Linux-Advocacy Digest #477, Volume #27 Wed, 5 Jul 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond
(was Re: Linux is junk))
Re: which linux is the best ("Rich C")
Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451731 (tinman)
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (abraxas)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows ("Niall Wallace")
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (abraxas)
Re: LIE-nux is SUPPOST to destroy data (was: Re: This is a Troll, do not resond
(was Re: Linux is junk))
Re: Processing data is bad!
Re: Windows98
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? ("Niall Wallace")
Re: which linux is the best ("Niall Wallace")
Re: Pentum 4? ("Yannick")
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? ("Rich C")
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? ("Rich C")
Re: Anyone actually using Linux for DTP? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 4 Jul 2000 16:23:10 -0400
On Tue, 04 Jul 2000 07:06:45 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gary Hallock) wrote in <39614891.D83DA430
>@attglobal.net>:
>
>>Actually many of his so called problems are not problems except for the
>>special Pete Goodwin version of Linux.
>
>It's called Linux Mandrake 7.1. It's not my version. You lie.
Are you sure it doesn't say "Pete Goodwin Edition" anywhere on
the box? It might be printed small enough that you might not
have noticed.
>> And his latest claim is not directly Linux related. He
>>claims AIX JFS can't handle a power loss without loss of files.
>
>Again more lies! I never said AIX JFS can't handle power loss - I was
>talking about UNIX filesystems.
AIX is a variant of Unix, and JFS is a Unix filesystem.
--
Do unto others as they'd do unto you, but do it first!
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which linux is the best
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:12:26 -0400
sylvain hutchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I just got RH6.1, it looks really good, but how good is it compared to
> the others, I hear that Mandrake is pretty good too, but Corel however
> isn't. Why is that, is it because it is full of bugs, hard to install,
> or simply a question of interface???
>
It's probably as good as any other for a start. 6.2 is available, but you
can probably get most of those updates over the web from RedHat's site. SuSE
6.4 is good too, I hear.
Corel's distro can be hard to get working with certain hardware
configurations. I don't know that much about it, but it seems to me that
Corel is more concerned with providing an environment that will run their
Office Suite than in providing a solid, "works anywhere" distribution.
Right now, your time would be better spent learning the distro you have,
rather than jumping around and trying a bunch of others.
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
Subject: Linux lags behind Windows
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 19:16:31 GMT
Let me see what does Linux not support on my system...
1. Even though Linux detects my USB ZIP 250 drive, it does not work.
2. Linux notices my scanner (HP 4200C USB) it leaves it alone; no drivers.
3. I switched to a Voodoo 5 5500 card; Linux has no drivers for this. Even
though the card is Voodoo 3 compatible, the driver refuses to install.
So now I have a console only Linux system. End of evaluation.
Windows support all of these products as there are drivers available for
them.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451731
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 15:20:09 -0400
In article <ChB85.19949$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Even more pontification.
I really don't think you know what that word means....
>
> 1> Do you know what pontification really is?
>
> Of course, and I'm watching you engage in it.
Are you sure?
> 1> Don't you know?
>
> Why do you think I asked?
Engaging in speculation as to your motives is hardly worth my time.
> 1> Typical pontification.
>
> Incorrect, given the presence of my explanation.
On the contrary.
> 1> What else could it consist of?
>
> "Don't you know?"
Typically vague.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: 5 Jul 2000 19:25:48 GMT
Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
>
> It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
> useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
> are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that Windows
> version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE or
> Gnome being "just as good."
Oh they do, do they? Tell me, where exactly do 'they point to KDE or
Gnome being "just as good"'?
> This type of two-headed posturing is not
> constructive.
>
You are thinking of linux with a windows brain.
> Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
> they?
>
They are NOT part of linux, they are part of very specific distributions
of linux.
> All current versions of Windows include a GUI user interface, and for what
> it's worth, it IS easy to use.
>
As do a large portion of linux distributions.
> Linux is claimed to be "just a kernel"
Yep.
> which, in and of itself, is not much
> good.
You're right. We could do with out it, obviously.
> It requires many GNU utilities,
Questionable.
