Linux-Advocacy Digest #493, Volume #27 Thu, 6 Jul 00 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Simon, why are you here? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mark Wooding)
Re: Linux, easy to use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Wasn't linux well established BEFORE antitrust action? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting. (Perry Pip)
Re: Simon, why are you here?
Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Luv Linux but it looses. (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Darren Winsper)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mark Wooding)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Distribution reviews (Bob Hauck)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Simon, why are you here?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:02:30 GMT
Yawwwnnnnn....
The truth hurts sometimes....
On 6 Jul 2000 02:21:29 GMT, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>No I'm not, I'm simply saying that folks don't give a hoot about the
>>root cause of Linux's lack of hardware support. Chances are good they
>>own the hardware (pre-load) and may be curious about Linsux.
>>
>>When all that Win hardware or even (as in my case) non Win hardware
>>fails to function Linux will be deep sixed and the Linvocates can
>>argue over who is responsible till they are blue in the face. Won't
>>matter because they have lost another customer.
>
>Evidently not in your case, since you keep coming back here whining that
>Linux doesn't support your Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
>
>Simon, NOBODY GIVES A MICRODAMN if Linux supports *your* hardware. I care
>that Linux supports *my* hardware. And it does, because companies that
>make Linux-supported hardware get my business, and companies that make
>LoseModems or other such crap don't.
>
>And frankly I can't be arsed to write a driver for an Illudium Q-36
>Explosive Space Modulator just because some Wintroll acts like a baby on
>Usenet. Until I have an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator of my own,
>it just doesn't matter to me.
>
>If you want Linux to support your hardware, here are your options:
>
> 1) Check for Linux support before you buy;
>
> 2) Write the driver yourself; or
>
> 3) Be patient, and QUIT WHINING.
>
>(1) requires you to go to linuxdoc.org and RTF-HOWTOs.
>
>(2) requires some programming ability, and again you have to go to
>linuxdoc.org and RTF-HOWTOs.
>
>Since RTF-HOWTOs seems to be beyond you, all I can suggest is (3).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:01:09 GMT
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 10:51:48 -0400, Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> GPLed software isn't free and has redistribution encumberances. Calling
>>> the GPL free is not accurate because of the encumberances. I guess that
>> ...different usage of free. English lexicon isn't as simplistic
>> as you would like to make it out to be.
>
>Nor you. Application of the animate sense of free to something inanimate is
>nongrammatical and illogical.
Oddly enough, common online dictionaries (webster's actually)
quite contradicts you on that point.
Although the liberty in question is intended to be enjoyed by
all end users equally, so your pedantry is moot anyways.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Jul 2000 15:06:35 GMT
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nor you. Application of the animate sense of free to something
> inanimate is nongrammatical and illogical.
Duh! Don't apply that sense, then. Apply a sense which applies to such
inanimate intangibles as `speech', `enterprise', `will', `time' or
`love'.
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 16:02:07 +0100
On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 16:43:18 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>In article <8jab1s$26pj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>> > Linux + KDE = workstation equivalent to Windows
>>
>> Wrong.
>
>So, what in your opinion, should I be running if I wish to replace
>Windows with Linux? I mean, I've heard it enough times but KDE is very
>close in look and feel to Windows.
>
>> Actually, apon perusing your posts in this newsgroup for a while, Ive
>found
>> that you apparantly get called a moron quite often.
>
>Only rarely do I get called a moron. And mostly by you.
Allow me to correct that oversight.
Mr Goodwin: you are a moron. At least, that is the impression of you
that I gain from reading your posts. Hell, _Scientologists_ do less
squirming and evading the issue than you do...
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:05:22 GMT
On 06 Jul 2000 11:01:08 -0400, Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[deletia]
>> I can not give you copies of the software that I write,
>> because someone else owns it.
>
>Private property is the backbone of freedom. Without it, you are a
>helpless vassal of whatever arbitrary distribution system is in power.
...which is entirely distinct from so-called intellectual
property. This distinction is quite explicitly spelled out
in law and is rather obvious as an emergent property.
