzerland.org)
Re: Linux, easy to use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux code going down hill (abraxas)
Re: Life in the Midwest - technolife that is. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Life in the Midwest - technolife that is. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Life in the Midwest - technolife that is. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux Friendly ISP's (spc Free-ISP's) (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Tim Palmer)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (Tim Palmer)
Re: Trying Linux yet again.... (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:18:28 -0500
abraxas wrote:
>
> David M. Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2 Jul 2000 20:04:49 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Gnu is Not Unix. Neither is Linux. You are using a UNIX-*like*
> >>operating system, but there are quite alot of very important
> >>differences between linux (such as utter reliance on GNU code)
> >>and UNIX.
> >
> > Apart from a trademark, what exactly is UNIX? I don't think "unix" is well
> > defined enough to make the above statement very meaningful.
> >
>
> It is extremely well defined (for the layman) thusly:
>
> Any operating system which is either A. BSD or B. System V in design and
> application. Oddly and perhaps ironically, this includes SunOS but not
> Solaris. :)
Right, considering SunOS was BSD. I actually preferred SunOS. Solaris
calls itself SysV R4, though. So why is it not included in the above
definition?
Paul
------------------------------
From: Roy.Culley@@switzerland.org
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:35:52 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>
> Well, the X way seems to require boths apps to be live to do it. The
> Windows way allows one app to copy to the clipboard, then disappear. You
> can paste for as much as you like, even if the original app has gone.
Only when you are using the cutbuffer (which I must say is how it is
used most of the time).
> With X there's one less keyclick - but then if _two_ apps have text
> selected - which one gets pasted? The most recently visited? How does a
> user know?
How do you have 2 X apps with selections at the same time? How do you do
this in Windows? X also has several clipboards if you want to do this
type of thing. I have never had the need to do so.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2000 01:38:40 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <8jlbtv$cmc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <8jkbne$of7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <8jk70c$bdo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > The one that's still highlighted.
>>
>> Ah yes, X has to known which one to highlight - so it has to take it
>> away from one app and pass it onto another one. Seems an awful amount
>> more work.
>>
>
> Huh?? The text that *you* highlighted last is the text that remains
> highlighted and that X will paste. I've spent the last few months at
> work running IRIX applications from a Win98 box using eXceed. Everytime
> I need to copy/paste to from a Windows app it's ^c/^v (or even worse if
> it's a DOS box). Everytime I need to copy/paste to from a X app it's
> just a mouse click. I personally find X much much easier. Same on a
> Linux box. YMMV.
Excellent reply Perry. I access M$ s/w under Citrix metaframe. ^c/^v drives
me up the wall. So primitive.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: 3 Jul 2000 00:31:57 GMT
Paul Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>> David M. Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > On 2 Jul 2000 20:04:49 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Gnu is Not Unix. Neither is Linux. You are using a UNIX-*like*
>> >>operating system, but there are quite alot of very important
>> >>differences between linux (such as utter reliance on GNU code)
>> >>and UNIX.
>> >
>> > Apart from a trademark, what exactly is UNIX? I don't think "unix" is well
>> > defined enough to make the above statement very meaningful.
>> >
>>
>> It is extremely well defined (for the layman) thusly:
>>
>> Any operating system which is either A. BSD or B. System V in design and
>> application. Oddly and perhaps ironically, this includes SunOS but not
>> Solaris. :)
>
> Right, considering SunOS was BSD. I actually preferred SunOS. Solaris
> calls itself SysV R4, though. So why is it not included in the above
> definition?
>
Because it seems to me to be a hybrid of both...instead of one or the
other.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Life in the Midwest - technolife that is.
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:23:16 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Framing the question in such wide terms only serves to
> perpetuate ignorance and misunderstanding.
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
Yeah, I guess I'm using the same tactics as those that believe the
coasts deserve all the attention. No one shows up at these trade shows
from the midwest, therefore, the midwest must not be interested (I've
actually heard this from some marketing research types). Of course, the
same argument can be made at sporting goods shows in the midwest. Since
no one from the coasts shows up at these shows, there must not be any
interest on the coasts.
