Linux-Advocacy Digest #627, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: SPECweb99 results (Steven W. Mentzer)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Gary Hallock)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Help with printer (Mig)
Re: Help with printer (Mig)
Re: Where did all my windows go? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Why use Linux? (Mig)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Gary Hallock)
Re: Growing dependence on Java (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Help with printer (Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:42:31 GMT
"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net (1$Worth) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>If you had an ounce of sense and knowledge about your beloved platform
>you would know to which known bug I am referring (and which version of
>9x).
I know how the internals of Windows 95/98 work. I went to a meeting inside
Digital held by Microsoft describing how it works, how all processes can
see each other, how there's no protection etc.
That doesn't mean to say it can't stay up for any length of time, now does
it?
> As you don't, I can only assume that you simply like mouthing off
>about things you do not understand. Perhaps you should concentrate on
>your gameboy tetris score rather than messing around with real
>computers.
A bit difficult as I don't have a gameboy.
> Even worse, you are from the UK. That's all we need to get a
>reputation: larger louts and FUDsters.
Since I have been reporting *facts* your comment is rejected.
> I guess you can consider this a
>flame as I just find your attitude towards Linux repulsive. It's as if
>you expect Linux = Win32 and if it does not meet this that it is
>inferior. Go read a book on OS design, then have a look at Win9x
>architecture and tell me with a straight face that it is "good" for
>reliable computing.
I don't need to go read no book to tell me Windows is leading Linux. I can
see it right in front of me.
Please explain why the leading desktop OS is Windows? Good design has
nothing to do with it - technologically better systems usually don't win,
like Betamax, Archimedes, Alpha etc.
Do you remember the Acorn Archimedes? Care to comment on that machine? RISC
OS desktop was better than Windows 95, yet this is a cooperative
multitasking OS. Do you know what that means? Did you know that Windows 3.1
was a cooperative multitasking system (except for the DOS prompt)?
> If it's so damn reliable then why was there a need
>for NT? Why did so many companies jump at NT?
Because NT has protected processes that can't bypass the OS and get to the
hardware - a requirement DOS games needed. With DirectX that requirement
has largely faded.
> Aye? Aye Mr. Troll? I hope
>you sleep well under your bridge at night 'cos you don't seem to be
>winning friends and influencing people here.
Oh but I am, if you read peoples replies carefully.
> And another thing.... if
>you don't like Linux so much then why don't you get down from your M$
>marketing BS high horse (M$ who only recently discovered the Internet
>and got sued by their own Government) and produce some code for the
>community???
Like I said, I'm reporting *facts* not marketing BS.
As for producing code for the community, will this pay my bills? Will this
help me with my mortgage? Can I buy a car off the proceeds of any software
I give away for free? Hmmm???
> That's the point - thats why it's nice and thats why we
>like it (and yes - have a look at my headers, I use BOTH win and Linux,
>so for me it is Win-Win (so to speak) ). (+1 to killfile).
Altruism always feels nice before the hordes stampede all over you.
>Ahhhhh, now I feel better.
Ah yes, isn't it good to get that off your chest? Feel better now?
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:43:50 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig) wrote in <8kikb2$ndo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>This is incorrect... everybody knows that Windows cant stay up for more
>than a few days... even the screensaver makes Windows crash.
Then how come my file server/web server is still up since 17th May?
>And if you start installing an deinstalling programs you know very well
>that the registry gets corruptet (not to speek of dll-hell). A usable
>Windows installation lasts 3-4 months before a reformat and new
>installtion is due.
I've had machines that have lasted a year so far.
Pete
------------------------------
Subject: Re: SPECweb99 results
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steven W. Mentzer)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:48:36 GMT
>
>I don't believe I've seen the latest SPECweb99 results mentioned here yet.
>They are truly spectacular. Three Dell servers with 1, 2 and 4 processors
>and running a new open source Linux web server simply wiped the floor with
>the competition: 1270, 2200 and 4200 simultaneous connections, respectively.