Expressed thought is quite unlike corporeal commodities.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Running Linsux on a Compaq? Good luck!!!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:06:16 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:01:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The topic of his articles always seem to be based around problems he
>has with Linux. His Corel Office review was a classic.
Seen a lot of articles put out by the press chronicling
things "going right" lately have we?
>
>
>
>
>On 6 Jul 2000 03:13:30 GMT, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>Typical Linsux......
>>>
>>>And what was that about great hardware support of Linsux?
>>>
>>>
>>>http://infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/00/07/03/000703oppetreley.xml
>>>
>>>
>>>And this from a Linvocate, shame, shame.
>>>
>>>Well at least he is honest but based upon his history you have to
>>>wonder if he is really a Winvocate....
>>>
>>>He doesn't seem to have anything positive to say about Linsux.
>>
>>Nothing positive? You mean nothing positive like:
>>
>> "I know from experience that the most troublesome hardware for Linux
>> comes from Compaq. Over the past few years, I have been able to install
>> Linux quickly on just about any hardware -- from IBM laptops to bizarre
>> no-name home-brew computers. But I've always had trouble getting Linux
>> to run on a Compaq. Call it bad luck. Call it Compaq's fault. I don't
>> know which, but it's the truth."
>>
>>Nothing positive like "I have been able to install Linux quickly on just
>>about any hardware"?
>>
>>Seems to be trashing Compaq more than Linux: "The Compaq DVD drive seems
>>to have problems reading [Memorex CD-R] disks."
>>
>>Guess I won't be buying Compaq....
>>
>>
>>>That's pretty much par for the course though.
>>
>>All too typical WinFUD. Par for the course indeed.
>>
>>See what happens when you provide some actual facts instead of FUD? Some
>>damn fool checks them out and shows you up for the liar and whiner that
>>you are.
>
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.conspiracy.microsoft
Subject: Wasn't linux well established BEFORE antitrust action?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:56:52 GMT
In today's Boston Globe, columnist H. Bray wrote the article:
http://www.globe.com/dailyglobe2/188/business/Palmtop_suffers_Microsoft_
too+.shtml
He makes the argument that the doj/ms antitrust action has given
several technologies an opportunity to thrive. Linux was listed
as one of those technolovies. I think this gives WAY too much
credit to the antitrust trial for the rise of linux.
As I recall, linux was well established prior to the
antitrust trial getting under way.
In fact, I believed one REASON linux made headway prior to
the trial was because it was one of the very few viable
alternatives to NT .. network administrators were so incredibly
frustrated with the lack of commercial alternatives to Microsoft
that they eagerly turned to a grass roots alternative when it
became clear that linux was for real. This was a revolution
against both the MS monopoly and the lack of action by the
government.
If this interpretation is correct, then you can argue that
the antitrust trial was too little, too late. In many ways, I
find the trial irrelevant because users & network administrators
had already revolted. It is WAY too late for companies long ago
left in the dust by the Microsoft combine: Word Perfect, Lotus,
Borland, Netscape, etc. How does this trial lessen the damage
inflicted long ago and ignored by the government?
The user/administrator community was basically saying, OK DOJ,
if you're not going to do anything, we'll do it ourselves. We're
going to revolt and produce our own alternative.
Finally, long after it was clear Microsoft just didn't 'get it'
with the Internet, and therefore was ever so slightly becoming
less powerful, the DOJ finally jumps in and takes action. And
now people give credit to the trial for the revolution? Hogwash
I say! Giving credit to the trial for linux' rise is simply
an exercise in rewriting history.
I'd be happy to hear contrarian views .. but that's
how I remember the years prior to the trial.
-Bob
Andover, MA
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just exactly what IS Linux, anyway?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 14:57:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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."
According to ls, I have 2258 programs in /bin and /usr/bin.
Adding them to a menu structure would be useless.
Red Hat did provide you with access to the FUNCTIONALITY of date and df,
in the form of clocks (xclock, oclock, xdaliclock, the clock in the
panels and tools to measure free disk space (kdf, gdiskfree).
