Linux-Advocacy Digest #735, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Whats a good starting point?
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Re: Whats a good starting point?
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Cool Idea
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Whats a good starting point? (Michael Vester)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Linux support for IntelliEye (Brian Langenberger)
Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused ("Rich C")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:06:03 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
>
> Slowly and carefully re-read the message you are responding to...
>
Sorry, Jedi, if I am making a mistake here perhaps you would be kind enough
to spell it out for me? The poster was claiming that Windows ME costs $289
according to the URL he posted, and at the time I checked, for me at least,
it does not cost that much.
Of course, if you were to say that ME is over-priced at the number I saw on
that web-page for a full copy, no upgrade, etc which was $209, I would agree
with that in a flash.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:06:44 GMT
Still got it twisted Erik...if i count virtual memory it adds 64 MB in
Windows 2000(+75) and 25 MB in SuSE Linux(+35)
like i say...now matter how its twisted
/IL
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:QuSq5.8087$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > I'm sorry. I simply do not believe you that A system with X, KDE, and
> > > several other major services only takes 35MB. X with KDE alone will
> take up
> > > at least that much (KDE buffers consume huge amounts of memory in
fact).
> >
> > Believe what you want, but I run X, KDE, and man other things on my
> Thinkpad
> > with 32MB of memory.
>
> You've never heard of virtual memory?
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:09:13 +0100
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NFHq5.8041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> > Oh look...the Monopoly defender is attacking closed-market tactics
> > of another vendor.
>
> I'm not attacking anything. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Apple
> doing this.
>
> I'm simply stating that you can't compare OS9 at $99 with full version
> Windows since they are not the same type of liscense.
Good luck Erik! Personally I think you might find herding cats easier than
trying to reason with alt.usenet.kooks' unsung poster child here!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:12:44 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:03:12 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8oe1jv$ddc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >Also, Win9x's design goal was to run on the same
>> hardware
>> > that typical Windows 3.x machines were running on in 1995 and be as
>> fast, or
>> > faster than Windows 3.x. All of which it achieved.
>>
>> What?! I have never heard anyone claim thet win 95 is as fast as win3.x.
>> This also goes directly against my personal experience and the
>> experience of many people that I know. Try running them on an old 486.
>> 95 is a little sluggish. On a fast pentium, win311 flies.
>>
>Win95 is about the same speed Win3.11 if you have more than 16 megs. If you
>have less than 16 megs, Win95 is slower than Win3.11. How many Win3.11
>computers had more than 16 megs? 16 megs cost over $250, in August 1995.
Actually, it was more like $700 for 16M.
[deletia]
Win 3.1 and Win 9x are BOTH painful to use in 4M or 8M. Win95 certainly
did NOT run faster than it's predecessor on the hardware in common use
when it was released.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:50:44 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:paOq5.282$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So? Should we feel sorry for them? I'll pay for winblows when they bring
out
> a version i actually enjoy using...
I assume you mean to say, you will purchase a copy of Windows when MIcrosoft
releases a version that you would enjoy using; until then you will stick
with the copies of WIndows that come with your computer(s) when you
purchased it/them, reguardless of the version(s) it/they may be. Since the
fee you paid to Microsoft through the puhase of you computer(s) is already
too much for a product (Windows) you don't like.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:35:53 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
D. Spider <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It appears that on Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:56:15 -0500, in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Clearly you haven't used the start menu in many years.
>
> I love this bit too, this is classic. Do you know how to read a
> header? Clearly not. Let me point this out to you... figure out how to
> tell outhouse express to show you the headers (I would tell you how,
> but I don't allow such broken software to even sit on my disk, let
> alone use it, so you'll have to figure out how to do this or ask
> someone else) and look for the line that says X-Newsreader:. If you
> still can't figure out why this line is funny, maybe someone else will
> be kind to you and explain.
O.K. I'll bite on this one.
To view the headers of a message in Outlook Express:
Right click on the message in the message list panel. Select properties
from the menu that pops up. Click on the details tab and the message's
header appear in a small application modal dialog box. If you wan't to view
the headers or the rest of the message in the format that it was or will be
transmitted without interpretation, click on the view source button.
The X-Newsreader header is used my most newsreader software when the message
is created. This header identifies the newsreader software that the author
of the message was using and in many cases to OS as well. Your X-Newsreader
header that you are using Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4113.2400. D.
Spider's X-Newsreader header shows that he is using Forte Agent 1.5/32.451.
That is a registered copy of a newsreader software that runs on Microsoft
Windows. That is the proof of error of your statement that he had not used
the start menu in many years.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats a good starting point?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:18:44 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Wandtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QZOq5.7935$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OK.. I'm a Windows guy.. been using it for years. I'm also a Netware admin
> type ... been doing that for years too.. I've played around with
Unix/Linux
> a little .. I understand the advantages .. now I want to get into it. I'm
> not trying to become a "shun a gui, purest, nuts & bolts guru" type ..
just
> somebody who can use Linux comfortably on a desktop ... then we'll see
about
> moving into the server world.