>For comparison, similar Dell boxes running IIS with 1 and 4 processors
>managed just 732 and 1598 connections, respectively. The only
>configuration that came close was an IBM RS/6000 with *8* processors;
>it managed 3216 connections. And one can't help noting the Netcraft
>result; on a ProLiant DL360 with 2 processors running IIS, just 1020,
>less than the Linux result with a single processor!
>
>Full details at
>
>http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2000q2/
Amazing....
redhat wraps in a kernel-mode web server and no-one sees the potential for
security issues and panics.
microsoft wraps the GDI in the kernel and everyone flames them...
i give up.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:49:06 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg) wrote in
<8kimpa$a3v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>And so you will, no doubt, conclude that they are a useless feature, and
>that Windows lacks nothing in not offering them "out of the
>box." Meanwhile, because of all the useful features Linux lacks, "Linux
>lags Windows on the desktop."
>
>Right?
Wrong. If you think virtual desktops are useful to you, then its useful to
you. I've never found them useful myself, however, I don't conclude that
"Linux lags behind Windows (desktop)" just because of this _one_ feature
but because of others.
Pete
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:48:18 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Maybe its just a difference of perspective, but I think my perspective
> is a larger one. I will not draw lines and say "well, that's someone
> else's screw-up".
The more I think about this the more it pisses me off. You really think
you have a larger view of things? Then why do you insist that you are
the only person in the entire world that can possibly understand how
difficult it is to administer Windows? No matter how many times other
people say it, if there is even the slightest nod of respect towards
Microsoft you are on the attack. Say what you will, but Windows does
occassionally work. That doesn't mean it works perfectly or that you
can predict when it will work, but it does on occasion.
As for your implication that I am dodging my responsibilities: FUCK YOU!
If there is one thing I absolutely will not tolerate it is false
accusation. I am not blaming anyone but myself for my problems. I am
not blaming anyone but MS for MS's OS problems. Now, I will say that
there are an incredible number of incomptent administrators out there
that have the job just because they can point and drewl and this does
lead to problems, but that doesn't let MS off the hook for creating such
a *crash* cow (take that any way you want). If Linux was the most
popular OS in the world, then I am sure that we would see just as many
incompetent idiots in charge of Linux based networks. These statements
do not automatically mean that it isn't MS's fault when Windows
crashes. You just keep adding words to people's mouths. Now, I realize
that I've responded to this multiple times, but I hate having someone
put words in my mouth and make false accusations. Nowhere have a drawn
a line and said "that's someone else's screw-up". I not once defended
MS's crappy OS. I just said that it is possible to slow down the rate
of crashing with competent administration.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:53:08 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cihl) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Oh yeah, your Voodoo 5 is now supported. Get XFree86 4.0.1.
Yes I know.
I also got the Windows 2000 drivers. I installed it, it worked.
I installed XFree86 4.0.1 and, it took a while to get working. Using the
config program generated a duff XF86Config file, I had to make some small
changes to make it work.
With Windows 2000, dead easy.
With Linux, a little effort to get working beta quality software.
Hmm...
...this means...
...Linux lags behind Windows (for the Voodoo 5 driver!).
>What's wrong with minimalist desktops? :)
They're a bit lacking.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:53:45 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> I don't have a hard time grasping the idea of a multiple desktops; it's
> just that having six very weak desktops and two desktops that are
> nearly there hardly constitutes 'choice'.
>
Obviously you do have a hard time grasping the idea of multiple
desktops. Why do you say desktops one and two in KDE are nearly there
and desktops three - eight are very weak? It makes no sense. All DE
desktops are the same other than the fact that you can have different
attributes such as the background for each desktop.
Gary
------------------------------
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 21:55:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <8kiii4$1vi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Please read the finding in the DOJ vs Microsoft case.
Oh I know some of the details of that case.
However... people don't buy OS's if they're _that_ bad. Could it be that
Microsoft actually got some it _right_?
I would have preferred if they weren't so aggressive, or so determined to
make sure they win, but without that, do you really think they were
creating something so terrible?
Pete
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:04:42 +0200
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hello
> >
> > Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
> > The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
> >
> > No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
> > Have an idea?
