Linux-Advocacy Digest #714, Volume #27 Sun, 16 Jul 00 12:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Some Windows weirdnesses... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: OFFICIAL ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (John S. Dyson)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451741.4533^-.0000000000000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451742.566^-.00000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: My brain is new
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451742 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Gary Hallock)
Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Matthias Warkus)
Re: which OS is best? ("MH")
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451742 (Tholen) (tinman)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (RiCHaRD HaRLoS)
Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it (mlw)
Re: which OS is best? ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 11:17:38 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Most Winvocates would agree with you, Win9x is a stinking pile of
dog shit.
> >
>
> Aren't these the exact same shit-heads who, only 10 months ago, were
> babbling incoherently about how Lose98 was so excellant that
absolutely
> NOTHING could be better?
>
No.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Some Windows weirdnesses...
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 11:19:40 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> > =
>
> > "V'rgo Vardja" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8kmlmh$1bh2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > =
>
> > <snip everything>
> > =
>
> > Use Windows 2000 Professional...
> > =
>
> > Most Winvocates would agree with you, Win9x is a stinking pile of
dog s=
> hit.
> > =
>
> > Stu
>
> Did you actually *buy* Windows 2000 Professional? Hm?
>
Well, being in a position where I don't have to helps - corporate
licensing and all that. I run Advanced Server on the desktop, and
Slackware 7.0 in a VM.
I'm not sure what your comment is supossed to mean, but there you go...
Stu
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OFFICIAL
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:33:56 +0100
It's official - you seem to be doing everything you can to not understand
Win2K.
> Ok it's official(for me).
> Windows 2000 is a piece of SHIT!
> I have a linux box and a Windows 2000 box.
> My Linux box has been up and running for 13 days. I run memory
> hog Mozilla from time to time on both. On Linux I always get all my
> memory back, moreover, I can always see where ALL my memory is
> with GNOME System Monitor or if all else fails "PS -Al". Right now
> my Win2000 box shows a MEM usage of 244 MB and I have NOTHING
> open and task manager gives NO indication of where all that memory
> is spent.
Try using perfmon instead - this is what it's designed for. Hint: look at
the process counters, in particular Working Set.
>From a multi-billion $$ corporation that gets $300 for each
> (legit :-) ) copy of this shit this is ridiculous.
> Incidentally our network director gave a presentation the other day.
> He has chosen a mix of Windows and Unix servers(i.e. I don't know
> his bias) but claims MS has said they reccommend NT 4.0 be rebooted
> every 4.6 days(probably generous) and Windows2000 every 30 days.
I'd be interested to see an official recommendation from MS that this is the
case. We reboot our boxes when we have to, not on a schedule. That means -
adding hardware, updating drivers etc. Not any other time, sorry to
disappoint you.
> Hey Windows2000 may have all the moola but it ain't got all the smarts.
>
Doesn't look like you have either...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John S. Dyson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 12:15:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 04:38:06 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>No. He can only use GPVed software in his programs if he then agrees to
>>>license the whole of his work under the GPV.
>>This is not true, thanks for playing.
>
> Of course it is. It's the entire point of the GPV.
>
Note the interesting comment by some GPL being called free advocates
that the GPL is now something that one can/should selectively enforce.
This totally blows away any argument, because you are dealing with
individuals who don't necessarily believe in the license that they
advocate!!!
It is pretty much rubbish to even try to discuss, because their
religion now has even more attributes of a real, conventional religion!!!
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 16 Jul 2000 13:49:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 16 Jul 2000 12:15:11 GMT, John S. Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Note the interesting comment by some GPL being called free advocates
>that the GPL is now something that one can/should selectively enforce.
>This totally blows away any argument, because you are dealing with
>individuals who don't necessarily believe in the license that they
>advocate!!!
Yeah...and these are, often, folks who would find selective enforcement of
laws against those not in political favor abhorrent because of the potential
for abuse, never realizing that that's exactly how selective enforcement by
GPVed copyright holders would work: to abuse those who disagree with their
goals. If you espouse the GPV's politics, why, of course you can violate
it...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:42:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft;
<large snip>
I disagree with most of your post, but I *must* fight the
temptation to argue with you into the "rounding error" zone.