>
> That said hat distro's do you guys recommend? I did dl Corel's latest and
> was very impressed by the install.. I've been telling people I know that
> Widows never installed that easy.. which surprised me since you read about
> one of the "weaknesses" of Linux is that it's so hard to setup. Anyway,
is
> Corel a "good" place to start? What about Calera's which I hear about a
lot?
> I also have Red Hat 6.2 . Keep in mind ... I'm coming at this from a
> Windows point of view ... I'm trying to learn to be a simple user first..
> you know ,, walk then run. My first job is to do everything on my Linux
box
> (an older Dell 233MHz) that I do on my Win98 Compaq .. Internet, email,
> burn CD's,finance (quicken) , taxes, scanning and basic office suite. If I
> could handle my wife's program that creates cross stitch patterns I'd dump
> Win98 on the Compaq in a heartbeat... well at least re-configure it as the
> smaller of a dual boot system maybe.
>
> So where does a guy start?
If you like your Corel installation fine, but be aware that it does
configure or operate like normal Linux / unix. That means that if you
depend on that distribution to introduce you to unix operating systesms you
will have to learn all over again when you switch to another distribution.
And you will have to, since much of the hardware you will want to install it
on is not supported by the Corel distribution without MAJOR reworkings by
you. Much of what comes with most distributions are not shipped with Corel.
If you would like to experiment with what is available for Linux and play
with a few distributions take a look at ftp://sunsite.unc.edu/pub/Linux
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:42:12 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ogic1$b4d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> I think we should try and move all common admin tasks to a web
> interface. Imagine linuxconf running in Nestcape... I believe people
> will find it more user friendly then other solutions (with propper
> development, of course) and since the web browser is becomming somewhat
> of a standard interface, the user already knows how to use it.
How would that be any better than local or remote execution of an X program
working with you local X server?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Whats a good starting point?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:18:07 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 13:34:40 GMT, Kevin Wandtke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>OK.. I'm a Windows guy.. been using it for years. I'm also a Netware admin
>type ... been doing that for years too.. I've played around with Unix/Linux
>a little .. I understand the advantages .. now I want to get into it. I'm
>not trying to become a "shun a gui, purest, nuts & bolts guru" type .. just
>somebody who can use Linux comfortably on a desktop ... then we'll see about
>moving into the server world.
>
>That said hat distro's do you guys recommend? I did dl Corel's latest and
Mandrake for workstations.
Debian or Slackware for server use.
>was very impressed by the install.. I've been telling people I know that
>Widows never installed that easy.. which surprised me since you read about
>one of the "weaknesses" of Linux is that it's so hard to setup. Anyway, is
>Corel a "good" place to start? What about Calera's which I hear about a lot?
Mandrake is better in this department actually. Actually, most of
the current ease of use distros are pretty much neck and neck with
each other. Except Corel's still working out it's 'version 1.0' bugs.
>I also have Red Hat 6.2 . Keep in mind ... I'm coming at this from a
>Windows point of view ... I'm trying to learn to be a simple user first..
>you know ,, walk then run. My first job is to do everything on my Linux box
>(an older Dell 233MHz) that I do on my Win98 Compaq .. Internet, email,
>burn CD's,finance (quicken) , taxes, scanning and basic office suite. If I
>could handle my wife's program that creates cross stitch patterns I'd dump
>Win98 on the Compaq in a heartbeat... well at least re-configure it as the
>smaller of a dual boot system maybe.
>
>So where does a guy start?
Also keep in mind that for the sake of wider hardware support, you
probably want a distro that has a good text-mode installer. Some
vidchips aren't well supported under Linux. Although such systems
still make good small server systems (like an SIS microatx mobo).
Also, Mandrake 7.1 and the latest Suse come with USB support already
enabled.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:09:49 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RQNq5.22657$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8off6l$f3c$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Have you not ever encountered or heard of any of these system?
> Of course. But how is the persistent state of a swich interestingly
> different than storage? Or in other words, how is this computational
model
> significantly different than a Turing machine? (Hint: it isn't)
I was not addressing my reply in any way to your citation of Turing machines
since your citation was an invalid attempt to try to falsely intellectualize
your position. I for one am not foolish enough to fall into your trap that
you have not even tried to hide.