> at an absolute minimum, and SOME type
> of GUI, to be considered "useable" as a desktop system.
>
Wrong, it doesnt need ANY kind of GUI to be usable as a desktop system.
You're thinking with a windows brain again.
> Almost all distributions of "Linux" come with one or more GUI desktop
> environments, and 99% of the people who want to try Linux as an alternative
> to Windows will install one of these desktops. In order to make Linux an
> "equivalent" environment to Windows,
Who said anything about making it an 'equivalent' environment? If you want
windows, then use windows. Period.
> you HAVE to say that these GUIs are
> part of the overall operating environment, or "system." If you don't, then
> you leave yourself open to the argument that Linux is just a kernel, and, as
> such, is pretty much useless.
Thats right. We could do without the kernel, obviously.
>
> I think it's time we took ownership of the various GUI desktops that ship in
> GNU/Linux distributions, even if it means acknowledging certain flaws in
> each. After all, to be really "useable" as a desktop environment, a GUI must
> be installed.
>
Have you offered up any time to the Gnome/KDE effort? Where can I look at
some of your code?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:19:50 +0100
Only because all of those things only have Windows and/or Mac Support.
If the people who made the things wrote linux support for them (ie drivers)
thern they would work.
Niall
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Let me see what does Linux not support on my system...
>
> 1. Even though Linux detects my USB ZIP 250 drive, it does not work.
>
> 2. Linux notices my scanner (HP 4200C USB) it leaves it alone; no drivers.
>
> 3. I switched to a Voodoo 5 5500 card; Linux has no drivers for this. Even
> though the card is Voodoo 3 compatible, the driver refuses to install.
>
> So now I have a console only Linux system. End of evaluation.
>
> Windows support all of these products as there are drivers available for
> them.
>
> Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 5 Jul 2000 19:27:27 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Let me see what does Linux not support on my system...
>
> 1. Even though Linux detects my USB ZIP 250 drive, it does not work.
>
> 2. Linux notices my scanner (HP 4200C USB) it leaves it alone; no drivers.
>
> 3. I switched to a Voodoo 5 5500 card; Linux has no drivers for this. Even
> though the card is Voodoo 3 compatible, the driver refuses to install.
>
> So now I have a console only Linux system. End of evaluation.
>
> Windows support all of these products as there are drivers available for
> them.
>
> Pete
Why do you continue to even try to use linux, pete? You obviously have no
real desire to do so, and seem to be only trying as little as you are so
that you can whine to people who honestly dont care.
That, along with your utter lack of credibility adds up to one and only
one thing:
Pathetic.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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: 4 Jul 2000 17:02:29 -0400
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 10:38:38 GMT, Jim Cameron
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
When a Wintroll says "Windows", it means "some fictitious Windows
hybrid that should be called VaporWindows that is as stable as
Unix, and twice as fast, runs all the Windows 98 SE software and
hardware drivers (and fixes all the bugs therein on the fly), and
has a user interface that is identical to that of Windows 98 SE,
combined with all the commercial apps that are available for any
version of Windows." This allows Wintrolls to compare Unix to
Windows 98 and (a fictional version of) NT simultaneously, and
also allows them to compare a Linux system "out of the box" with
a VaporWindows system with $28,000 of proprietary software added
onto it on a $2,500 brand-new computer (which they equate with a
Windows system "out of the box").
To level the playing field a bit, we should be comparing a
fictitious Linux that can make a cluster of computers look like a
single computer to the programmer, on $30,500 worth of hardware,
to Windows on $2,500 worth of hardware. This could be Linux on a
cluster of 12 new Intel computers (or 61 $500 used Intel or Mac
computers), or Linux on one of those high-end workstations that
usually run a proprietary Unix.
--
Microsoft Windows. The joke that kills.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Processing data is bad!
Date: 4 Jul 2000 17:20:08 -0400
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:02:47 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 17:26:10 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 00:21:46 -0400, "Colin R. Day"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>What, a text file whose name doesn't end in "*.txt"? You'll
>> >>confuse him, Jedi.
>> >
>> >Make a little list of all your favorite file extensions.