I still think that I am asking a valid question. I realize that not
everywhere in the midwest is the same. But, looking at it from the
perspective of those that live on the coasts (and I haven't ever lived
there, I just know a lot of people that do and have condensed their
'shared knowledge'.), the midwest is one central 'bread-basket' with
absolutely no one but farmers and hicks living there. So, the question
as asked isn't completely invalid.
I often wonder about these semantic games that happen in here. Everyone
can enter a conversation and say "That doesn't qualify as my version of
reality, so change the question" and no conversation takes place. I'm
not trying to attack your methods, I'm just suggesting that we actually
have one conversation in here that actually makes sense. Guess the
general ignorance of the midwest lives on, even in the midwest.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Life in the Midwest - technolife that is.
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:28:58 -0500
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> Hi - from Wisconsin here.
> The problem is that the Midwest isn't as populous, and the population
> that is here is spread around. It's not that the west coast is more
> technical, or that the east coast is more technical - it's just that
> the technical people are more jammed together into one spot - perfect
> conditions for holding a convention.
>
> It's hard to hold *any* sort of conference in the midwest, technical or
> otherwise, simply because the population density is thinner. Chicago
> is about the only place that's big enough, and maybe St. Louis too.
>
> By the way, what conference is this? I heard nothing about it.
> I think that might be at the heart of the problem - no publicity.
>
That was exactly my reaction to it and it got quite a reaction (my
original response) from the coastal inhabitants. It was Linux Expo of
Kansas City (and it recieved zero publicity). I say, I and at least
thirty people I know from right here (Sioux Falls, SD) would have been
there if there was any publicity at all.
> I too am annoyed at the portrayal the midwest recieves in the National
> media. For one thing they portray it as if it was a homogeneous
> region - as if there was no difference between one state and another.
> I'm sure it might look that way to people who's eyes are trained to
> only see cityscapes and blatantly obvious natural terrain like
> mountains, but it is hardly true. The area is not a universally flat
> and treeless plain. Some parts of the great plains are like that, but
> not all of the midwest is on the great plains.
I've lived in southeastern Iowa, southern Minnesota, and Eastern South
Dakota and it's all different. And not all of us are a bunch of
frickin' hicks. Unfortunately, it is much more popular to spread the
ideal of everyone being a bunch of idiot farmers (and the farmers I know
are about as high-tech as some of the network administrators I know,
actually more so, with some common sense thrown in).
>
> I'm somewhat saddened to see GenCon is leaving Milwaukee, too.
Chalk another one up to the brains on the coasts.
>
> --
> -- ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:38:45 GMT
On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 22:26:08 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If it was just a problem with kfm, why did the whole desktop die?
Because it is kfm that does a lot of the "desktop stuff". KDE is
composed of several pieces, including the window manager (kwm), the
panel applet (kpanel), a desktop sound server, etc, etc. One piece can
die and leave the rest running.
>User error? I see, the fact that kfm died and the _whole_ desktop hung is
>user error is it?
No, the fact that the user didn't know how to restart it without
logging out was the user error.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.bobh.org/
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Life in the Midwest - technolife that is.
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:32:02 -0500
Joe Kiser wrote:
> KU basketball coach Roy Williams' wife says she is tired of living in
> Kansas,
> and she wants Roy to move back to NC. Trust me, there's absolutely nothing
> to do here in NC. If she wants to come back that bad, Kansas must be
> hell.
> --
> - Joe Kiser
I think no matter where you live you think there is nothing to do after
the first year. I thought it in Iowa, I've thought it in Minnesota, and
I've thought it in South Dakota. It's a matter of perspective. The
midwest is boring because it is ignored by the higher population areas.
I would like to live here because it is peaceful, but I don't like that
I'm expected to travel to the coasts if I want to do something. Oh
well, what else is new?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: Linux Friendly ISP's (spc Free-ISP's)
Date: 03 Jul 2000 00:47:05 GMT
>Does anyone know of any free web providers that don't require
>proprietary Windows software to connect to them?