Access to the programs themselves is not as important, but it provided
it anyway, through the advanced menu multiplexing tool called xterm (or
kvt, or whatever).
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:05:08 GMT
On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:00:07 -0400,
Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>[snip]
>
>> > >
>> > > To TEST whether the system can handle that kind of load BEFORE
>> > > putting your computers on it...
>> > >
>> > > DUHHHHHHHHHHH
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > It might pop, it might not. The point is, you don't know until
>> > > you test it.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Oh, I see. Most of us simply look at the rating on the breaker.
>>
>> It's easier to plug in a hair dryer than to tear the thing apart
>> to see if it will carry a 1500W load.
>>
>> If it trips, just reset it.
>>
>
>Why would you have to tear the UPS apart to "see" the breaker rating, but
>not to reset it?
>
>And what if the thing is poorly designed, and your hair dryer fries the
>circuitry instead?
>
Call the Fire Department, grab your latest backup tape, and get the hell out!;(
Perry
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Simon, why are you here?
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:11:23 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:02:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Yawwwnnnnn....
>
>The truth hurts sometimes....
If we couldn't trade a supported USB scanner or printer for one
of the one's you claim does not work, then the 'truth' might
hurt. If we couldn't trade that V5 for a card that performs
better in Win32 and Linux (as well as being officially supported
by the vendor), then the 'truth' might hurt. If we couldn't
replace the allegedly non-functional external storage solution
with on that is cheaper and/or faster, then the 'truth' might
hurt.
The 'truth' is remarkably different than what you represent
it to be. Your rants are the very definition of FUD.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On 6 Jul 2000 02:21:29 GMT, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>No I'm not, I'm simply saying that folks don't give a hoot about the
>>>root cause of Linux's lack of hardware support. Chances are good they
>>>own the hardware (pre-load) and may be curious about Linsux.
>>>
>>>When all that Win hardware or even (as in my case) non Win hardware
>>>fails to function Linux will be deep sixed and the Linvocates can
>>>argue over who is responsible till they are blue in the face. Won't
>>>matter because they have lost another customer.
>>
>>Evidently not in your case, since you keep coming back here whining that
>>Linux doesn't support your Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.
>>
>>Simon, NOBODY GIVES A MICRODAMN if Linux supports *your* hardware. I care
>>that Linux supports *my* hardware. And it does, because companies that
>>make Linux-supported hardware get my business, and companies that make
>>LoseModems or other such crap don't.
>>
>>And frankly I can't be arsed to write a driver for an Illudium Q-36
>>Explosive Space Modulator just because some Wintroll acts like a baby on
>>Usenet. Until I have an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator of my own,
>>it just doesn't matter to me.
>>
>>If you want Linux to support your hardware, here are your options:
>>
>> 1) Check for Linux support before you buy;
>>
>> 2) Write the driver yourself; or
>>
>> 3) Be patient, and QUIT WHINING.
>>
>>(1) requires you to go to linuxdoc.org and RTF-HOWTOs.
>>
>>(2) requires some programming ability, and again you have to go to
>>linuxdoc.org and RTF-HOWTOs.
>>
>>Since RTF-HOWTOs seems to be beyond you, all I can suggest is (3).
>
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Uptime 6 months and counting.
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:15:28 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:05:08 GMT, Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 11:00:07 -0400,
>Rich C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[deletia]
>>> > Oh, I see. Most of us simply look at the rating on the breaker.
>>>
>>> It's easier to plug in a hair dryer than to tear the thing apart
>>> to see if it will carry a 1500W load.
>>>
>>> If it trips, just reset it.
>>>
>>
>>Why would you have to tear the UPS apart to "see" the breaker rating, but
>>not to reset it?
>>
>>And what if the thing is poorly designed, and your hair dryer fries the
>>circuitry instead?
