Linux-Advocacy Digest #451, Volume #27 Tue, 4 Jul 00 11:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond
(was Re: Linux is junk)) (Jim Cameron)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Jim Cameron)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Jim Cameron)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Jim Cameron)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Jim Cameron)
Re: A hot one (Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box?) ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Gary Hallock)
Re: C# is a copy of java (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (John Hasler)
Re: How fast is your text? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! ! (codifex)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Linux code going down hill (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: I hope you trolls are happy... (Codifex Maximus)
Re: Another CommyLie-nux Commy expoased! (was: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was:
Linux is awesome!) (Phillip Lord)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Subject: Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not
resond (was Re: Linux is junk))
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:38:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>All of the so called problems you have posted on this NG are minor and
>>could be fixed if you would listen to the responses you get, or,
>>better yet, post to the technical newsgroups. Problem is you are more
>>interested in whining than you are fixing problems.
>
>I'm interested in pointing out the fact that Linux has problems, whereas
>Windows has less.
No, Linux has less. DOS has a horribly broken attempt at more. Windows
has ... er ... notepad.exe?
(Since we're being pedantic about wording these days, the word you were
looking for is "fewer".)
Oh, and while we're on the subject, what do you mean by "Windows"?
NT? Win98SE? WFW3.11? I'm afraid we can't possibly discuss things in
a sensible fashion until you clarify your definitions.
jim
--
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
"Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 11:10:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 03:07:20 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Now now, let's not insult the protocol. Even if it does do
^^^^^^^^
Minor niggle, but shurely "API"? X is a protocol.
>>palettes in a peculiar manner [*], requires that a user register
>>a window class before actually opening a window, includes unrelated
>>crap such as "MulDiv()" (????), thinks in terms of thunks because of the
>>32-16 bit backward compatibility and horrible segmenting issues of
>>the ix86 processor, takes 10 (?) parameters to create a process when
>>none are really needed, can't handle a hung process properly [+],
>>doesn't know network transparency from a hole in the wall, is
>>restricted to at most three processor types (one of which is no
>>longer officially supported, and the other which is probably better
>>off running MacOS or Linux :-) ) and is different between WinCE, Win3.1,
>>Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinNT3.51, WinNT4, and Win2K. :-)
>
>None of this mattars to the user.
Actually I would dispute that. A consistant, logical and programmer-
friendly API shortens development time and lessens the number of bugs
in released code. A bletcherous, crufty, arbitrary, awkward, badly-
designed and ill-documented API such as, to pick an example completely
at random, Win32, results in late, buggy and bloated applications.
This does matter very much to the user.
>Windo's is weal made.
Good one Tim. You mean it makes you come out in a rash?
You must admit, this troll does have his moments.
jim
--
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
"Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:43:01 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Hallock) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>You've fallen for Pete's trickery. He didn't say Linux, he said UNIX.
>>Pete wants people to believe that no UNIX can handle power outages, even
>>after I explained to him that JFS on AIX is a fully journaled file
>>system that can easily handle pulling the plug at any time.
>
>And AIX JFS is every UNIX is it? That's one example of a UNIX filing
>system, can the same be said about every other? For instance, ext2fs?
OK, so your basic assertion is "not every UNIX or UNIX-like system
handles power outages well without risk of lost data". This is
clearly the case. I make the counter-assertion "not every Microsoft
operating system handles power outages well without risk of lost
data". This is also clearly the case. Your point?
jim
--
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
"Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:58:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
>defined?
>
>hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
No, that's exactly what it isn't. The whole point of PnP is that
IRQs etc. are settable by _software_ so that you don't have to
bugger around with jumpers. In theory it should be simple for a
PnP-aware OS to find a working configuration, but somehow Windows
manages to break in exciting and unpredictable ways.
jim
--
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
"Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Cameron)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:55:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roger wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:43:42 -0700, someone claiming to be Peter Ammon
>> wrote:
--- snip excellent description of IRQ conflict ---
>> Which is the fault of Windows .. why, exactly?
>
>Um, becasue its designed that way?
ISAPnP was designed? That's a new one on me.