I hear freewwweb (sp?) has tried to make themselves appear Linux-friendly, but
they seem to want you to make their site your start page, and they limit you to
80 hours a month, or at least used to.
I don't understand why nobody has produced a dialer/ad window in TCL or Java or
something else cross-platform? Then, they also appeal to the MacIntosh crowd,
who is almost equally stuck.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:46:24 -0500
Jeff Szarka 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Windows has been doing this for many years now.
Once again, the rules change when we prove the Linux does something.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000 19:48:58 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> 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.
Have you ever loaded a driver on LoseDos?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 3 Jul 2000 01:07:08 GMT
>Any portability metric you want to fabricate for the langauge C++
>applies to the language Java. That C++ lacks an application framework
>and runtime environment specification makes C++ a non-competitive
>alternative to Java. Even MS recognizes their C# langauge is not a
>competitor to Java -- but not you.
You may have more information than I on C sharp. The best I can tell is that
it is designed to use SOAP and pass XML between classes. I speculate that
it is Borland's JBuilder technology. That would mean that a Java programmer
could pick up C sharp quickly. But, basically the whole Microsoft.Net appears
to be a response to Java application servers and would therefore compete
with pure Java. Of course Microsoft can say anything it wants. The whole
C# Microsoft.Net is 18 months out. It is vapor.
I think it best to proceed with Java application server strategies and not
wait the 18 months. Novell and IBM shops are doing that with Webserver.
Webserver is the best example I can come up with for what Microsoft.Net
is to be. Except, with Webserver, the business is its own ASP, where as with
Microsoft.Net, Microsoft or one of its business partners is the ASP and colects
a fee (like AOL gets) every month forever.
http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto
software for decison makers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 01:01:52 GMT
Grow up. SO many people who know far more than you about linux have been
critical of your use of the term Linux it's time you realized that you
are wrong.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Shepherd) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> Yes I know KDE is not Linux. It's just that I've been called a
moron
> >> and a complete idiot because I don't distinguish between "Linux"
and
> >> the "Linux desktop" which could be KDE.
> >
> >You could say 'whichever GUI you happen to have installed' instead.
>
> In most texts, I should really start off by say "Linux with whatever
> desktop installed" and then use "Linux" later on. Most people ought to
be
> able to understand that. Instead, I used Linux without saying desktop
> figuring people were bright enough to see the connection. I guess I'm
> wrong.
>
> Pete
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2000 00:58:00 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8jocf5$ask$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Yes, YOU SHOULD SPELL IT OUT EVERY TIME because KDE IS NOT LINUX or
> >"LINUX" period!
>
> Ok, I'll treat you as a child then shall I?
Very productive attitude! you asked and I replied. You have been
MISUSING THE TERM LINUX! I have ben trying to Educate your to the
difference but you continue to missuse the term linux to continue your
trolling ways. As I said earlier, if you know the difference between KDE
and Linux continue to bash linux for a KDE problem then you are a troll.
thus, you are a troll plain and symple!
The truly pathetic thing is that you whine when people call you stupid
because you can not learn to communicate properly! Despite people trying
to correct your use of misuse of the term Linux, you continue to misuse
it. Probably because you know it is inflamitory. And *YOU* want to treat
me like a child???? Grow UP!
C'ya Little boy!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: 2 Jul 2000 21:12:04 -0500
On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 21:00:49 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Really?
>
>What happens when LoseDOS suddenly has yet anoter epileptic seizure
>and BSOD's, then, after it comes up, it lost the driver for your
>printer, and you can't find the install disk?
>
>I'll tell you what... you're COMPLETELY up a creek.
>
>Conversely under Unix, you just edit the config file, and resume
>as normal.