> >
> > Cheers
> > BTW i use RH 6.5 Workstation
>
>
> What type of printer do you have? Is it a Winprinter? In other
> words, it _only_ works with Windows. Also, you may not have parallel
> port support compiled into your kernel.
Not a Winprinter... its an HP deskjet 950C. The error message is Error
reason: Couldnt wite file /dev/lp0": no such device". Ive tryed with lp1
and lp2... same error
> BTW, what is RH 6.5? I thought Red Hat's latest distribution was 6.2.
Sorry its RedHat 6.2 Zoot
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:04:52 +0200
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:20:35 +0200, Mig wrote:
> >Hello
> >
> >Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
> >The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
> >
> >No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
> >Have an idea?
>
> Is the printer listed as supported in the printing HOWTO ? What type is it ?
Its an HP Deskjet 950C.. and its not supported directly.. but i suppose it
could run with other HP drivers.
I get an error from "printtool " (version in RH 6.2) with the following
error. "Error reason: Couldnt wite file /dev/lp0": no such device". Its the
same error if i use lp1 or lp2.
To me this sounds like the port stays undetected
Greetings
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Where did all my windows go?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:03:29 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Barry) wrote in
<20000711.4374700@localhost.>:
>Check It Out!!! Not sure how I didn't realize it before! Pete 'the
>douchebag' Goodwin is really Bill Gates! Get it - Good Win? It's a
>fucking scam! Ever since he got fired (Ballmer the prick!) Bill's been
>hangin on COLA pissin' people off, cause he's useless at M$. Goodwin-
>what amoronic pen name. Head programmer -HAH! Couldn't code his ass out
>of a wet paper bag! If he ever did code anything, you know it must've
>sucked. Good Win, but a bad loser. Pete, you're a fuckin' bonehead, and
>it has nothing to do with computers or Operating Systems or anything -
>you, as an in-duh-vidual (your cuteness), are an ass.
This is about the level of crap I come to expect from some Linux advocates.
You realise of course what this reveals about yourself, and does nothing to
promote your cause.
I suggest you go back to school and learn some manners, child.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:04:33 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
>
> Oh I thought we were talking about Gnome, KDE, FVWM, TWM etc.
>
> I didn't think we were talking about virtual desktops. I think there is one
> (or there was one) for Windows. I've tried them, but don't really find much
> use.
At home I might be able to live with only one desktop, but I sure would not
want to. At work, it is essential in order to maintain my sanity. I am quite
often in the middle of development or debugging with a dozen windows open, all
positioned just right. Then someone walks into my office with a problem or
question. They want to log on their machine (remotely, of course) and show
me what they are doing. I just switch to an unused desktop and they can do
whatever they want. When they leave and I want to switch back to what I was
doing I just click on the appropriate desktop and I am back in business, all
windows just as I left them.
Gary
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:09:14 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mig) wrote in <8kikb2$ndo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >This is incorrect... everybody knows that Windows cant stay up for more
> >than a few days... even the screensaver makes Windows crash.
>
> Then how come my file server/web server is still up since 17th May?
>
> >And if you start installing an deinstalling programs you know very well
> >that the registry gets corruptet (not to speek of dll-hell). A usable
> >Windows installation lasts 3-4 months before a reformat and new
> >installtion is due.
>
> I've had machines that have lasted a year so far.
Sorry i do not believe you!
I do test Windows machines on a daily base and it just sucks. Simply put...
if youre not very nice they bluescreen. You know that very well and most
Winvocates even admit this.. Windows 9x is maybe the most unstable OS in
the planet in this age. I dont get the purpose for you advocating Win 98.
Do some NT/W2K advocating man.. then we can talk
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:08:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Russ Allbery from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 09 Jul 2000 23:45:01
>In gnu.misc.discuss, T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>
>>> This is ... an area which isn't entirely clear in the law, although the
>>> FSF has made threatening noises if the GPLed library is the only
>>> library to which you can link the software.
>
>>> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>>> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
>
>This is one interpretation that apparently the FSF's lawyer holds; I'd
>personally really like to see a court put this to rest and say that if all
>you're using of the other code is its API, it's not a derivative work, and
>the process of combining an executable with a dynamic library on the
>system is not the formation of a derivative work but rather the execution
>of two independent sets of instructions, one of which calls the other.