>>
>> Some text files don't have any extensions at all.
>
>Imagine that!
>
I can't. I'm a Winblows-lover.
--
Microsoft Windows. It could be worse, but it'll take time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 4 Jul 2000 17:12:51 -0400
On 21 Jun 2000 02:21:46 GMT, WhyteWolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Your opinion is correct.
>>
>>That's why anybody with a degree in Computer Science or Computer
>>Systems Engineering recognizes LoseDows for the pile of shit that it is.
>
>
>it doesn't take a degree for that ... useing it long enough
>will point it out .. to all but the very basic user
>
...to all but the user who has seen WinDOS and nothing else.
--
Microsoft Windows. Garbage at your fingertips.
------------------------------
From: "Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:23:37 +0100
M$ Win 3.11 was not part of Ms-Dos was it, It was a Graphicall Shell that
could run on it.
KDE and Gnome are similar in that way.
Of course there is no real problems with KDE (I haven't used Gnome), It
loads up you use it and accept that it's not Mac Os and it's not Windows and
it's not any other GUI it is KDE it works the way it is setup and written to
be used, okay this is what I don't like about KDE
Single Clicking to select stuff,
Er, thats it really
Niall
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
>
> It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of a
> useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these components
> are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that
Windows
> version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE
or
> Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
> constructive.
>
> Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
> they?
>
> All current versions of Windows include a GUI user interface, and for what
> it's worth, it IS easy to use.
>
> Linux is claimed to be "just a kernel" which, in and of itself, is not
much
> good. It requires many GNU utilities, at an absolute minimum, and SOME
type
> of GUI, to be considered "useable" as a desktop system.
>
> Almost all distributions of "Linux" come with one or more GUI desktop
> environments, and 99% of the people who want to try Linux as an
alternative
> to Windows will install one of these desktops. In order to make Linux an
> "equivalent" environment to Windows, you HAVE to say that these GUIs are
> part of the overall operating environment, or "system." If you don't, then
> you leave yourself open to the argument that Linux is just a kernel, and,
as
> such, is pretty much useless.
>
> I think it's time we took ownership of the various GUI desktops that ship
in
> GNU/Linux distributions, even if it means acknowledging certain flaws in
> each. After all, to be really "useable" as a desktop environment, a GUI
must
> be installed.
>
> This of course does not mean that one can't argue that the separation of
the
> GUI from the kernel adds to the stability of the core OS, and that this
> design is superior to the various flavors of Windows. But then we must
> accept that this separation invites certain problems, such as a lack of
> basic feature integration (cut and paste, drag and drop, etc.)
>
> If this means that we must still be "elitist" in recommending Linux to
only
> those people who are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of "useability"
> in favor of increased stability at the core level, then so be it. I, for
> one, am willing to concede that the various GUI desktops are not yet at
the
> level of Windows in terms of total integration, because I know that rapid
> progress is being made, and that they will soon reach that level, and even
> surpass it.
>
> I don't yet use Linux for "everything" in my business; as evidenced by the
> fact that I am still using OE to post this. I use Microsoft products to
> generate quotes, invoices, track my repairs, produce reports, and do my
> accounting. I DO use Linux for intranet web servers print servers, CAD
> workstations, and programming. I have more Linux machines in my office
than
> Windows machines, and someday, I will probably do the bulk of my work on
> Linux machines. I will probably NEVER rid myself totally of MS products,
due
> to the nature of my business. But it doesn't really matter, because I am
not
> out to destroy Microsoft. They are doing a pretty good job of that on
their
> own.
>
> --
> Rich C.
> "Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
> intelligent, until you hear them speak."
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: which linux is the best
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 20:25:19 +0100
Corel apparently has the ability to format your hard drive so that you can't
Dual Boot or install any other OS on it.
Niall
Disclaimer: Please take not of the word Apparently.
"sylvain hutchison" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I just got RH6.1, it looks really good, but how good is it compared to
> the others, I hear that Mandrake is pretty good too, but Corel however
> isn't. Why is that, is it because it is full of bugs, hard to install,
> or simply a question of interface???