What persistance? The switches used in this style are higly volatile more
so than core storage and are perhaps the equals of the processor's registers
in terms of the survivalibility of the data. Those toggle switches used to
provide the machine code instruction the the processor a byte or word at a
time are not used for storage. They are a means of communications to with
the processor or to the core storage. If you consider those toggles as
storage then you would have to consider the keyboards as storage as well
because they are used for a similar purpose.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:36:01 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ogccl$nkn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I think it is pretty incredible what $209 will buy you these days. I
mean,
> consider what you are getting.
>
> It is a complete OS that works with a myriad of different PC configs. with
> zillions of different hardware devices. It has the best multimedia API
out
> there (DirectX -- not just Direct3D, but DDraw, DPlay, DMusic, DSound,
> etc.), movie editing capabilities included, the arguably best Media
player,
> the best web browser, built-in home networking, the list just goes on and
> on.
Zillion of different hardware devices? Would you please enumerate them. Or
if you prefer, enumerate all the computer hardware devices ever designed.
Either way you won't make it to even one-zillion let alone multiple
zillions.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Cool Idea
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:22:54 GMT
On 29 Aug 2000 00:50:12 GMT, Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 18:48:11 -0500, Joe Kiser wrote:
>>X Windows should support moving the mouse awound with the arrow keys on
>>the keyboard and clicking with the Ctrl/Win/Alt keys. Then I wouldn't
>>have to leave the keyboard.
>
>I believe some window managers support this type of thing. IIRC, you can
>bind mouse moves to the keyboard in fvwm for example.
>
>In practice, it's best to use the mouse as a mouse, and use things like
>window-cycling bindings and other keybindings if you just want to switch
>apps or use the "panel"/"taskbar" or whatever.
It is perfectly viable to control the graphics cursor with the keyboard.
There's really no good reason to not support that sort of feature.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:24:50 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:06:03 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>[...]
>>
>> Slowly and carefully re-read the message you are responding to...
>>
>
>Sorry, Jedi, if I am making a mistake here perhaps you would be kind enough
>to spell it out for me? The poster was claiming that Windows ME costs $289
209 pounds is MORE than 289 USD the last time I checked.
>according to the URL he posted, and at the time I checked, for me at least,
>it does not cost that much.
>
>Of course, if you were to say that ME is over-priced at the number I saw on
>that web-page for a full copy, no upgrade, etc which was $209, I would agree
>with that in a flash.
Except you didn't post a price in dollars of any variety.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats a good starting point?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:26:26 -0700
I am a big fan of Suse. The distribution comes with 6 CD's
packed with everything. The installation manual is very well
written and should get you through most installation issues.
My install went perfectly except I got a out of date sound
card driver. I replaced it with the standard soundblaster
driver. Suse has a very simple tool that lets you pick what
you want in a kernel and then compiles and installs it for
you. My 256 megabytes of RAM are more than plenty, the OS has
never used the swap file.
For a Quicken replacement, the August 2000 issue of Linux
Journal has a review of several Quicken like apps for Linux.
I don't think you will get a tax program for Linux soon. For
your wife's x-stitch and tax software, try Wine. I know that
the Canadian version of Intuits Tax software works under Wine.
The Canadian version of Intuits Tax software is actually a
Windows 3.1 program.
I have not tried a CD-ROM burner yet but my scanner went in
without a hitch. It is an ancient HP scanner connected to my
Linux box with a SCSI cable. SCSI is the way to go with Linux.
My SCSI Zip drive just required a mount.
I use Corel Wordperfect and am quite happy with it. Ksiag is
more spreadsheet than I will ever use.
When I used MS-Office 97, I found that I might only use %5 of
its features. With MS-Office 2000, I would probably use %3 of
its features. A simple word processor and spreadsheet program
satisfy my current and future needs quite nicely. Only Bill
Gates seems to think that I need new features all the time.
I ditched WinDos about 6 months ago and have never looked
back. Linux has never crashed on me. I leave my Linux boxes
running all the time. With my old WinDos machines, I turned
them off after using them because I knew that they would crash
even more frequently if I left them running continuously.
Join a Linux user group. They are a great source of technical
help. My local user group has helped many newbies to get up
and running.
Michael Vester
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kevin Wandtke wrote:
>
> OK.. I'm a Windows guy.. been using it for years. I'm also a Netware admin
> type ... been doing that for years too.. I've played around with Unix/Linux
> a little .. I understand the advantages .. now I want to get into it. I'm
> not trying to become a "shun a gui, purest, nuts & bolts guru" type .. just
> somebody who can use Linux comfortably on a desktop ... then we'll see about
> moving into the server world.
>
> That said hat distro's do you guys recommend? I did dl Corel's latest and
> was very impressed by the install.. I've been telling people I know that
> Widows never installed that easy.. which surprised me since you read about
> one of the "weaknesses" of Linux is that it's so hard to setup. Anyway, is
> Corel a "good" place to start? What about Calera's which I hear about a lot?
