Linux-Advocacy Digest #65, Volume #28 Fri, 28 Jul 00 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait! (Wouter Coene)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: DMCA was(Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake? ("ne...")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Greenwood Packing")
Re: Can Linux get the job done? Are there Linux apps for..... (Oldayz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Wouter Coene)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc
Subject: Re: If Linux, which? If not Linux, what? NOT flame-bait!
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 18:53:33 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
According to Albert Ulmer ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> "David C." wrote:
> > > If not, IMHO you can also try Mandrake Linux, which is said to be
> > > quite good as well.
>
> > Mandrake is RedHat, plus some customizations.
>
> I am fully aware of that. But it is those customizations that make
> Mandrake a better choice than Redhat.
Mandrake uses quite a lot of compiler optimalizations, to make the code
faster on modern cpu's. However, these optimalizations wreak havoc on
not-that-much-compatible systems such as cyrix stuff.
I've seen plenty of posts from people complaining about the instability of
Mandrake.
Wouter
--
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:54:18 +0100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snippy]> >
> > I can type faster and remember (most) of the important stuff, yet if I
> > were moving say 20 different files from one location to the next it
> > would be faster using GUI (assuming these 20 files have different
> > names+extentions and there is no logical pattern which may be applied).
>
> What about MC the Midnight Commander? A character mode program that will
> perform the file copy or move from your example as fast or even faster that
> a GUI file manager. It has a smaller foot print, and it can operate on just
> about any terminal. A local console, telnet, rlogin, etc, a dialup shell
> account, a hard wire serial link, all no problem. It can take advantage of
> a mouse or work without one.
Yes I've used MC and found it to be quite good. Still feel I could do it
quicker with the mouse, but my point is that there should be choice! You
may prefer MC, and I kfm, but the key thing is that we get something
easy for the novice user. We may still use whatever configurations we
are used to: just "ease of use" is not something to be against, but to
be encouraged.
Do you see where I'm coming from? I say "ease of use" is not a dirty
concept, yet sometimes the attitude is "well x and y may achieve the
same result". My point is not that x and y are not perfectly good, but
they require "more" learning and are frightening for the novice user. If
we ant to encourage people to use Linux (for example I would like to use
it as a general desktop), then we should consider user-friendlyness as
an important part of the package.
Really the question is: Do we want more people to enjoy Linux by not
dumbing it down, but simply making it easier?
I feel that there are great strides in the right direction, but I think
that the negative attitude towards ease of use by some users will not
promote Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: 28 Jul 2000 14:11:31 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
1$Worth <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
>
>> > So why is "Ease Of Use" a dirty concept?
>> >
>>
>> "Ease of use" is a purely subjective measurement.
>>
>> If you type 65 wpm and have the manpages committed to memory, the mouse
>> is an impediment in Linux. Its like having a keyboard with only two
>> keys; eight otherwise useful fingers are completely idle.
>
>I can type faster and remember (most) of the important stuff, yet if I
>were moving say 20 different files from one location to the next it
>would be faster using GUI (assuming these 20 files have different
>names+extentions and there is no logical pattern which may be applied).
I think the 'no logic' is the key. Visual tools and mouse selections
make it easy to do the things that have no sensible description.
However, if you were dealing with hundreds of files or more
instead of 20 you would have arranged them in some logical sets
in the first place, and if do the same things regularly you could
apply the pattern in a command easier than a mouse selection.
>I put it that it depends on the task in hand. The combination is VERY
>powerful yet I am not saying that one needs to be removed, just
>improved. No dumbing down, just getting better.
The problem I see is that making arbitrary, illogical things easy
for small cases and providing no automation as the job scales
up is not a good long-term plan. We need something that encourages
logical patterns to operations in the first place, then allows
full automation as the task grows or repetion is noticed. In
the file moving case, this can be as simple as creating the files
in appropriate subdirectories in the first place, but depending
on circumstances the concept is hard to generalize.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 20:15:02 +0100
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
[snip]>
> There are those in our 'group' and in the Linux community that believe
> if we cater too much to the ease-of-use camp we will end up with the
> Windows knock-off we have tried to avoid for so long.
Yes, and I would not like for that to happen. I've already got windows
and would like to get away from it.
[snip]>
> While ease of use doesn't have to take away the power from the system,
> it is the fear that it will that causes some to balk. It is quite
> honestly the fact that Microsoft operating system remove as much power
> from the user as possible.
Agreed. Take plug and play, in some cases it really is great and in
others (dare I say most) it is an absolute pain that you can't see WHY
things are happening and HOW to easily correct them (such as auto
detection of the wrong hardware automatically such as my network card
<grrrrr>).