You mischaracterize the issue, inadvertently. Having this be tested in
a court would not "put the matter to rest". In fact, it would be just
the obvious. The reason FSF's lawyers hold such an interpretation is
that they plan to sue for copyright infringement any software which can
only work when linked to a GPL library as a derivative work of GPL
software. FSF's lawyers have a valid legal justification for doing so,
based on the reasoning that this would indicate that the software was,
in fact, "based on", and is, both legally and "realistically", a
derivative work. If your code will only work with a GPL library, then
it is all but proven that you used the GPL library to develop your work,
not just the API, which is assumed in this matter to apply to multiple
alternative libraries as well, but the code itself.
You would have the opportunity to defend yourself in court, of course.
If you could give reasonable doubt to this claim, you're scot-free.
Perhaps only two libraries are available for that function, and the
alternative has a demonstrable bug which affects your software. If you
can "prove" that you merely linked to the GPL library during
development, and thus only used its API, not its source code, in order
to develop your software, then legally, and realistically, your code is
not a derivative work.
But you lost the benefit of that doubt when you closed your source; the
law is not above assuming that when something is being hidden, it is
because someone has a reason to hide it.
Lawyers are by nature sometimes required to appear to be, if not
actually be, complete and utter slime-balls. But it is not in their
nature to be stupid, nor is it a requirement that judges be both stupid
and ignorant.
Just because the lawyers think you can sue somebody for linking to your
library doesn't mean they have a valid case. But it does mean, based on
the circumstances, that they have a valid reason for bringing a case.
The law will decide, _in each instance_, whether infringement occurred,
and the success or failure of each indictment will not go to proving or
disproving the test itself, which is valid for logical, not legal,
reasons. The test is one for the lawyers to use in determining if they
have a reason to sue; it is not a per se test the court will use in its
determination of whether a violation has occurred. The purpose of the
test is to protect the GPL license every bit as avidly as commercial
licensors protect their own, and I applaud FSF lawyers for applying it.
>This is the only interpretation that I personally think makes any logical
>sense in the presence of technologies like CORBA, multitasking systems,
>and the like. It seems to me that when the joining of separate code bases
>is through a well-defined interface such as some IPC mechanism or the
>calling convention for dynamic libraries, it makes them two separate works
>which are cooperating.
The point is that copyright cases are not based on whether something
makes logical sense, but on whether evidence of infringement is
presented, and whether it is defended. The easiest way to defend
against such cases, in case you're worried, is to open your source.
Whether under GPL or not, it will enable the FSF lawyers to read the
source code to determine if you have created a derivative work, in their
opinion, instead of relying on the indirect library issue.
>After listening to a lot of the arguments about this, I don't see any real
>sense to the idea that, say, optionally using GNU readline to handle
>terminal input makes GhostScript as a whole a derivative work of GNU
>readline.
If it is optional, and you could use some other library besides GNU's
readline, then this is true. But if the only library GhostScript can
use, if the API is available from non-GPL libraries, when the optional
use of a readline function is used, then this is not true, and it is
reasonable to believe that the developers of GhostScript have derived
their software from GNU's readline, and not just 'a' readline.
>I realize that this interpretation has benefitted FSF-free
>software in a few specific cases (such as ncftp), but it still doesn't
>seem logically justifiable to me.
Hopefully I've helped clarify the issue. Let me know if you'd like to
discuss it further. If I've got things straight (I'm still new to the
issue, but it seems to make sense to me), linking to a library which is
GNU while developing is not enough to make your software a derivative
work. Unless you happen to get unlucky enough to end up with software
which is "bug compatible" with only that GNU library.
That doesn't *mean* that your software *is* a derivative work; that
isn't up to the FSF to determine. It *does* mean that it *could be*,
and the FSF lawyers are going to take you to court. The judge or jury
will then determine, by being presented all the facts in evidence,
whether your intellectual property is an infringement or not, based on
examination of the code (testimony of those who have, anyway) and the
circumstances.
