Linux-Advocacy Digest #48, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 04:13:08 EDT
Contents:
OT American History (was Re: Computer and memory) ("William B. Sharrock")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
("Ville Niemi")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Richard Steiner)
Re: [Q] linux on mac? ("Anon Y. Mous")
Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
("Stuart Fox")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Donovan Rebbechi)
The reason I don't care about the flame wars (Lee Reynolds)
Re: The reason I don't care about the flame wars ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Criteria in Evaluating Distributions: (Lee Reynolds)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Stuart Fox")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "William B. Sharrock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OT American History (was Re: Computer and memory)
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:48:04 -0600
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <Xk5u5.32586$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> ...and Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
>> >
>> >Another lesson in history, just for you and the seemingly weak
>> >education system in Belgium.... The native americans, a.k.a indians,
>> >were wiped out by European settlers way before someone could blame the
>> >US for it. Not to mention the fact that in the early years of US most
>> >of the population was Europeans.
>>
>> ROTFLMAO! :-))))
>>
>> ...and then they magically transformed into another nation called "The
>> Amahricannz" somehow. Otto, you kill me. :-)
>
> Do they not teach history in European schools?
>
> For the first ~200 years of the colonization, where do you think 99% of
> the colonizers came from?
>
> (hint: serious colonization started in the early 17th century and
> they all came over from across the Atlantic. You do know where the
> Atlantic is, don't you?)
>
> -Chad
>
>
*sigh*
You're wrong. Or do you think that the 500+ Native American tribes in the
US only lived on the East Coast? Have you ever heard of the Trail of
Tears? Wounded Knee?
While the original European settlers did bring plagues with them, like
smallpox which nearly destroyed many tribes, your assertion that the
Indians were wiped out way before America could take the blame is
absolutely false.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 05:52:55 GMT
On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 11:36:14 -0500, David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Geez, you must suck. We have NT servers that have been up since last July,
>and 2000 servers that have been up since the release date. At the moment
July? What year? If keeping a computer from crashing over a 60 day period
w/ a 30% duty cycle impresses you, I'd like to sell you some swamp land.
You can put a house on it. It's only under water 3 months of the year.
------------------------------
From: "Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 06:23:13 GMT
> The only 'button' I really have is ridicule. As for 'post-modern', it
> is 'post-modern philosophy' that I 'don't like'. The concept. It is a
> conceptual trap that many fall into, even outside the world of
> philosophy. General soft-headedness. I won't drag it out.
>
> Besides, I am actually the one who asked "how can you monopolize without
> being a monopoly"; I did it to illustrate the problem you were having
> with the word 'monopoly', which is common.
True but my answer wasn't to you. And word 'monopoly' does have a different
meaning here. We don't have a Sherman act for legal definition of the word.
> All monopolization is anti-competitive actions. All monopolies act
> anti-competitively. The richness of US anti-trust law is based on this
> basic tenant, which is called 'the rule of reason'. The Sherman Act is
> a very strange law, in many ways. The first section outlaws all
> contracts in restraint of trade. The second section outlaws
> monopolization, which is a 'way' of restraining trade. The courts, in
> trying to figure out what Congress meant the law to mean, have said that
> the second section outlaws "all means which may lead to" restraint of
> trade. In either case, it isn't a particular action or even type of
> action, but a *class* of action; any that intentionally restrains trade,
> in the first case, and any that intentionally increases market share (at
> the cost of profit or competition), in the second.
Makes sense.
> It sounds like you're going through what we went through a hundred years
> ago. I don't mean to intone that Europe is regressive (though their
> support for free market economics is certainly still growing), but
> simply that the issues you're describing are the same as we dealt with
> then. The railroads were a precipitating matter; the government
> provided 'land grants' (a kind of 'sovereign monopoly', you might say),
> and the railroads expected to be able to use it as if they were grants
> of monopoly. They soon found out that they weren't. In 1890, Senator
> Sherman championed the law which bears his name, outlawing directly all
> monopolization and attempted monopolization. In the US, we don't have
> 'government granted monopolies'. We do have public utilities, which are
> close, but not quite the same thing.
Actually, the World Wars did push Europe back in the economic progress.
Another factor is that individually many European countries are too small to
guarantee competition on sectors requiring heavy investment.