>As most of the ease-of-use people are from
> the camp that also believe we need to make Linux as much like Windows as
> possible, some of the community see this as a threat to the power
> users. We do not want to see Linux become just a clone of Windows. We
> do not want the power of the underlying system to be completely hidden.
> As the system continues to evolve, that is a possibility. Somewhere,
> some distro is going to come up with the idea of making a
> "registry-alike" system instead of the common /etc configuration file
> system. I seriously look for Corel to do this as soon as they can find
> a way to pull it off.
> And speaking of Corel: This is where the real fear comes from. EOU
> (Ease-Of-Use) is not a dirty word in and of itself. But, as Corel
> proclaims itself extremely proficient in the EOU area (and prehaps they
> are right for newbies) they have created what is basically a worthless
> distrobution for people that already know the system. They have somehow
> started the trend that the power users have feared all along. They are
> hiding the powerful features of the system in order to provide new users
> and those clamouring for an easy-to-use system what they want. They
> have proven that it "can" happen. We just don't want to see it
> "continue" to happen.
Then if there is an alternative Corel with have problems. Eazel? I worry
that this may just be a MAC UI clone, but I believe that it will respect
the power user.
> This fear will remain until a truly EOU oriented distrobution comes
> along that still allows power users to accomplish things the
> old-fashioned way. I think Mandrake is on the right track, although
> they hold the potential at the moment to create an actual "branch" in
> the Linux kernel space and maybe even in userland. They therefore hold
> another fear of the power users.
Linux fragmentation has always been a concern, but I think that most of
the major distributions respect the unity of Linux as good for all.
> In short, until we see a distro that shows us the EOU paradigm in a
> package that still conforms to a power user's needs, there is going to
> be fear and backlash at the idea of EOU. This addresses your subject
> line: Ease-Of-Use itself is not a dirty concept, it is the tag-alongs
> that seem to always come with it: lack of power-user features,
> branching, loss of creative control ....
Agreed.
> > > The advocates in this NG battle so bitterly because most attempts to introduce
> > > EOU is generally to the exception of any other model.
> >
> > Yup, and that's why I feel that it does not have to be that way,
> > although we (linux community) should accept some changes to accommodate
> > this for the benefit of the majority of people.
>
> If you feel it doesn't have to be that way, please, develop a distro
> that proves it.
If I had the time and the money I really would like to!
> [snip a lot of useful info]
>
> I do believe it is possible. I am not one that jumps on a chair and
> shouts from the rooftops that ease-of-use cannot be tolerated. But all
> things in moderation. And please, be careful with the EOU attempts.
> Don't go the way of Corel, make it easy to use, and easy to tap into as
> a power user. If you find a way to do both, I would be extremely
> satisfied.
I wish that more people were as pragmatic.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: DMCA was(Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.)
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:25:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Damien in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 11:53:52 +0200, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[...]The encryption is designed with two purposes - it allows the
>| huge media companies to control the regions in which discs are played to
>| ensure that they can charge as much as the market will bear (most DVD
>| players can be adapted to get round these restrictions),
>
>Most? Where do you buy DVD players? I've heard of *two* that were
>able to get around region encoding, and they aren't available anymore.
Can we have some reports from 'round the world on region encrypting and
its implementation and enforcement?
[...]
>If they can afford the several thousand dollar machine to burn DVD's
>and the fifty dollar blanks. Decryption actually does make piracy
>possible via compressed video files. But it's still not very
>practical.
It is my theory that the majority of the modern economy, the
post-luxury, post-information economy, is almost entirely now a matter
of buying and selling convenience. You pay someone to give you *less*
than all you could ever want of something, in an age when there is more
than you could ever need.
Take Coke, for non-archetypical example. Soda, pop, whatever. You pay
from fifty cents to at least three and a half bucks for a 12 oz can.
You can get three liters for anywhere from $1.20 to two fifty. Even
when not using extreme cases, but practical in-your-face daily reality
throughout the US, I go to the convenience store when I stop for gas in
the morning to get a soda. I prefer my caffeine cold and fizzy. There
in front of me are two cold glass doors. Behind one is a 16 oz. plastic
bottle, for $1.09. Behind the one next to it is a 1 liter bottle,
otherwize identical, for ninety nine cents. Honestly. I buy the 16 oz.
By the time I get to the bottom of the one liter, it won't be cold or
fizzy anymore, and if I want another one when I'm done with the 16 oz.,
I can afford the spare change. I can usually get a cold can for $0.65
or less in the office.