> >As I have hinted, this month we are actively pursuing a Linux
> >opportunity. So do you curse us for covering up Microsoft's
> >mistakes, or praise us for our efforts to promote the use of
> >Linux?
>
> Both, of course. I also pity you for being forced to make up for
> Microsoft's mistakes, as I do the rest of the industry, as well.
>
> I said your story was a perfect illustration of my point, not of an
> unethical organization duping people for profit. I apologize if I
> didn't make that clear. Everyone in the illustration was an unwitting
> victim, in my book, not a villain. It is the vague unseen forces we
> allow to control us which are the villains. Encouragement of
> cluelessness is rarely an intentional practice; it happens
> accidentally when we're paying attention to something else.
This is good, and we can agree to disagree here, but please don't
pity us. We are proud of our abilities. We do what we do honestly
and openly. Our customers are delighted with us and extremely
thankful we are there to support them.
Humbly Submitted,
David Petticord
Complete Networks, Inc.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451741.4533^-.0000000000000000001
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:55:51 -0400
Tholen tholes:
> Nice try, but don't expect to get any useful answer from Joe Malloy.
Hey, you wouldn't know a useful answer if it walked up to you and bit you on
the arse.
> I've been trying to get a logical reason for his presence here for a
> long time, but the best he can come up with is "entertainment".
What's illogical about that?
> In lieu of any logical reason,
I repeat: what's illogical about that?
> I've been active
Well, I guess we can agree that you've been active, up to and including your
monstrous 3,000+ line postings about all sorts of claptrap (fortunately gone
since your little chat with TPTB at UofH), but you've yet to demonstrate
that anyone is employing any of the things you claim to be "fighting." The
secret is open: anyone with eyes to see understands that!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451742.566^-.00000000001
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 09:55:55 -0400
Here's today's Tholen digest, part 1,659,333. He's back to ignoring the
issue about this alleged reciprocation, choosing instead to make a complete
fool of himself by demonstrating that he hasn't learned to read, yet he
pontificates about my alleged misinterpretation. And he's continuing to
ignore the issue about his reason for frequenting "these precincts".
Figures. Typical Tholen, typical claptrap.
To the digest proper!
[Nope, still nothing!]
Thanks for reading.
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: My brain is new
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:02:04 GMT
On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 14:44:48 -0700, Bob Lyday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 21:30:03 -0700, Bob Lyday
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>> >>
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes it is and that was the original topic of my "Bit-Twiddler" post. I
>> >> > was not talking about programmers or techno-geeks, I was speaking
>> >> > about the average user who grew up and suffered with DOS, OS/2
>> >
>> >Suffered with OS/2, one of the best OS's ever made? I think you need a
>> >brain transplant.
>>
>> Bzzzzt wrong again.
>>
>> Guess you don't remember when OS/2 worked on PS/2's and very few if
>> any clones.
>
>Before my time, oldster.
That never happened here on earth. OS/2 from day one was written for PC
clones before the PS/2 was even a glimer in any IBM exec's imagination.
(originaly os/2 was written for the IBM PC/AT)
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451742
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 14:03:16 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. He's still ignoring the issue about his
alleged reciprocation, choosing instead to make a complete fool of
himself by claiming that I wouldn't know a useful answer if it walked
up to me, and lying about a nonexistent "chat with TPTB at UofH". Such
a lie is one of the things I'm "fighting", to use his word for it, and
he has the audacity to claim that I've never demonstrated that anyone is
employing any of those things. And he's continuing to ignore the issue
about his reason for frequenting "these precincts".
114> Tholen tholes:
114>
114> Hey, you wouldn't know a useful answer if it walked up to you and
114> bit you on the arse.
114>
114> What's illogical about that?
114>
114> I repeat: what's illogical about that?
114>
114> Well, I guess we can agree that you've been active, up to and
114> including your monstrous 3,000+ line postings about all sorts of
114> claptrap (fortunately gone since your little chat with TPTB at
114> UofH), but you've yet to demonstrate that anyone is employing any
114> of the things you claim to be "fighting." The secret is open:
114> anyone with eyes to see understands that!