>>
>
>Call the Fire Department, grab your latest backup tape, and get the hell out!;(
Screw that: store your backups offsite and instead grab your cats
and then get the hell out... '-)
[deletia]
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:14:09 -0500
Pete Goodwin 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
It's been said a million times, Linux supports hardware that Windows
doesn't too. Using the "Linux is inferior because it doesn't support
(X) hardware" argument is not a solid argument at all. I know, you are
going to shoot back something about how "I'm talking about Linux on the
desktop, and if I don't own the hardware, then it doesn't matter to
me." Well, tough luck pal, Linux supports all kinds of hardware, if you
went out of your way to pick hardware that it didn't support, that
doesn't make it inferior. That just means you picked hardware it didn't
support. I'm not insulting you, I'm not saying your stupid, I'm just
saying what you did. If you picked hardware that didn't work with
Windows (S/390, Alpha box trying to run 9x, Sparc, etc...) would that
mean that Windows is inferior? No, it just means that you picked
hardware it didn't work on, period. That is the only argument that
holds credibility. That does not make one system better or worse, just
different.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Luv Linux but it looses.
Date: 6 Jul 2000 10:15:43 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
JoeX1029 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I love Linux but for alot of purposes it just isn't the ticket. Yes it maybe
>free and pretty stable and somewhat secure but for anybody worried about
>security, total stabilty, Solaris and SCO OpenServer win hands down. The
>licenses can get expensive but you are eventually rewarded with longer uptmes
>and a much more secure box. If you look at www.insecure.org it has HUNDREDS of
>hacks for Linux and 1 for SCO OpenServer.
I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of those numbers. It
most likely means that no one cares enough about SCO Openserver
to bother testing or reporting bugs.
>Solaris has it's fair share but all
>are easily correctable. Linux is a great OS but for mission critical servers
>and have to go with SCO or Sun. While some people will argue my points there
>really is no doubt that SCO or Sun are better server options if affordable. It
>hurts to say this but, Linux isn't a top choice for servers.
Did you pay attention to the 'Vulnerable Systems:' box in the
list of bugs? I didn't wade through them all, but most appeared
to have been fixed long ago. So it that is your deciding factor
you should probably say that RedHat 5.0 or earlier wouldn't be
a top choice for a server today.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 10:18:12 -0500
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Linux noticed my WinTV card was there 2 years ago. It also
> > happily allowed me to fully exploit it 2 years ago as well.
> > (WinTV 401 to be precise)
>
> I must have one that isn't supported.
>
> > Yet the leading consumer video and audio card manufacturers
> > have decided to start supporting linux for some strange reason
> > as have the major scsi card vendors and several of the network
> > card vendors.
>
> Doesn't matter. There is always going to be this gap. You see, companies
> make peripherals and people buy them. The companies make money on them.
> Free software just gets pushed to the back - after all you get nothing out
> of it except kudos.
>
> Pete
That argument falls apart for hardware. Where does a hardware company
make money? Selling hardware. They make just as much money off of me
buying a vid card for my Linux system as they do for the guy that buys
the same vid card for a Windows2000 system. If people demand drivers
for Linux, or FreeBSD, or BeOS, or whatever, the hardware company will
make the drivers. After all, they want to keep selling hardware. There
are very few companies that charge extra for drivers (after the hardware
purchase) and those that do quickly change their minds. It is still the
hardware that makes a hardware company money. Just because the OS is
free doesn't mean that you can get the hardware for free.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Jul 2000 10:25:15 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>GPLed software isn't free and has redistribution encumberances. Calling
>>the GPL free is not accurate because of the encumberances. I guess that
>
> ...different usage of free. English lexicon isn't as simplistic
> as you would like to make it out to be.
Where is the definition of free (other than the GPL) that means
'this thing is so restricted that you can't combine it with
anything that has different restrictions and redistribute
it even if all the other thing's restrictions are met' ?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: 6 Jul 2000 15:30:40 GMT
On Wed, 05 Jul 2000 20:44:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 4. USB digital Camera no work. Works under Mac and Windows perfectly.
What make and model? the USB backport for 2.2 kernels supports Kodak
and Mustek cameras (At least some of them).