Dave Petticord railed at the "profiteers" who sell bottled water in a
park with cool mountain streams on the label for two to five dollars,
even if there's a water fountain nearby. I call that being
entreprenuerial.
Intellectual property is protected in real life not by statute and law,
but by convenience. What somebody can make cheaply enough that it is
worth paying them instead of making it myself then they can make a good
profit on. If you can't do that, when you own the intellectual property
to begin with, then you're just profiteering.
Copyright law is intended to allow profit in order to encourage
development; it should not be interpreted and used simply to justify
profiteering on otherwise non-magical works.
Napster may have lost, but we all know it isn't really gone. Because it
lives in the sensibility of the kids who didn't see a damn thing wrong
with doing it. These are *NOT* unethical spoiled children who think
they "deserve" to be able to steal someone else's intellectual property.
These are incredibly well informed (in comparison to the almost
disfunctionally educated Americans of the previous forty years, I think,
despite the growing problem of the mediaocracy) and wonderfully
intelligent people, who are simply well aware of the *true* "value" of
Metalica's guitar-pounding and screaming. They're not unwilling at all
to pay for it. You could probably easily sell them a way to make it
even easier to enjoy their music. But you're not going to do it by
making it harder unless they submit to profiteering. That's an insult
to their intelligence, and they know damn well there's nothing you can
do to stop them in the end.
>| Since there was no player available for Linux, a Norwegian guy broke the
>| encryption and wrote a player for Linux, which was then widely
>| distributed.
>
>To add to the confusion, he wrote the player for Windows, but was
>doing it for Linux. Something about Linux not being able to read the
>disk.
You mean he wrote it *in* Windows, and then ported it to Linux, because
he wanted to write it *for* Linux, but of course there was no way to
read the disk. Right?
Did he release both versions?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 12:18:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "1$Worth" wrote:
> And speaking of Corel: This is where the real fear comes from. EOU
> (Ease-Of-Use) is not a dirty word in and of itself. But, as Corel
> proclaims itself extremely proficient in the EOU area (and prehaps they
> are right for newbies) they have created what is basically a worthless
> distrobution for people that already know the system. They have somehow
> started the trend that the power users have feared all along. They are
> hiding the powerful features of the system in order to provide new users
> and those clamouring for an easy-to-use system what they want. They
> have proven that it "can" happen. We just don't want to see it
> "continue" to happen.
What even worse than Corel than just providing an "easy to use" environment
they have circumvented the normal unix configuration method and has no
respect for the sysadmin's ability to configure the system. Every time the
the host is boot Corel Linux rescans the users hardware and rewrites the
configuration files that way that it thinks is needed. This is done by both
the startup scripts and the use of Corel specific programs.
Corel provides a graphical program for Linux installation. It does not
support as many video hardware as Linux and X does so the installation just
hangs and dies hard for many users. Corel Linux has no character mode
installation for those situations when the graphics mode installation fails.
Once and if it gets installed at all, as i said above it rewires your
configuration files each time you boot. So for example: you have a video
card that X and Linux FB has full support for in any mode from basic VGA
modes to 1280x1024x32. Corel's video hardware detection software fails to
identify your video hardware and write the X configuration files to work in
640x480x4 mode. If the user becomes root and corrects the X configuration
files. The correction is lost with the next reboot.
The same is true for the contents of /etc/conf.modules aka /etc/modules.conf
and many other important configuration files.
The support for many standard Linux features and Linux supported hardware is
not compiled into their kernel or supplies as modules either. Not long ago
some one was not able to use a certain piece of IDE ATAPI device with Corel
Linux and I provided him assistance since I was familiar with that hardware.
First based on his error message it the node files for the drive were not in
/dev so I had him create them. Didn't work. The kernel did not have
support for that IDE device compiled in, so I had him locate the standard
Linux module for that hardware. Corel Linux's kernel did not come with it.
Next thing to try was to treat the IDE device as a SCSI device. The support
for the SCSI driver for IDE devices was not in the kernel and the module was
not available either. All of which are standard Linux features. He was
reluctant to recompile his kernel, he paid for a tech support call to Corel
and they told him the problem was that his hardware was not "Linux
compatible" and that we would have to buy a SCSI version of theat hardware.
He informed them that he had been able to use that hardware with RedHat with
no problem. He was told that his hardware is not "Linux compatible" and was
hung up on.