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:21:57 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> I see your point. It shouldn't be the other app that "determines when
> to give up control", though, it should be the common rules which I
> assumed are what make up the Cooperative Multi-tasking system as a
> whole. I know you realize I don't know the details, but I figured there
> must be some maximum quantum which the active process can use until
> yielding. Is this incorrect? Considering the true time span of these
> quantum, I get the impression that "responsiveness" may be a term with a
> slightly unique flavor when discussing multi-tasking, but I can't be
> sure.
>
No, there is no "maximum quantum" in CMT. There is in PMT. How can you be so
dense?
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 10:26:05 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>
> No, I am trying to suggest that a CMT system which does not need to
> "forcibly move things around" might be possible. A CMT with a more
> comprehensive mechanism for allowing non-active processes to effectively
> pre-empt the active process without requiring an external scheduler.
> ^^^^^^
>
> Perhaps token passing in place of polling might be a suitable
> comparison, or at least analogy. Do you see what I mean?
You are dense,are you? Read what you just wrote and then ask yourself what
does the P in PMT stand for.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: I tried to install both W2K and Linux last night...
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:42:41 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 16 Jul 2000 03:40:16 -0400...
...and Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >This coming from someone who never seems to be able to get Linux
> >running.
>
>
> I have a mostly working (minus SB Live) Linux installation right now.
>
> What were you saying again?
We've heard more than enough complaints from you confirming our
opinion that, when installing Linux, from the beginning, your
intention is to have the installation fail miserably on the way in
order to be able to post flames here.
mawa
--
Lamettabügler!
Laubharker!
Luftgitarrist!
Mülltrenner!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 13:49:10 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT...
...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think that's a
> >good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.
>
> My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the server/technical
> user market and should forget going for the desktop.
Linux cannot focus on anything because Linux is neither an
organisation nor a product.
mawa
--
Bei allen Fernsehsendungen, seien das jetzt die Teletubbies,
irgendwelche Zeichentrickserien oder meinetwegen auch das nachgerade
kultige Telekolleg Physik II, gilt natürlich, dass es nie was bringt,
die Kinder alleine davor zu parken. -- mawa
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 11:15:27 -0400
> But point and click can never be as efficient as using the keyboard. If
> ALT + key is used to navigate on the screen, we have 40-odd keypresses
> at our immediate disposal without having to move our hands away from
> keyboard. The 2 or 3 buttons of a mouse cannot compete with this, and
> especially not in situations where we also have to move our hand back
> and forth between mouse and keyboard
Gee, I agree with 99% of what you say. But I can't offhand think of an
easier keyboard equivalent of opening up win explorer to a dir of choice,
holding down the control key while left clicking to select any combination
of arbitrary files in the right hand pane, right clicking, and choosing
"send to ->>" source. How many commands would I have to type to accomplish
this? I can't script that very easily. A better question would be why would
I need to script what is inherently available?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:11:36 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It was the Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT...
> ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Desktop domination?-- it's a LONG way off, if at all. And I think
that's a
> > >good thing for Linux. And computer users in general.
> >
> > My PERSONAL opinion is that Linux should focus on the
server/technical
> > user market and should forget going for the desktop.
>
> Linux cannot focus on anything because Linux is neither an
> organisation nor a product.
>
Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
me!
> mawa
> --
> Bei allen Fernsehsendungen, seien das jetzt die Teletubbies,
> irgendwelche Zeichentrickserien oder meinetwegen auch das nachgerade
> kultige Telekolleg Physik II, gilt natürlich, dass es nie was bringt,
> die Kinder alleine davor zu parken. -- mawa
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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 2451742 (Tholen)
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 11:22:14 -0400
In article <i%7c5.35597$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Here's today's Tinman digest:
>
> 1> The one you snipped.
>
> Incorrect, given that there was no invective on my part to snip, Tinman.
>
> 1> What alleged "evidence," Dave?
>
> See what I mean?
Not at all, what you mean is quite a mystery.
> 1> Illogical, since your posts are devoid of meaning.
>
> Incorrect, given that my post contained meaning regarding your failure
> to recognize the evidence provided.
What alleged "meaning"?
> 1> You really don't know what that word means, do you Dave?
>
> I do know what the word means, Tinman. That's how I'm able to determine
> that you're engaging in it.
You really don't know what that word means, do you Dave?