ISAPnP is simply broken. I disable it wherever possible and set
permanent IRQ levels. This means I have to sort out IRQs myself, but
it also means that I have to sort out IRQs ONCE. This is the way
isapnptools works under Linux, and it is the best way imnatho.
jim
--
http://madeira.physiol.ucl.ac.uk/people/jim/
"Revenge is an integral part of forgiving and forgetting" -The BOFH
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Subject: Re: A hot one (Re: Hardware: ideal budget Linux box?)
Date: 4 Jul 2000 12:36:39 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Laura Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Man, you ain't whistling Dixie. My daughter's 'puter is a Compaq 4550
: with an AMD 233 and that little machine is a cooker. It is hot as hell,
: and the fact that it's a smaller than usual case only aggravates
: matters. Ventilation is totally inadequate in that model, and CDs come
: out of the CD-ROM tray literally hot to the touch.
: Amazingly, the thing is stable and has been running for hours daily for
: over two years without a problem. I never have tried anything but Win95
: on it, and don't plan to.
I would suggest doing what you can to cool that thing off, and also
that you never run it unattended. Parts that run warmer than designed
are at increased risk of failure, and a shorted power supply will very
often burst into flames and/or release toxic fumes. I've never
personally witnessed a computer fire but most of my coworkers have,
and they assure me that it is no fun at all.
Joe
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 08:50:45 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Hallock) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >I already told you. Can't you read?
>
> How can I read something that I've never seen? When did you say that UNIX
> filing systems changed from the old non-journaled cached system with
> problems if you had a power outage, to something else?
>
> Pete
news://news3.attglobal.net/395FB45D.2ECF2CA3%40attglobal.net
I know you read it since you responded to it. UNIX (e.g. AIX, Solaris,
etc). has had journaled file systems as standard for many years. You
obviously have no experience with any modern Unix.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: 4 Jul 2000 12:50:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Besides, is there life without pointers?
Yes, provided you've got references[*] instead. (Refs are like
pointers, but without the ability to do arithmetic on them. Pointer
math leads to *pain*...)
Not that this has any relevance to C# of course...
Donal.
[* Or some other opaque handle mechanism. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 4 Jul 2000 13:03:52 GMT
In article <8jpgmk$3eg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> CTRL-C has meant abort for over 20 years. It is Microsoft that made it
>> mean 'copy' in their apps. KDE and Gnome are now doing it to mimic MS
>> Windows. Thus we have inconsistency between terminals and GUI apps
>> on Windows, KDE and Gnome.
>
> Er, I don't think Microsoft invented CTRL-C for Copy. I thought that
> came from somewhere else. There was an industry standard for desktops
> that Microsoft started following.
It came from Mac-land (though the modifier key is called something
different there) and it has two things going for it. First, the keys
are mnemonic (well, C for copy is mnemonic, and X (for cut) sort of
looks mnemonic, but V for paste, and Z for undo? Hmm...) Second, the
keys are easy to access with one hand without moving from the main
part of the keyboard (an argument I actually have some sympathy with!)
There are other standards that work just as well though; why can't
more commercial programs offer the opportunity to (simply) reconfigure
their whole accelerator set to how the user wants to use it? These
systems are meant to be flexible, $(DEITY)damnit!
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: We WANT different enviroments (Was: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 4 Jul 2000 13:11:10 GMT
In article <395f6c0b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Chris Shepherd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Perhaps select-with-right could be used to allow for the quick
>> overwriting of text? You select the text you want to copy with LMB, then
>> select the text you want to overwrite with RMB, and then paste with the
>> middle button. Would that not work well?
>
> I'd be happy with ANY scheme that would allow you to select text without it
> going into the buffer--even a key helper for one of the select operations.
Not many apps support the SECONDARY selection, even where the app
authors knew of its existence. (CLIPBOARD is easier, since you don't
need to indicate the contents of that selection on any widgets.)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2000 12:01:57 GMT
Brian writes:
> However, under heavy transient conditions the expensive and fast-acting
> transistors often burn out in an attempt to save the inexpensive but
> slow-acting circuit breakers.
