Linux-Advocacy Digest #738, Volume #27 Mon, 17 Jul 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Craig Kelley)
Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: which OS is best? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Misconceptions about Mozilla (was: Star Office to be open sourced) (Craig Kelley)
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: one step forward, two steps back.. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mike Stump)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Mark Kelley)
Re: Help with printer (Tim Palmer)
Re: Help with printer (Tim Palmer)
Re: I had a reality check today :( (Tim Palmer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:15:56 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> What is bad is forgetting that the user is supposed to be in control
> >> of the apps, not the other way around.
> >
> >The user can't control CPU scheduling manually. That isn't an option.
> >The choice is either to let the apps do (CMT) it or let the OS do it
> >(PMT), and the OS is much more qualified.
>
> Not the scheduling, no, but the weighting, preference, or priority of
> . My theory is that with CMT, the market handles whether the
> end result isscheduling valid and useful, and with PMT, it was the engineer who
> insists CMT is 'stupid' and ridicules people who question that tenet.
The exact opposite is true. In CMT, no "weighting, preference, or
priority of scheduling" is provided, or even possible. It is only PMT
that has both the global knowlege, and the neccessary control, to grant
the user the power to set scheduling policy.
> The scheduler is not an island unto itself. When discussing its
> function, I'm not referring merely to the one block of code which
> handles the chore of switching from one app to another a million times a
> second. I'm discussing its implementation in the system. The apps have
> to at least know if they're PMT or CMT, don't they?
Yes and no. Apps have to know if they are CMT, and a fairly large
amount of time and money must be spent designing, profiling, then
tweaking "properly designed" CMT apps.
PMT apps don't need to know, other than to understand race conditions
and how to avoid them.
> >There's no way to write an app that is "friendly" under all conditions
> >in a CMT system.
>
> Yes, I'm sure there is, you just haven't figured it out, yet. ;-)
No, Max, there is no way to do it, because the information and control
neccessary to do it are not part of the CMT system. It's not a matter
of not having figured it out, it's a matter of two conflicting and
mutually exclusive requirements.
> And it is that suspicion, not the fact that PMT is more robust, less
> problematic, and better suited for a modern computer. I encourage all
> engineers to *fight* the people telling you that users want to remain
> ignorant and out of control.
Of *course* they want to remain ignorant and out of control. They spend
good money fulfilling exactly those desires.
> I have been teaching people how to use PCs for more than a decade,
> easily, and I have yet to have one remark to me after learning a new
> feature "Wow, that's *way* more control and efficiency than I really
> want to have."
You do realize, don't you, that you are talking about a statistically
meaningless data set? Your students comprise a self-selected data set,
so therefore no reasonable statistical analysis can be done.
> You're going to deny again that CMT puts the user in charge, I know it.
It's the truth: CMT does *NOT* put the user in charge.
> [...more, but its getting a tad repetitive...]
It seems to be repetitive because you do not understand what is being
said to you. It is unreasonable to state that CMT puts the user in
charge, when it does *NOT* put the user in charge.
In terms of the user control, PMT gives the user every control that CMT
does, and *MORE*, yet you claim that CMT puts the user in charge . . .
from the outside looking in, this seems to be the response of a man who
is not listening, or does not understand what has been said to him.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Jul 2000 16:22:00 -0600
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> > The indirect method was by placing the burden
> > of proper behavior of the application developers, which users are free
> > to choose based on their level of cooperation with other applications,
> > and can change should one prove burdensome or problematic. Ideally, of
> > course, CMT users should be able to "nice" processes as easily as PMT,
> > but it would require the cooperation, again, of the app developers.
> >
>
> But is this feasible? The developers have no way of knowing what
> other processes will be running at the same time.
This is all going to be moot with MacOS X anyway. It is a real
operating system.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Who was that wo was scanning my ports--could it be Simon?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Jul 2000 16:25:48 -0600
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Port 53 is the standard port for DNS servers to listen on. Sounds like
> someone was trying to see what they can learn about private networks through
> their DNS servers. I have been having a large number of probes on that port
> and on port 119 which is the standard port for NNTP servers to listen on.