Then he had another problem and decided that he had enough of Corel Linux
switch back to Redhat and everything worked as expected.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 10:54:15 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1$Worth <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> I agree BUT, ee may not need GUI config tools, but others do. It would
> be a shame to keep others away from Linux just because there was no
> concerted effort to improve things (and in fact there is now).
Why do they have to be graphical user interface tools to be easy to use?
There are character mode programs can do the same kind of work. They can
take advantage of the mouse via gpm. They can be colorful and have the
appearence of haveing windows and buttons and the rest of the GUI controls
or widgets. The login shell can be a menu program. Thanks to curses and/or
termcaps these programs can work on just about any terminal in the
databases. Multiple programs running for the user can be handled by
switching VC's or using programs like screens and splitvt.
The real problem with configurations tools as they exist is that they impose
their restrictions on to the configuration of the host. Of those that I
have encountered they don't generate very readable configuration files. If
the sysadmin make ANY manual changes to the configuration files, they are
lost the next time the easy to use configuration tool is used.
A proper easy to use configuration tool would have to be able to parse all
the configuration files of the system. Interpret and and handle any
possible permutations of the system configuration files and would have to be
able to accept and honor any manual configurations that have been performed.
A problem with such a tool is that it would be "obsolete" as soon as any of
the packages that require any those configuration files is updated and adds
a single new feature to its configuration file or has a internal behavorial
modification that the configuration tool's view of the package does not take
into account. Then again each time some new software has been developed,
the configuration tool is obsolete until it is updated to know of that new
package.
Not everyone will be running the same versions of the software packages
either, which can also cause other problems for the easy to use
configuration tools. If the configuration tool assumes that a system has a
certain version of a certain software package, but in truth another version
is actually installed it could generate invalid configuration files for that
package.
Some of those problems could be solved by having the configuration tool use
modules to handle each of the packages and it would be the responsibility of
the user from the "great majority of people" to make certain that the
correct configuration tool modules are installed for his hosts. Or the
configuration tool would have to support all the different versions of every
program in the could run in the unix and Linux environments that require
configuration files. It would then be the responsibility of the user from
the "great majority of people" to make certain the the configuration tool is
configured to know which packages and which versions of those packages are
installed.
Can you say bloated software?
In whatever case, the easy to use configuration tool become the
configuration and maintenance problem that will become the focus and excuse
to avoid Linux.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: "ne..." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Changing LILO in Mandrake?
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:45:41 GMT
On Jul 28, 2000 at 13:21, Leslie Mikesell eloquently wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Cap'n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I'll admit I'm somewhat of a newbie to Mandrake Linux,
>>and this is probably a stupid question...but, I need the
>>answer.
>>
>>I just installed Mandrake 7.1 on my system in a dual boot with
>>Win98. My hard drive is in four partitions:
>>
>>Partition 1: Win98 system files (1.5 GB) - hdc1
>>Partition 2: Win98 programs (8 GB) - hdc2
>>Partition 3: Linux Swap (133 MB) - hdc6
>>Partition 4: Linux Native: Mandrake Distro (2.3 GB) - hdc7
>>
>>After I installed Mandrake and LILO, Linux is the first
>>boot option and loads Mandrake after 10 seconds,
>>unless I type Windows. I want to set it up so that Windows
>>boots after 10 seconds, unless I type Linux.
>>
>>What's the easiest way to change this in Mandrake? Or
>>if someone could point me to a Mandrake HOWTO Web link
>>for this, I would appreciate it.
>
>The easiest way is to edit /etc/lilo.conf, moving the section
>you want as the default up to be the first entry, then
>run /sbin/lilo to activate it.
I disagree. Insert default=windows in the appropiate place.
See example below.
======<insert fake lilo.conf>====
boot=/dev/hda
map=/boot/map
install=/boot/boot.b
prompt
timeout=30
linear
default=windows
image=/boot/vmlinuz-2.2.16
label=linux
append="video=matrox:vesa:402"
read-only
root=/dev/hdb7
other=/dev/hda1
label=windows
table=/dev/hda
=====<end insert fake lilo.conf>=====
Save and run /sbin/lilo as root.
[...]
Disclaimer: I only run Linux & FreeBSD. This disclaimer is
necessary so I do not get hung, drawn and quartered.
--
Registered Linux User # 125653 (http://counter.li.org)
Women waste men's lives and think they have indemnified them by a few
gracious words.