Such an inverter is poorly designed.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: How fast is your text?
Date: 4 Jul 2000 13:30:52 GMT
In article <8jd57k$h5v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's useful for printf-debugging. Sometimes you just have to put a printf
> in the innermost loop of a program that crashes only 15 minutes into a
> run, and saving the stuff to a file (even when you make sure there is
> no nasty buffering) is just not practical.
So, just what isn't practical about multi-gigabyte logfiles?
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: codifex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux not ready for primetime!!! !
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:08:57 -0500
leg log wrote:
>
> It was my post. I started my professional practice about ten years ago. I've
> had some success. I'm a wealthy man. Ten years later, about twenty computers
> later, I've had it!! I drive my cars, I talk on my telephones, I watch my 10
> or twelve TVs, record each TVs with a VCR( each of them), I use my 6 or 7
> computers. I have Maytags topline washer and dryer. Sleek, jet black frig.
> and freezer from Sears(Sears man comes installs, etc. just works ..) All of
> this works different than Linux!! Everything else works for me. Linux makes
> me work. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> "Jimmy Navarro" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You want an OS alternative? Get yourself an iMac because Linux is only
> for
> > advanced users.
> >
> > 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
> > > KDE desktop? How to put icon on K menu? Not enough disk space to
> install?
> > > I've got 18 Gigs! 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
> > > 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
> > > 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.
> >
Then, Mr. Rich Man, have a qualified LINUX guy come out and configure
your LINUX for you and relax. LINUX is so stable it'll make the Maytag
repairman envious.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 14:06:29 GMT
Roger wrote:
>>
> >> Which is the fault of Windows .. why, exactly?
>
> >Um, becasue its designed that way?
>
> Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
> defined?
>
> hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
However, Microsoft software claims to be easy to use, and to take
that hardware burden from the user. Very often, it does not.
Chris
--
[ ] Check this box to always trust content from Chris.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 14:15:37 GMT
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 05:50:49 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 00:18:34 -0400, someone claiming to be Rick wrote:
>
>>Roger wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 03 Jul 2000 17:43:42 -0700, someone claiming to be Peter Ammon
>>> wrote:
>
>>> >An IRQ conflict occurs when the Windows demon-gods arbitrarily decide to
>>> >prevent your various pieces of hardware from working together until you
>>> >prove your devotion. You can prove this by spending several hours in
>>> >the Device Manager changing obscure numbers and rebooting to see if it
>>> >works. Watch out: the demon-gods will throw obstacles in your path.
>>> >Some pieces of hardware can't use certain IRQs. Others require multiple
>>> >IRQs. Some combinations of IRQs won't work. Sometimes the IRQs have to
>>> >be in a certain order. And if, in the end, your tortured sense of the
>>> >rational survives, then all the bounty of Windows shall be yours...until
>>> >you want to install something else.
>
>>> Which is the fault of Windows .. why, exactly?
>
>>Um, becasue its designed that way?
>
>Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
>defined?
>
>hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
not to take the MS side, but IRQ's can be a pain in the ass in Linux
too (note the too - as in aswell as with Win). Anyone who has managed
to have a slightly wierd piece of hardware and has has to play around
to get it to work will have had to play with IRQ numbers.
IMO, this is part of the trade off between Linux and Windows -
simplicity for performance. I have to admit that I (on this machine)
never had to play with IRQs in win98, but did in Linux. As a matter of
fact, my modem is still unsupported by Linux (no, it's not a
winmodem). But, for what I can use Linux for, to me it's worth the
hassle. If anything, it's educational to have to get into the guts of
the machine every now and then.
Ben
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:28:36 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Oh boy...
>
> Everyone is telling me how Linux(1) is more reliable than Windows. Well,
> here's one for you.
>
> 1. Log onto the Internet with Kppp
> 2. Go to http://www.theregister.co.uk/ with kfm
> 3. Find the article on middle england and boycott the pumps
> 4. Find the link "dump the pump"
> 5. Reject the cookie
> 6. The new KDE window starts up but looks unfinished
> 7. Tell the new window to refresh
>
> All X applications disappear. A message appears briefly that looks like
> the cookie again, but I couldn't tell.