>
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pentum 4?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 19:34:07 GMT
1$worth <"1$worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Hot Java wrote:
> >
> > Someone on IRC claimed that Intel is on the verge of releasing the Pentium 4
> > processor. Does anyone know anything about it? Is it plug compatible with
> > the Pentium 2 and 3?
>
> Intel had been on the "verge" of releasing their well publicised 64-bit
> processor for quite some time, so I wouldn't hold your breath - they are
> just probably concerned about transmeta and are creating some market
> uncertainty.
>
The Intel Pentium 4 is not the Intel Itanium. The Itanium is the 64-bit thing.
The Pentium 4 is the previously code-named Williamette. As far as I know,
it is a significant evolution of the Pentium, but is not 64-bit... But I may be
wrong.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:35:22 -0400
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8jvuu3$2mq3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >I have been concerned lately about certain attitudes in this newsgroup.
>
> Why? We don't all have to agree.
Agreed. :o)
>
> >It seems that certain Linux "zealots," when confronted with the issue of
a
> >useability issue with KDE, Gnome, or whatever, argue that these
components
> >are NOT part of Linux. However, when confronted with the issue that
Windows
> >version [whatever] has a nice user interface, they instantly point to KDE
or
> >Gnome being "just as good." This type of two-headed posturing is not
> >constructive.
>
> Yes it is, as soon as you understand that there is no single dictator
> controlling what combination of components you may use.
But the premise of claiming certain components to be part of GNU/Linux to
support one argument while at the same time disowning them to support
another is logically flawed.
>
> >Well, which is it? Are the KDE/Gnome desktops part of "Linux," or aren't
> >they?
>
> The choice of using them or not comes with Linux. And for the same
> price...
Fine. You are arguing that the separation of components is a good thing, and
that the benefit of "mixing and matching" is a result. This is the same
philosophy that the auto companies used in the 1980's with their "parts bin
engineering" mentality. But since cars in the 1980s generally sucked, there
are obviously drawbacks that need to be addressed.
>
> >All current versions of Windows include a GUI user interface, and for
what
> >it's worth, it IS easy to use.
>
> For some people, some of the time, for some things. It is not
> particularly easy to use when the machine running the program
> is elsewhere, or you have many machines and want to control all
> of them from one screen/keyboard, or cut and paste between them.
Yes, Linux is superior for network management functions. But this does not
apply to the average user's desktop system, where all they want to "manage"
is their local machine.
>
> >Linux is claimed to be "just a kernel" which, in and of itself, is not
much
> >good. It requires many GNU utilities, at an absolute minimum, and SOME
type
> >of GUI, to be considered "useable" as a desktop system.
>
> For some things - and probably for most people.
In what applications is "just the kernel" useful?
>
> >Almost all distributions of "Linux" come with one or more GUI desktop
> >environments, and 99% of the people who want to try Linux as an
alternative
> >to Windows will install one of these desktops. In order to make Linux an
> >"equivalent" environment to Windows, you HAVE to say that these GUIs are
> >part of the overall operating environment, or "system." If you don't,
then
> >you leave yourself open to the argument that Linux is just a kernel, and,
as
> >such, is pretty much useless.
>
> OK, now you are talking about distributions rather than Linux.
Isn't that how most people acquire Linux? Don't the distributions affect
most people's initial experience with it? Users want to install a complete
system, not just "Linux."
>
> >I think it's time we took ownership of the various GUI desktops that ship
in
> >GNU/Linux distributions, even if it means acknowledging certain flaws in
> >each. After all, to be really "useable" as a desktop environment, a GUI
must
> >be installed.
>
> Who is 'we'? I like Linux precisely because there is no single entity
> dictating how it can or should be used.
"We" is the Linux community; those that use it and advocate it.
>
> >This of course does not mean that one can't argue that the separation of
the
> >GUI from the kernel adds to the stability of the core OS, and that this
> >design is superior to the various flavors of Windows. But then we must
> >accept that this separation invites certain problems, such as a lack of
> >basic feature integration (cut and paste, drag and drop, etc.)
>
> No, a more accurate description is that limiting yourself to the
> programs with feature integration is a trade-off at best.