>The GPL doesn't require you to provide your derivative works free of
>charge. It just requires you to provide source whenever you provide
>binaries, and prohibits you from preventing further distribution of the
>source once it leaves your hands. The difference is important; if the GPL
>prohibited selling GPL'd code, Red Hat couldn't sell their Linux
>distribution.
No open source license requires you to provide anything free of charge.
That isn't the same as being able to charge for it. Red Hat doesn't get
paid for the code, as you've indicated. It gets paid for the
distribution of the code, which isn't the same thing in this context.
The license is free, the delivery may cost money. With commercial
software, the delivery may be free, but the license costs you money.
Either way you're "buying software", but in neither case are you buying
software.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:08:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Hyman Rosen from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000 12:29:12
>Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> If one and only one library can possibly make your code actually
>> *work*, then your work is a derivative work of the library.
>
>Are you stating that this is the opinion of the FSF, or your own?
>
>It isn't true. First of all, since we are dealing with copyright,
>the concept of a program "working" is irrelevant. [...]
This last bit I'd disagree with; the law recognizes the functional
nature of software, and does currently consider it to be part of the
issue in this regard.
Overall, the statement concerning the library linking issue is not
*necessarily* true, and I don't believe anyone has stated that it is.
The FSF lawyers, and RSM, may well have *implied* that it is always
true, but I have no first-hand knowledge of that. (Yes, I'm discussing
these issues without having read the entirety of the FSF web site.)
It is, in fact, a reasonable assumption. It is sufficient cause to take
legal action in order to force the software to be examined in court so
that it can be determined if it is a derivative work. The law
determines if a work is derivative, and it does not have any per se rule
such as the FSF has stated. But as far as I am aware, again, they have
never indicated that this is the case. Would they like to have such a
per se rule set as a precedent in law, so that any software which only
works when linked to a certainly library *is* legally considered to be a
derivative work, automatically and regardless of any other
circumstances? Possibly. Almost definitely, even. But only because
there opinion is that it is true; if the only library that allows your
software to function is GPL, then it isn't just the API that you have
based your work on, but the GPL code itself.
Personally, I doubt any such per se rule will ever be implemented, but
there are plenty of counter-intuitive issues with copyright and IP in
general, not to even begin to examine software; one more seemingly
ludicrous but logically appropriate per se rule isn't going to make or
break the industry. For the most part, though, the courts have always
required examination of the particulars to determine infringement, and
has not relied on per se rules outside of the issue of Fair Use.
Which, by the way, is a gaping hole which allows anyone who wants to
test the FSF's interpretation to have some feelings of confidence if
they haven't, in fact, read the source code of the library to figure out
how to use the API. If you couldn't get your code to work, happen to be
using a GPL library, and examined the source of the library to figure
out how to fix your previously truly broken code [rather than just
trying to figure out how to make it work with the GPL library
specifically], but this fix only works for the GPL library, than that
sounds like fair use to me.
The ironic part is I'm sure the FSF lawyers would agree with me on the
both the correct and the tentative nature of their claim concerning
library linking. They know this isn't a statement of fact, but a legal
position. What makes it ironic is that the software experts don't get
this, even though it tremendously strengthens their point.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 18:08:21 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>
> No. 8 FULL desktops. HP introduced it in the early 1990s
> (LoseDOS 3._ era), and it was adopted by everyone else quite quickly.
>
Well, everyone but Microsoft :-)
Gary
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 17:01:00 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> ...the latest Star Office is 260M. A few more megs for an embedded
> Java enviroment is not going to make much difference.
>
While I agree completely, this seems to be the one little sticking point
with Star Office where they actually seem to *care* about adding MB.
Maybe there is some licensing issue I'm not aware of or something. But
they really seem to dislike the idea of bundling in a Java
implementation. Of course, it could just be because they want people to
have their own choice of what Java run-time they want to use (if only
more Java apps did this).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:11:35 +0200
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> words, it _only_ works with Windows. Also, you may not have parallel
> port support compiled into your kernel.
Youre probably right with kernel support since it does not detect it. Just
tought it parallel port support was included in all kernels automaticly.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