-- Honor'e de Balzac
3:35pm up 18 days, 18:46, 10 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
------------------------------
From: "Greenwood Packing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 15:52:07 -0400
"Jen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 04:21:39 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >"Serge J.Luca" wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.microsoft.com/solutions/ecommerce/lycoscs.htm
> >
> >Because Microsoft audited them, and they had a couple more
> >copies of word installed than their receipts showed, and
> >Microsoft gave them two alternatives
> >
> >1) Go to court, and even if we fail, YOU will have such high
> >legal bills that you will be out of business, or
> >
> >2) Let us dictate your Information Technology decisions.
> >
> >
> >
> >So, guess what Lycos did?
>
> You have proof of that or are you just frustrated that the whole world
> doesn't share your hate of Microsoft?
I share his hate or Microsoft.=)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Oldayz)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Can Linux get the job done? Are there Linux apps for.....
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000 19:56:41 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 14:23:53 GMT, John Becich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I know nothing about Linux. I'm using Msft Word 2000, Excel, Quicken2000,
>etc., etc., under various Msft OSes. I'd like to know if I can get the job
>done under Linux.
>
>I've heard the most popular word processor under Linux is Corel Word
>Perfect. What happens if I'm exchanging email with a word processor
>attachment that originated under Word 2000? Can such a file be passed back
>and forth with full editability between a Linux/WP user and a Win2K/Word2K
>user?
I don't know for sure, but I heard that most Word Processors for Linux
(and there are a few) do have filters for Word2k, but they're not perfect.
IIRC, they're usable but sometimes formatting may show up differently.
>
>Ditto question about spreadsheet app. What spreadsheet would I use under
>Linux? Corel Quattro Pro for Linux? What version?
No idea, but check out freshmeat.net. This is the main site for linux
programs. I'm not sure if they list commercial programs though, for
these you should probably check vendor's sites, StarOffice is owned by
Sun now and then there's corel.ca.
>
>Then there's the all important bookkeeping. I like Quicken. Using
>Quicken2000 now, upgrade every year or two. What would I use under Linux?
>I haven't called Intuit to ask if it supports Linux. (I can sure expect
>that Microsoft doesn't make a Msft Money version for Linux!) What would I
>use for bookkeeping under Linux? Can I migrate my Quicken files?
>
>Ditto tax preparation. I use Turbo Tax. What would I use under Linux?
AFAIK nothing native, but there's web-based tax preparation, ie:
turbotax.com.
>
>Address book. I have an older version (5) of Parson's Address Book, which I
>love. (Didn't care for the upgrade at all!) There is a ton of work in my
>address book database. It can be exported in various file forms. What
>address book app should I use under Linux, and can I import a file from a
>Microsoft operating system?
>
>Email. I use Outlook Express 5. I love POP3 email. Don't care for web
>mail at all. What would I use under Linux? Will my OE
>data migrate? (Not vital)
The preferred way to do mail under Linux is very different from Windows
world: I have 3 programs handling different phases of mail handling:
exim as a Mail Transport Agent (MTA), mutt as a Mail User Agent (MUA),
and fetchmail to grab mail from remote servers. The downside of this
approach is that you have to set up and learn 3 programs, and the
advantage is that it's much more flexible and powerful (which you may
not need if you only get 1-2 emails a week).
If you don't want to do that, there's OE-like Netscape's client.
>
>Ditto internet surfering, browsing. What to use under Linux? Will my
>(extensive) favorite place collection migrate from Internet Explorer 5?
I doubt it will. Here's a little outline of browsers available right now:
Netscape: slow, unstable, ugly, but usable.
Opera: not available yet and will cost money.
lynx: stable, quick, has tons more features than IE or NS, but is
text-based (I don't mind but some people do).
w3m: kind of like lynx.
>
>Ditto newsgroups. I love my OE5 newsgroup reader. Don't care for web based
>access like Deja. What would I use under Linux? Will my data migrate from
>OE5?
slrn is a good reader, but it's text-based. If you want GUI, there's
Netscape's and others.
>
>***************
>
>It is thus important for any new competing product to be able to co-exist
>with a de-facto standard product like Word 2000. It is important for any
>new competing product to support migration from de-facto standard products
>like MSWord, Quicken, Turbo Tax, etc.
>
>*********
>Closer to the OS....I have many files saved under Windows NT. Can I migrate
>them to a Linux platform, or must they remain behind?
Files can be copied without a problem, if you don't mess up during install and
delete them :-). (You should make backup, just in case).
>
>Networking. Do most 100 Mbit Ethernet cards function, and function well,
>under Linux? I presume the hubs would work, as that functionality is quite
>removed from any operating system.
Yeah most do, check Hardware HOWTO, you can find it from linux.com.
>
>Thanks,
>John Becich
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Andrei
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