> 5. MPU 401 MIDI interface, works on Windows and Mac.
Sorry, but Linux does support true MPU 401 midi interfaces.
> 6. Motherboard monitoring software (fan speed, temp etc).
---
stargazer:~# sensors
w83781d-i2c-0-2d
Adapter: SMBus ALI15X3 adapter at e800
Algorithm: Non-I2C SMBus adapter
VCore 1: +2.43 V (min = +2.52 V, max = +3.08 V) ALARM
VCore 2: +2.43 V (min = +2.52 V, max = +3.08 V) ALARM
+3.3V: +3.56 V (min = +2.97 V, max = +3.63 V)
+5V: +4.99 V (min = +4.50 V, max = +5.48 V)
+12V: +12.08 V (min = +10.79 V, max = +13.11 V)
-12V: -11.54 V (min = -10.78 V, max = -13.18 V)
-5V: -4.79 V (min = -4.50 V, max = -5.48 V)
fan1: 0 RPM (min = 3000 RPM, div = 2) ALARM
fan2: 4753 RPM (min = 3000 RPM, div = 2)
fan3: 0 RPM (min = 3000 RPM, div = 2) ALARM
temp1: +35 C (limit = +60 C, hysteresis = +50 C)
temp2: +31.0 C (limit = +60.0 C, hysteresis = +50.0 C)
temp3: +208.0 C (limit = +60.0 C, hysteresis = +50.0 C)
vid: +3.50 V
alarms: Chassis intrusion detection
beep_enable:
Sound alarm disabled
eeprom-i2c-0-52
Adapter: SMBus ALI15X3 adapter at e800
Algorithm: Non-I2C SMBus adapter
Memory type: SDRAM DIMM SPD
SDRAM Size (MB): 64
---
It seems it does, you just need lm_sensors. Gentus Linux, despite the
fact that comes from Abit who have no qualms about breaking copyright
law, comes with monitors. It also supports ATA-100, does Windows?
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://stellarlegacy.sourceforge.net
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:36:51 GMT
On 6 Jul 2000 10:25:15 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>GPLed software isn't free and has redistribution encumberances. Calling
>>>the GPL free is not accurate because of the encumberances. I guess that
>>
>> ...different usage of free. English lexicon isn't as simplistic
>> as you would like to make it out to be.
>
>Where is the definition of free (other than the GPL) that means
> 'this thing is so restricted that you can't combine it with
> anything that has different restrictions and redistribute
> it even if all the other thing's restrictions are met' ?
Liberty & Equality.
You cannot restrict others anymore than you have been restricted.
It is freedom in the same way that I still am free despite the
fact that I can't just kidnap you and sell you into slavery.
--
It only takes a little bit of bad luck to negate the whole benefit
of "runs everything" for a particualar end user.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark Wooding)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Jul 2000 15:39:23 GMT
Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Where is the definition of free (other than the GPL) that means
> 'this thing is so restricted that you can't combine it with
> anything that has different restrictions and redistribute
> it even if all the other thing's restrictions are met' ?
Nobody's ever given that definition of `free software'. Free software
is software which its users are allowed use, copy, modify and
redistribute. For more detailed definitions, see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
and
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
-- [mdw]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 6 Jul 2000 10:30:12 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark Wooding <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Nor you. Application of the animate sense of free to something
>> inanimate is nongrammatical and illogical.
>
>Duh! Don't apply that sense, then. Apply a sense which applies to such
>inanimate intangibles as `speech', `enterprise', `will', `time' or
>`love'.
And which of those implies an attempt to take away the same freedom
from everyone else?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Distribution reviews
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 15:40:35 GMT
On Thu, 06 Jul 2000 09:50:27 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have used Lynx quite a bit actually. It's too bad so many sites are
>going out of thier way to make things totally unreadable in Lynx (you
>almost have to do that on purpose as Lynx reads standard HTML very
>well).
Except for tables. I doesn't handle them real well. w3m does much
better.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