...and then recompial, fsck, downlode pathces, recompial again, edit kernal, edit
/etc/profile, and rite shell script. Lot's
of fun stuf.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> >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
>
>--
>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]>
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 2 Jul 2000 21:12:14 -0500
On 2 Jul 2000 01:13:08 GMT, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> No, that's not the problem, the problem is with your perception. As I
>>> stated in a previuos post the Linux world is not homogenous like the
>>> Windows world, but is actually quite diversified. Most Linux users
>>> like it this way and consider it an advantage because Linux is about
>>> freedom and choice. Some people like driving a sports car and others
>>> like driving a van. Thus there are different UI's for Linux with
>>> different looks and feels, and yes, they sometimes contradict one
>>> another. That's becuase peoples personal tastes sometimes contradict
>>> one another. I think that's a good thing. If you don't, then you
>>> should probably stick with windows.
>>
>> 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!
>>
>
>i.e. you want ten years worth of development done RIGHT NOW, because
>YOU NEED IT.
>
>If you werent such a helpless putz, youd be helping create it.
>
Microsoft already did it and it didant take them no 10 years. Consistancy was hear in
Window's 3.0. So Window's 3.0 was 10 year's ahead of were LIE-nux is today.
>
>
>
>-----yttrx
>
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 2 Jul 2000 21:12:24 -0500
On Sat, 01 Jul 2000 22:10:10 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No, that's not the problem, the problem is with your perception. As I
>> stated in a previuos post the Linux world is not homogenous like the
>> Windows world, but is actually quite diversified. Most Linux users
>> like it this way and consider it an advantage because Linux is about
>> freedom and choice. Some people like driving a sports car and others
>> like driving a van. Thus there are different UI's for Linux with
>> different looks and feels, and yes, they sometimes contradict one
>> another. That's becuase peoples personal tastes sometimes contradict
>> one another. I think that's a good thing. If you don't, then you
>> should probably stick with windows.
>
>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!
>
>> On my home desktop, I like to use Windowmaker, becuase I like clicking
>> on the root window for menus and a task list, better than I like
>> moving the mouse down to a panel at the bottom of my desktop. However,
>> on my laptop, which has a smaller display and a touchpad, I like to
>> use KDE. With the touchpad, the Window Maker menus don't work as well
>> for me. Also, the smaller display means I occasionally run a window
>> maximized and can't click on the root menu. Of course, what works for
>> someone else is going to be different. I'm glad there are so many
>> choices.
>
>But are the basics the same in each case?
UNIX's idea of the basics starts and ends with /bin/sh. Annything else is "way
addvanst."
>
>> Laissez Faire. A good thing.
>
>Desktop look and feel maybe, but could you cope with different flavours
>of CTRL-C for abort say? Or maybe CTRL-Z is redefined to mean something
>different. Wouldn't that cause confusion, no?
>
>> >And that is why I keep saying Linux (see later) lags behind Windows.
>> >PS. When I say "Linux", I mean "the Linux desktop".
>>
>> And what gives you the right to redefine terminology for us. Linux can
>> mean alot of different things to alot of different people, inlcuding
>> servers, supercomputers, and embedded systems, not just desktops.
>
>I'm not redefining terminology. I'm writing "Linux" in context.
>
>> If you mean "the Linux desktop lags behind Windows" you should not say
>> "Linux lags behind Windows" because the latter would include using the
>> OS for things other than a desktop. Why is it so hard to type 13 extra
>> characters??
>
>It's called context. Is it not immediately obvious that if I start
>talking about a desktop feature of Windows and then start talking about
>Linux, I'm _obviously_ not talking about Linux, but the Linux desktop?
>
>> >Are people
>> >here so picky they can't figure out the context of what I'm talking
>> >about?
>>
>> Not everybody uses a computer in your context. Can't you see that??
>
>Yes I know that. But if I talk about Windows desktop and then Linux...
>do you see the context now? This is not me "using the computer in my
>context" but the context of what I'm describing? Can't _you_ see _that_?
>
>--
>---
>Pete
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Trying Linux yet again....
Date: 2 Jul 2000 21:12:34 -0500
On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 02:27:52 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sun, 02 Jul 2000 00:29:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>
>>
>> ...or you could just install the latest version of Mandrake
>> if you're desperate enough to install an entirely other OS..
>
>
>Isn't 7.1 the newest?
It only works if you recompial.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