> 1> What alleged "I"?
>
> Illogical, Tinman.
On the contrary.
> 1> On the contrary, your reading comprehensions problems are well known.
>
> Even more pontification.
In what sense?
> 1> Then why refer questions to me?
>
> Because you should be able to provide a reference, Tinman.
Why should I any more than you?
> 1> On the contrary.
>
> Even more pontification. You honestly don't know who you responded to?
Unclear, as you haven't specified what response you mean.
> 1> Irrelevent.
>
> Incorrect, given that it deals directly with your recommendation, Tinman.
How so?
> 1> On the contrary, your posts have only entertainment value.
>
> Incorrect, given that the evidence for your lies does more than that.
What alleged "lies"?
> 1> What alleged "truth"?
>
> The truth that you failed to seek out, Tinman.
I always seek not only truth, but entertainment.
> 1> And why do you do post, Dave,
>
> To counter the FUD, bias, illogic, and unfairness that often appears
> in this newsgroup.
Which newsgroup, Dave? You're posting on four in this thread.
> 1> if not for entertainment?
>
> I have far better and sensible ways of entertaining myself and others.
> For example, two concert performances in the last 24 hours.
Then why do you persist in responding to my posts?
> 1> I ask for entertainment only.
>
> But you wind up looking like a fool in the process.
In that I am currently emulating you, of course. ("
> 2> Blooming well, now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
>
> I've never subscribed to CSMA, Tinman. The only posts of mine that
> have appeared there have ALL been due to the crossposting chosen by
> the people who have posted previously in the thread. If CSMA wants
> me to "go away", then the method is quite simple: have CSMA stay
> out of COOA.
But CSMA doesn't want you to go away, you are a source of great entertainment.
> But that won't happen, because people like you find it
> "entertaining" to crosspost and elicit a response from me. Maybe
> one day the people who don't like it will discover that it's more
> effective to aim their fire extinguisher at the base of the flames,
> so to speak. That is, they should take up the matter with people
> like you.
Illogical. Dave, you fail to recognize that your actions fan the flames.
If you didn't respond to virtually every post with your name in it, this
game wouldn't be any fun.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: RiCHaRD HaRLoS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 15:22:23 GMT
B'ichela wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 20:13:55 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A distribution like Slackware is what I believe Linux is really
> > about. Linux shouldn't try and cheap'n itself by offering half
> > assed solutions, but instead should focus on the many things it
> > DOES do well.
> >
> > Slackware is Linux in it's rawest form. it makes no assumptions
> > and for the most part expects the user to know what he is doing.
> > In the hands of some one who knows Linux, this translates into
> > awesome power and control over the OS. This is IMHO of course,
> > and I DON'T fit into that catagory :)
>
> Us Slackware users thank you for your compliment ;)
> Slackware is not the Rawest form of linux but its pretty basic
> in its configuration and setup. (for real raw, build Linux from
> scratch ;))
> I don't use a GUI much. If I do, I mainly fire up fvwm95
> under X, mainly for Netscape. (most of the time I use lynx under
> the cli).
I'll have to try this lynx browser. As a new Slackware user, I'm
learning a lot everyday and am actually glad for the opportunity
to interact so intimately with the OS. Probably a leftover
sentiment from the days when MS-DOS3.3 was my favorite tinker-toy!
> Unlike Redhat, Slackware's packageing system really is
> rudimentry, Mainly a tar program with a built in script processor.
> However, the setup package is NOT that bad. I can select what packages
> I really need from a list of menus. Say for example I did not want X,
> simple I just don't select X! maybe I don't want Ghostscript. Same
> thing I deselect ghostscript. By selecting What I really need during
> installation (or later on), I can maximize the Ram and disk space that
> is available to me.
Just a word of praise for this relatively rudimentary setup: I have
a Pentium2 processor using an old, isa ne2k ethernet clone to connect
to the internet via cable modem.
My initial install of Linux was Slackware's BigSlack 7.1, running the
UMSDOS filesystem over Win98's FAT32 scheme. After a couple of
questions in alt.os.linux.slackware, I was connected to the 'net
and feelin' fine!