This highlights another shortcoming of the desktop environments. They don't
provide new users with easy access to the myriad of other
programs/utilities/functions that make Linux so useful. They limit users to
programs that are specifically related to the desktop environment the user
chooses to install. For example, my RedHat 6.2 distro installed Netscape for
me as part of the KDE desktop option I selected. Nowhere did they provide
menu access or even help on rudimentary utilities as "df" or "date."
>
> >If this means that we must still be "elitist" in recommending Linux to
only
> >those people who are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of
"useability"
> >in favor of increased stability at the core level, then so be it. I, for
> >one, am willing to concede that the various GUI desktops are not yet at
the
> >level of Windows in terms of total integration, because I know that rapid
> >progress is being made, and that they will soon reach that level, and
even
> >surpass it.
>
> Perhaps there is a place for the 'dummy distribution' that only includes
> one integrated window manager and app set. I hope this never becomes
> the only choice. A compromise might be a reasonably complete
> distribution with some canned window manager configurations that
> only make the integrated apps visible on the desktop and menus so
> you have to go out of your way to encounter things that work in
> a different way.
IMO, this is what they do now. They need to go the other way, and make it
easy for new users to learn about stuff NOT related to apps that were
written specifically for the installed desktop environment. They need to
take a broader view of GNU/Linux as a whole, and so do the so-called
"advocates."
>
> >I don't yet use Linux for "everything" in my business; as evidenced by
the
> >fact that I am still using OE to post this. I use Microsoft products to
> >generate quotes, invoices, track my repairs, produce reports, and do my
> >accounting.
>
> There is no reason to take that choice away either.
Agreed.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:41:05 -0400
Niall Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8k02d1$egi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> M$ Win 3.11 was not part of Ms-Dos was it, It was a Graphicall Shell that
> could run on it.
>
Yes, and that's what I loved about it. I could (and did) trash Program
Manager and install Central Point's PC-Tools for Windows, which was by far a
superior user interface.
> KDE and Gnome are similar in that way.
>
> Of course there is no real problems with KDE (I haven't used Gnome), It
> loads up you use it and accept that it's not Mac Os and it's not Windows
and
> it's not any other GUI it is KDE it works the way it is setup and written
to
> be used, okay this is what I don't like about KDE
If a program is written using Qt, it is generally compatible with KDE, but a
program written with another widget set won't behave exactly like other KDE
programs, even though the window manager makes them look the same on the
surface.
>
> Single Clicking to select stuff,
>
> Er, thats it really
>
> Niall
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Anyone actually using Linux for DTP?
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 19:41:17 GMT
Linux is your ticket my man. I am doing exactly what you intend to do
(a newsletter for my fishing club), and get this, I'm doing it on a
386 with 8meg and a 200 meg hard disk.
Works great!
No more nasty BSOD's running Windows 3.1 (with all service packs
). And damm, Linux supports my 1200 Baud Hayes modem great.
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 10:34:31 -0600, Gene Kimzey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Dear Folks,
>
> I am considering being the editor for a non-profit newsletter. The
>requirements include (among others):
>"a word processing or publishing program for generating the newsletter."
>"Microsoft Access, Word and Excel for the bulk mailing forms, mailing
>database and labels."
>"Quicken or other bookkeeping program for tracking finances."
>
> Now, I am pretty sure Linux and related software can theoretically do
>this. In fact I've already investigated Star Office 5.2, and GNU Cash
>and both seem up to the task. My questions are these:
>
>1. Is there anyone out actually using Linux and related software for
>monthly production of an 8-10 page newsletter?
>2. Is there anyone out there who is using Star Office or similar program
>to maintain and printout out labels from a mailing data base on a
>production basis?
>3. Is there someone out there who is actually using GNU Cash or similar
>to run the basic finances of a small business?
>
>If anybody does, please tell us about difficulties and successes. I
>would like to be the editor but not at the cost of having to buy a whole
>new system with Microsoft Office installed. I am hoping I can do this on
>my 486 AMD-133 with 32 megs of Ram.
>
> Gene Kimzey
> Rio Rancho, NM
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