>
> Nothing works from now on. Logout is the only option. Restart, do the
> above, it does it again.
>
> Now, when an application dies on Windows 98 SE, it can take out the
> whole system. Linux is better in this respect in that you can Logout and
> try again. However, I've yet to see an application crash take out
> Windows 2000 - it just carries on, just like Windows NT did.
>
> (1) When I say Linux, I really mean "the Linux desktop". This is for
> those pedantic souls who took to calling me "moron" and "complete
> idiot".
>
> --
> ---
> Pete
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Pete,
I'm certainly not going to jump on you for reporting a bug; however,
this is not the place to report it - send the report to the KDE folks
where it can be fixed.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:11 +1000
Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I have much less PC experience than you, and even I've been there. Rick
> is right: it is a nightmare.
And, as usual, blown *way* out of proportion. I've been using PCs for a
long, long time and the number of IRQ conflicts I've ever had has been
miniscule and taken all of about 5 minutes to resolve.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 00:39:32 +1000
Jim Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roger <roger@.> wrote:
> >Um, tell me, exactly where in the software known as Windows are IRQ's
> >defined?
> >
> >hint: it's a hardware thing, not a software thing...
>
> No, that's exactly what it isn't. The whole point of PnP is that
> IRQs etc. are settable by _software_ so that you don't have to
> bugger around with jumpers. In theory it should be simple for a
> PnP-aware OS to find a working configuration, but somehow Windows
> manages to break in exciting and unpredictable ways.
Because of hardware that doens't follow the PnP standards.
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:40:55 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Black Dragon) wrote in
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>No... There is where you are wrong. You're not susposed to edit any
> >>config files.
> >
> >Whatsamatta'? To stupid to figure out how to edit a few simple ascii text
> >files? That's basically what you are saying.
>
> Judging by the number of people complaining about this in
> alt.os.linux.mandrake, it's hardly a few simple ascii text files.
>
> Pete
While I haven't been to alt.os.linux.mandrake, I'm sure there is an army
of people there helping that army of people who need help.
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux code going down hill
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 14:37:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on 4 Jul 2000 01:33:13 GMT <8jresp$17gn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
>For me, I prefer FreeBSD. There is nothing that I can think of
>that I cannot do under FreeBSD that I can do under linux, with
>improved stability, process management and memory management to
>boot. Add to that the incredibly well organized CVSup utility
>and Ports collection and you have an operating system
>that exceeds linux by leaps and bounds...
>
>I cannot understand for the life of me why it hasnt been adopted for the
>desktop en masse.
*shrug*
Maybe Linux has better press. And a champion, so to speak, a single
target which the US press (IMO) likes -- Linus Torvalds, OS hero. :-)
Who championed FreeBSD?
(I'll have to try it one day; I keep hearing good things about it.)
>
>
>-----yttrx
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but not today; my 4 day weekend is almost gone :-)
------------------------------
From: Codifex Maximus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I hope you trolls are happy...
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2000 09:45:20 -0500
David Steinberg 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?
>
> 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
I have to agree with you David. If he can read and understand USENET
postings, you'd think he could read a textual config file and configure
his system. He doesn't have to reboot all the time so it should be
easy.
Oh well,
Codifex Maximus
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Another CommyLie-nux Commy expoased! (was: Re: Richard Stallman's
Politics (was: Linux is awesome!)
Date: 04 Jul 2000 15:45:26 +0100
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> It pervides more freedome than China, you LIE-nux COMMY
Tim>
BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>> Well thank you for that thoughtful provocative addition to the
>> conversation. "Commy" is probably fairly accurate, but "bastard"
>> is wrong at least according to my parents.
>>
Tim> All commy's are bastards because they want to take over the
Tim> werld and rual us all with an iren fist.
Well when I take over the world you can be sure that
I shall institute a program of radical action in enforcing spelling
regulations on the usenet. I should warn you that I have taken down
your address in my notebook. You can expect a visit after the
revolution.
Phil (with apologies to Perry and Croft)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