>
> I have been seeing more an more of these probes on these two ports as of
> late. Something I have found is that every so often they are probed with
> packets that have an IP address in the range of 192.168.x.x. Unless there
> is an attempt here to just consume bandwidth, thses packet are laughable
> since any response to them can nnot be rerouted back to the source.
I've noted the *exact* same thing. In fact, someone did a complete
portscan of my easy-target box from ports 0 through 4096 with a
non-routable source -- and this was sandwiched between 2 other probes
from a .ru domain (which portsentry smaked down).
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:24:12 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Fri, 14 Jul 2000 16:35:20 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
>
> Specialists of all types and varieties, who view things from a
> specialists' perspective. I'm a generalist, and to me they look
> clueless,
I'm a generalist as well. To me, you look clueless. The math is
simple: in terms of user control, CMT == 1, PMT == 3. You come along
and state that in terms of user control, CMT is greater than PMT, and I
have to wonder what kind of math you use.
> because they are, outside their specialties, for the most
> part.
And generalists are, when it comes to making decisions that lie within
the domains of specialists, just as clueless.
Which, in a nut shell, is how I view you: intelligent, but clueless.
> >The market has decided, and we've basically shown CMT the door.
>
> No, CMT has capitulated, as its not worth arguing about. ;-)
Because a lost cause . . . is a lost cause.
Same thing, different phrasing.
> If it was a market decision thing, it wouldn't have been around for a
> decade.
Yes it would. As a generalist, you should be well aware of the simple
fact that most decisions are multi-variate.
The inferiority of CMT to PMT is not a fact that stands alone. It is a
fact that is tied to other facts, some of which, in the minds of some
users, far outweigh the issue of CMT vs. PMT. Ask any Mac user, and
they will sing the praises of an interface that, to me, is almost
indistinguishable from any other GUI as an example.
> I am completely blind, that's how.
No, you are clueless. Here's a clue:
PMT systems maintain a centralized store of information re: tasks, their
states, and their priority settings. CMT systems do this as well, but
in the case of PMT, PMT also has the *power* to enforce a scheduling
policy based on this information, while CMT cannot.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[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?
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Jul 2000 16:31:34 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus) writes:
> It was the Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:38:17 +0200...
> ...and Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > However, there is something called touch typing, that really requires an
> > easily available Caps Lock key.
>
> The only things that really require a Caps Lock key nearly all suck.
> - COBOL
> - FORTRAN
> - JCL
> - ...
>
> Exception: SQL
and GNOME/KDE
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Misconceptions about Mozilla (was: Star Office to be open sourced)
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Jul 2000 16:33:41 -0600
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Matthias Warkus wrote:
> > It was the Mon, 17 Jul 2000 15:10:50 +0100...
> > ...and phil hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> However, making a big complex program open source won't necessarily
> >> attrack many outside developers -- look at netscape.
> > Netscape (i.e. Mozilla) has attracted a very large number of outside
> > developers (about 150). That's an impressive number of contributors,
> > especially for a project that uses C++ and that features so many
> > idiosyncrasies.
> >
> > The only reason why the participation in Mozilla looks less than
> > impressive is that Netscape themselves employ about 300 developers.
> >
> > Now do you want Netscape to lay off 250 people in order to make the
> > project look more popular?
>
> Mozilla had a very difficult time attracting developers for a while. It's
> since picked up.
I think the answer to that is Gecko.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Jul 2000 16:35:58 -0600
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:00 -0400, Ed Cogburn
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
> >> me!
> >
> > Microsoft considers anyone writing PC software besides themselves to
> >be a threat.
>
> Yep, just like Ford considers anyone else making cars besides
> themselves to be a threat. Welcome to the business world.
YALCA (Yet Another Lame Car Analogy)
The only difference is: Ford doesn't own 90% of the roads, and
designing them to only work with Ford-Compatible(c) cars.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:32:00 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> I think you're blowing smoke. In the first case, Mac may have had lots
> of apps that you say don't behave "as it should", but it was a
> successful platform.
That depends, of course, on how you define succesful.
More importantly: the Mac was only rarely used to do multi-tasking. The
Mac is, in general, used as an information appliance. The closest thing
that most Mac users ever came to multi-tasking is pretty much identical
to "co-routines".