> I also have Red Hat 6.2 . Keep in mind ... I'm coming at this from a
> Windows point of view ... I'm trying to learn to be a simple user first..
> you know ,, walk then run. My first job is to do everything on my Linux box
> (an older Dell 233MHz) that I do on my Win98 Compaq .. Internet, email,
> burn CD's,finance (quicken) , taxes, scanning and basic office suite. If I
> could handle my wife's program that creates cross stitch patterns I'd dump
> Win98 on the Compaq in a heartbeat... well at least re-configure it as the
> smaller of a dual boot system maybe.
>
> So where does a guy start?
>
> Kevin Wandtke
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:29:57 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:09:13 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:NFHq5.8041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[...]
>> > Oh look...the Monopoly defender is attacking closed-market tactics
>> > of another vendor.
>>
>> I'm not attacking anything. There's absolutely nothing wrong with Apple
>> doing this.
>>
>> I'm simply stating that you can't compare OS9 at $99 with full version
>> Windows since they are not the same type of liscense.
>
>Good luck Erik! Personally I think you might find herding cats easier than
>trying to reason with alt.usenet.kooks' unsung poster child here!
No, we just recognize bullshit when we see it.
The question is not whether or not you are likely to have another
copy of FOO. The REAL question is whether or not you can use the
media in question on a bare machine.
If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
There are few things more annoying than the requirement to
sequentially install various versions of a software product
due to such 'upgrade licences'.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:31:49 GMT
On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 22:56:15 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >They were generally accepted to be:
>> >Runs as many DOS and Win16 applications as possible
>> >Runs Win32 apps
>> >Can use DOS drivers
>> >Runs in 4MB of RAM
>> >Has pre-emptive scheduling
>>
>> It only fails on one of those then - the RAM requirements, obviously.
>
>Obviously? Win95 ran in 4MB or ram. And it did so equally as fast as Win
>3.1 did. Of course it ran MUCH faster than Win 3.1 when you had 8-16MB of
>ram, but that wasn't the requirement.
No it wasn't.
Don't try to bullshit us. We experienced these things ourselves and
we simply know better from our own recollection of the events.
[deletia]
Win95 is a pig in 8M, much slower than Win3x.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux support for IntelliEye
Date: 29 Aug 2000 18:34:51 GMT
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>I have a IntelliEye mouse hooked up as a ps/2 mouse using the adapter that
: came with it (USB to ps/2)
:>and it works just fine. Use imwheel and the wheel will work as well.
: You may also be able to make the mouse work by using the new 2.4 kernel but
: this does mean downloading 20mb of sourcecode and compiling it yourself.
Looks like the Linux kernel has finally gotten bigger than EMACS :)
: Drivers may also be available in sourcecode format for making a kernel
: module for 2.2 kernel as my mandrake version seems to have usb support (I
: don't have usb hardware on machine I use it on though so cannot confirm
: this).
The patch to add USB support to 2.2.x kernels is only about 13k
and you can fetch it at:
http://www.suse.cz/development/usb-backport/
and you can check whether or not your distribution has USB support
by looking for a /proc/bus/usb directory for the devices to
use. But remember that getting USB to work is largely separate
from getting X to recognize wheeled mice. Good starting points
are:
http://www.linux-usb.org/
and:
http://linuxkb.cheek.com/pages/usb-howto/
in particular for getting mice going like a charm.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NETCRAFT: I'm confused
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:41:41 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:m%Fq5.8022$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > That depends on what you mean by market share. When I say market
share,
> I
> > > mean the number of servers that have IIS on them, versus the number of
> > > servers that have Apache on them. Not the number of domains that are
> > hosted
> > > by each server application.
> >
> > Typical wintroll crap. "Market Share" _by definition_ means a percentage
> of
> > total sales for the market:
> >
> > "Ratio of sales of company's product or product line to the total market
> > sales for that product or product line. "
> >
> > "Expressed as a percentage. "
> >
> > (source: http://www.rpi.edu/~holmec/ms.html)
> >
> > Thus if Apache's sever count is growing faster than IIS's server count,
> MS's
> > market share is _dwindling_, because the MS's ratio of servers to the
> total
> > is getting smaller. (Basic 7th grade math.)
>
> But that's just it. Apache's server count may *NOT* be growing faster
(and
> probably isn't). The Apache *HOSTED DOMAIN* count is growing faster.
That
> does not equote to the number of server installations (which would be the
> most equivelant "Ratio of sales of company product or product line to the
> total market sales for that product or product line."
The numbers may or may not be accurate, but it is ridiculous to assume that
ALL domain sqatters are using apache.
--
Rich C.
"Because light travels faster than sound, many people appear to be
intelligent, until you hear them speak."
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:52:22 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
> the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
Simon
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