Someone mentioned to me that if I wanted to experience the
advantage of Linux's native file system vs. FAT32, I ought to
consider installing on a native linux partition. This sounded
like a good idea (not to mention a good exercise to see if I
could get Linux connected to the 'net on my own this time! :)
I blew away the BigSlack install, used PartitionMagic to split my
6G hard drive in two, and *then* realized that I had no CD for
Slackware.
Well, I had a SuSE 6.2 CD set laying around and figured I could
probably get up and running so I installed this distribution.
No dice re: the 'net.
I tried SuSE's web site only to encounter "ne2k compatible cards
don't work". <sigh!>
I also had a "Special Edition" CD of Mandrake 7.1 lying around,
courtesy of "Maximum Linux" magazine's Aug/Sep 2000 issue. I
gave that a try and still: no dice re: the 'net.
Although I commend both SuSE and Mandrake for trying to insulate
their users from digging into the details, this insulation was
prohibitive to me.
Well, I went back to alt.os.linux.slackware (via Win98) and
explained my dilemma. I was told where to find the Slackware
distribution, how to get it via FTP, how to make boot & root
diskettes, boot from a floppy, and install from the FAT32
partition to the native Linux partition.
It went smooth as silk! in less than an hour (thanks to the
cable modem's throughput) I had downloaded the a, ap, and n
packages and installed them.
Viola! I was back on the 'net in no time. Installing the
rest of the packages was easy and here I am with a (nearly)
full Slackware distribution, happily posting to this group
from Netscape's news client running on Linux! YaHooooooo!!!
> I have no plans to switch to anything other than Slackware, as
> I prefer the individual control I have with the system. There is no
> linuxconnf or yast or whatever to get in my way. (I did intall
> linuxconf under slackware but rarely use it). Its just me, Tar and vi
> and good ole gcc when it comes to installation of software.
I heartily share your sentiment! :)
--
R i C H a R D H a R L o S
SLaCKWaRe eNTHuSiaST, FReeTHiNKeR
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: What I've always said: Netcraft numbers of full of it
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 11:32:04 -0400
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> I've always maintained what is obvious: Netcraft JUST counts domains and
> doesn't discriminate between a linux/apache domain of "joesmomma.com" vs
> W2K/IIS for dell.com - to Netcraft, they mean the same. So, all this Apache
> dominates the web is for those that think PURE number counts mean
> EVERYTHING. Bullshit I say. Someone finally proved it out for me.
>
> The companies that matter, those top companies, you know, money making ones?
> Companies that are concerned about their image, product, availability,
> uptime, performance and all that matters cause their name/image on-line
> matters - they are NOT using apache and MOST DEFINATLEY not using Linux!
[snippage]
This is all well and good, however, you are missing some very important
facts when dealing with Microsoft.
The "support" you get as a fortune 500 company is hell and away far
better than anything one could hope for in a mere regular sized company,
and using Windows NT as a solution, you WILL need that tech support.
Fortune 500 companies make "strategic partnerships" for technology, i.e.
they do not pay full price Microsoft for technology and support, and
Microsoft gets to claim the fortune 500 company as a "customer." There
is usually a stock exchange involved as well.
There is a HUGE and important gray area between someplace like dell.com
where MS and Dell have strategic business dealings, and someplace like
valinux which does not. It is also arguable that between "joes web site"
and the fortune 500, exists a vast area of the economy which employs 99
percent of the working people in the USA.
To simply say that the fortune 500 use NT, so it's good, is false. The
fortune 500 companies can pay for the huge expenses that an NT
environment will incur in exchange for the "strategic" business
opportunities which the monopoly Microsoft provides. For the merely
normal sized companies that do not have the clout to grab Microsoft's
attention and good graces, NT is a disaster of unreliability and poor
cost/performance.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2000 16:34:19 +0100
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ksjfg$dbd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> Gee, I agree with 99% of what you say. But I can't offhand think of an
> easier keyboard equivalent of opening up win explorer to a dir of choice,
> holding down the control key while left clicking to select any
combination
> of arbitrary files in the right hand pane, right clicking, and choosing
> "send to ->>" source. How many commands would I have to type to accomplish
> this? I can't script that very easily. A better question would be why
would
> I need to script what is inherently available?
>
Because you might need to automate this function so it happens regularly,
without your imput...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