> In the second case, I 'abandon' one app and switch
> to another on a dime, a thousand times a day.
You entirely missed his point, which was not about switching from one
program to another at the click of a mouse, but was in fact about: 1)
uninstalling app x because it does not properly CMT 2) installing app y
at random because you believe that it will provide the same
functionality as app x 3) converting all of your data from format x to
format y 4) hoping like crazy that app y will magically do CMT "right" .
. . that last point being extremely unlikely.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: one step forward, two steps back..
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Jul 2000 16:36:57 -0600
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 16 Jul 2000 17:13:00 -0400, Ed Cogburn
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >> Linux is focused enough to become a treat to Microsoft! Seems focused to
> > >> me!
> > >
> > >
> > > Microsoft considers anyone writing PC software besides themselves to
> > >be a threat.
> >
> > Yep, just like Ford considers anyone else making cars besides
> > themselves to be a threat. Welcome to the business world.
>
> But does Ford clutter the automotive industry with NDA's?
I'd love to see the click-wrap license on that Explorer: "We are not
responsible for anything that happens to you in this car. If it blows
up for no apparent reason: tough luck."
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 22:35:54 GMT
In article <8kpkoi$dt3$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Lee Hollaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You that was purely speculative, and you don't even think it will happen?
That's right, I don't think it will happen, not because of the FSF,
but because no one will step forward to play the other side. Any time
people go before a judge, it usually requires two sides. You seemed
to view this as inconsistent, though I am not sure why. If you don't
see it as inconsistent, then I didn't exactly get your point, forgive
me.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 16:42:03 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said ZnU in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
>
> Efficient according to whose definition? If you're going to say 'there
> is only one', then I'm going to be forced to accuse you of "thinking
> like an engineer".
I'll accept that accolade with grace and humility. . .
Efficiency is getting more for the same cost, or better yet, less cost.
If the Mac ran exactly the same in all other respects after switching to
PMT, then PMT would be more efficient than CMT.
As a generalist, you should know that to prove your point statistically,
you'd have to provide two versions of the MacOS that are entirely
identical with the single exception that one implements PMT, while the
other implements CMT, then show that the market perfered CMT to PMT.
No such experiment was ever conducted, so at best, your statement is
purely a matter of conjecture.
> There is another, the Mac used it, apps *did*
> "behave properly", and the system worked.
Fascism "worked". Monarchies "worked". The issue is not whether or not
something works, the issue is how well (efficiently) something works in
comparison to the alternatives, judged within a common, shared context.
The problem with most OS wars is that no attempt is first made to
establish a shared context.
> That the "next generation Mac
> OS", which has passingly little to do with the original Mac OS, does not
> use it is *not* an assumption that CMT doesn't work; it does and it did.
But, not as efficiently as PMT does.
> And there is some reason to believe,
No, there isn't. Nohting you've said in this discussion provided an
reason to believe that.
> whether you can understand it or
> not, that it provided efficiencies that were vastly under-utilized,
> simply because of the limited development that CMT was given, since
> every engineer apparently were taught in school to think that it is
> really bad idea.
Engineers are not "taught to think something". They are taught to
think, then set free to do so and come to their own conclusions.
Engineers react adversely to being told what to think.
>From a purely mathematical standpoint, it is painfully clear that your
assertions re: CMT are *EXTREMELY* improbable.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 17:45:03 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 14:37:39 -0500, Mark Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I have no problem with some government oversight. I think there are plenty of
> >examples to show that unchecked business is as bad as unchecked government. But
>what
> >I truly dread is a government that gets involved in business beyond strict
>oversight.
> >The profit motive is essential for business; it is destructive for government. We
> >must do what we can to keep those two groups separate.
>
> ...I just find it highly ironic when considering the new crop
> of libertarians that has suddenly cropped up to come to
> Microsoft's defense...
Libertarian? Moi? My gosh ... far from it. The desire to keep separation between
government and business is not peculiar to libertarians, and I am definitely not
libertarian.
And there is no way I will defend Microsoft. Far from it, in fact. I want them to get
slapped, and hard. The penalties for their actions should be extremely painful.
However,
I do not want to see a solution which involves getting the government into making
business
decisions.
Where I work we are looking at moving from a WindowsNT network (both servers and
desktops)
to Windows2000. Microsoft did such a lousy job with their networking that it'll take a
monumental effort on our parts to pull it off. (I wish we wouldn't even try, but that
decision is not mine to make, although I starting to look good for having foreseen the
troubles we are having.) Writing a lousy network OS isn't a crime, of course, but I'll
admit that I'm angry about some of the idiotic decisions they made when designing this
thing.
As bad as Microsoft is, though, and as lousy a job as they did on this, there is one
group
who would do worse: the government.
There was a time, not very long ago, when everyone wanted Windows (of some flavor) and
an
IS or IT manager could switch to it without fear of retribution. When something
failed he
or she could simply say, "Well, that's a Microsoft bug" and wouldn't be asked further
questions. Now, though, things are changing and a follow-up question is likely to be
asked: "So why didn't you check that out before you switched to Windows?" It's a good
sign. Microsoft's incompetence is showing and the rabid supporters are looking like
poor
decision makers. Microsoft will either have to improve or they will collapse from
their
own stupidity. Either way, we all benefit.
> As far as profit motive in government goes: I think one of the
> biggest problems with our current government is the dellusion
> that politicians will somehow ignore their own best interests
> and act in an altruistic manner when it comes to managing the
> country.
I don't know anyone who is not a cynic about government. Yes, of course we all know
that
politicians act out of selfish interests much of the time. And, within certain areas,
that should be a crime, too. (E.g. taking bribes.) But I also know some people who
have
gone into politics and happen to know that there are those who do enter the field
because
of the desire to serve and promote that which they believe to be right.
--
Mark
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 17 Jul 2000 19:03:10 -0500
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 02:24:04 +0000, Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 00:11:35 +0200, Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[snip]
>
>> Wat maid you tihk that?
>
>Yes, Her Mig, what maid makes you tick?
>(Or is it "thick"? No, this is a family
>forum, such innuendoes are a no-no)
>
>> so wye not use Win and be happie?
>
>Yes, but which witch? Gwyn or Win[ifred]?
Not wich, Windo's!
>And does he really want to turn into a
>harpy?
>
>Whale cum (1) baqc, Tymm!
>
>
>(1) Whale cum: there *are* animals called "sperm whales,"
>so there!
That's sick you discussting sicko!
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 17 Jul 2000 19:03:20 -0500
On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 09:40:12 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:13:09 +0800, Aravind Sadagopan
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >It has nothing to do with Winprinter
>>
>> It has to do with Lie-nux not evan beeing abal to support it's own printers.
>
>I didn't realize Linux had "it's own printers" (actually should be its
>own printers, but let's not get picky about spelling with Timmay!).
Arvind sedd that a printer that Linux are suppost to support doesa'nt work with Lixnu
but does work with Windo's.
>So,
>is this some new project by the kernel people to create "Linux's own
>printers"?
>
>(THIS IS A JOKE! PLEASE CONSIDER THIS NOTICE WHEN REPLYING!)
Linux are the jokes.
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I had a reality check today :(
Date: 17 Jul 2000 19:03:30 -0500
On 13 Jul 2000 05:55:26 GMT, Ray Chason
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>On 8 Jul 2000 07:20:33 GMT, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 6 Jul 2000 03:40:57 GMT, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>It won't healp LIE-nux anny. Nobuddy want's to reed HOWTO after HOWTO after
>HOWTO. You alreddy have
>>>>>>users reeding TOO HOWTO's PLUS the ones they alreddy half toreed to get the rest
>of CommyLie-nux working.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can't you set up your Windoze-based newsreader so it doesn't spew these
>>>>>mile-long lines?
>>>>
>>>>Cant you make your Generly Not Usefall (GNU) CommyLie-nux crap to handall long
>lines propperly?
>>>
>>>1) My newsreader is of my own design and handles long lines just fine,
>>> thank you very much...
>>
>>Proov my point again why do'nt you? In UNIX you half to rite your own programms, and
>your another exampel.
>
>1) Replace "half to" with "*can* without shelling out even more $$$$$".
> Some people are happy with SLRN or TIN or Gnus (Emacs -- yeeccchh!).
Some poepal are to cheap to pay for good software.
>
>2) Somebody had to write Lookout. (And ought to be shot for it.) Likewise
> somebody had to write this newsreader I'm using. Why not me?
Why work so hard when you can by a better one at the softweare store? I forgot, it's
because thear's
no software for Lixnu at the software store!
>3) You're jealous that I *can* program, aren't you, Timmy-boy?
You cant' programm as good as Microsoft.
>It just
> pisses you off that you're stuck with what Mickey$oft sees fit to
> send your way.
Its' funny when Lie-nux peeple act like Lie-nux is supirier to everything else out
therr, when it's
really cripe. What "Miky$soft" sees fit to send my way is WAY better that annything
availabal in Lixnu.
>>>
>>>2) but others read news in university labs and such, using VT100 terminals
>>> with no GUI capability.
>>
>>Today's universitty's have Windows. If all your universitty has are UNIX, then your
>universitty is living in a cave.
>
>*snicker* What color is the sky on your home planet, Timmy-boy?
>
Blue.
>
>>>
>>>3) Then there are those who have to use large fonts just to read news at
>>> all. Some of them are even Windoze users.
>
>Another point that you couldn't address.
Outlook maiks the text fit. Lie-nux just maiks it look like shitt.
>
>
>>>4) You could horizontally scroll but that's a PITA.
>>
>> ...only if you use SLRN. In Outlook its easie you just use scroalbar.
>
>1) Oh, sure. So you scroll right to read the end of the line, and then
> you scroll back to the left to read the next line, and then you scroll
> back to the right to read the end of the line....it sounds trivial
> until you've tried to read about 20 or 30 lines that way.
>
> Like I said, you're perfectly willing to make others work harder to
> read your drivel because you're too lazy to RTFM and set up Lookout
> to reasonable margins.
>
>2) It's not as if other systems don't have scrollbars.
Windo's does. Thats' all that matters.
>3) Whadda dope.
>
>
>>>
>>>5) Hence long-standing rules of netiquette call for lines to wrap in the
>>> low 70's.
>>>
>>>You piss and moan that Linux makes *you* work harder, yet you're perfectly
>>>willing to make *others* work harder to read your posts. Timmy-boy,
>>>you're not just a Wintroll. You're also a hypocrite.
>>
>>That only half to work harder becase they use UNIX and UNIX make's them work
>>harder.
>
>Bullshit.
>
>
>>Thats' my
>>hoal point. UNIX blows. Windo's is miles ahed of UNIX and you peopal are still
>>acting like UNIX was
>>stait-of-the-art.
>>
>>>>>...which is why nearly every Linux newsreader has a decent killfile,
>>>>>unlike Lookout; why nearly every Linux newsreader honors user-
>>>>>supplied margins, unlike Lookout; why no self-respecting Linux mail
>>>>>client goes around spreading viruses, unlike Lookout....
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, but Orifice does have that cute little paper clip. That paper clip
>>>>>must fascinate you, doesn't it, Timmy-boy?
>>>
>>>I see you couldn't address this point.
>>>
>>
>>I dont see any point to adress.
>
>So it's not a point that Lookout doesn't have a killfile? Unix newsreaders
>have had killfiles for years. Even some Windoze newsreaders have killfiles,
>though most (other than ports of Unix news clients like SLRN) don't support
>regular expressions.
Outlook allow's you to block sender's. Isn't that what a killfial does?
>
>(Oh, yeah. Killfiles don't exist. Microsoft hasn't innovated them yet.)
>So it's not a point that Lookout ignores long-established Usenet conventions
>like reasonable line lengths and not posting HTML to newsgroups? Do you
>think Microsoft invented Usenet?
Micorosoft made Usenet eazy to use. UNIX just made you tipe commands.
>
>So it's not a point that Lookout spreads viruses like a cheap whore?
Outlook doesa'nt spredd virusis.
>Tell
>me, Timmy-boy, which mail client brought down millions of mail servers
>around the world a few weeks ago? Was it Lookout, or some Unix mail
>client?
If your tocking about the ILOVEOUY virus, it was the virus that tok
down millions of male servers (running UNIX), not Windo's.
>
>
>--
> --------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
> PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
> Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