> In extreme cases, the same can be done over here. The Bell Telephone
> system (AT&T) was given the status of a public utility in the early part
> of the twentieth century, in order to provide 'universal service'. It
> is the rules under which they built our national telephone network which
> allows us, still, to have unlimited 'local dialing'. Which is why US
> citizens rarely pay per-minute fees for Internet access, but Europeans
> generally do. (Do you?)
I pay per minute for using a telephone connection, yes. If that was what you
asked.
> Yes, this sounds like a reasonable understanding. I've explained the
> rule of reason to others (though I am no authority on it myself) as "if
> what you did decreases competition, and you knew it would, then you've
> committed a crime." *ANYTHING* a company does which raises 'barriers to
> entry' for new competitors is considered forbidden. Free markets are a
> matter of market *sales*, not market *share*.
Sounds familiar to me...
> By the time that might have happened, the idea of 'a functional browser'
> would have disappeared entirely. Its only been two years, and a lot of
> people in the US already forget the difference between a browser and an
> OS. It goes without saying, I think, that those are the people that
> have the least clue about how computers work, but that's beside the
> point. Nobody starts out knowing how computers work.
Actually, the 'administrative approach' makes decisions pretty fast. The in
ternet service / computer bundle only was on sale for a few months. The few
being less than half a year, could have been less than a month. I wasn't
following it that closely at the time. But compared to what is essentially a
full legal process, I can confidently say its fast.
> I didn't realize you were actually so different in your conception, as a
> citizen, but I should have. As a citizen of Finland, I have to say that
> you literally have *no idea* how anti-socialist Americans are. Over
> here, there's people screaming to privatize *primary school education*.
> Can you believe it?
Easily. We have people like that here too. The political spectrum in Europe
is wider. We actually have communists and market liberalists in the same
government... To be quite honest, from European standing point the US looks
like a single party system.
> Anyway; a 'trust' is a business or combination of businesses that lock
> out competition, by various means. What you've described is called
> 'technical tying', sometimes referred merely as 'bundling', which is
> forcing the customer to accept one product in order to purchase another,
> and 'dumping', which is selling products at below cost until the
> competition goes out of business. The term 'trust' is a broader one
> than 'monopoly', as it can extend to multiple businesses "colluding"
> with one another, which is also outlawed, by the Clayton Act.
Thanks... Illegal here too...
> Companies used to need approval for mergers here, as well, but now its
> just an administrative pretense, most of the time. We need to start
> enforcing that, I think. "Growth by acquisition" is not a competitive
> business model.
True, growth by acquisition is really a way to improve profits by reducing
competition. Good for short term investors, bad for everyone else. Sadly
managers gets their bonuses from relatively short term profits and the
problems reduced competition causes the company take years to manifest.
> LOL. Adam Smith (who I think was Scottish) explained several hundred
> years ago precisely what you just said: free markets prevent monopolies.
> But his theory of free markets presumed pro-competitive action by all
> producers (and consumers). When a business acts anti-competitively,
> they can get a 'market edge' that enables them to control prices or
> inhibit competition, particularly if they have a very large market
> share.
True (again), a mistake many market liberalists (at least in Finland) make
is to think that all government intervention is bad. In reality, if the
government doesn't preserve the right to control the market for itself,
someone else will take that control. I don't mean that actual intervention
is a must, just that the possibility must exist. Nature abhors vacuum.
> That's the basis of the 'rule of reason' in US anti-trust law. Since a
> free market will prevent monopolies from forming through competition,
> any time a single company gains very large market share, it means they
> haven't been acting competitively. By 'competitive action', we mean
> "make the best product you can at the cheapest cost you can and
> distribute it as conveniently (for the consumer) as you can." Anything
> else is against the law. :-)
Its the you CAN part thats weak. How do you prove incompetence is
deliberate. Since monopolizing is a crime in the US, they are assumed
innocent until someone proves otherwise, and this takes time, if it can be
done at all.
> <G> I just meant that it might have seemed like I was 'jumping all over
> you' and not paying attention to what you were saying. It happens
> sometimes when you start posting to a newsgroup, and presenting the same
> arguments that have already been discussed a thousand times before.
I don't mind. To be kind honest my English isn't good enough to reliably
notice when someone is 'jumping all over me'. My common sense on the other
hand is good enough to realize I'm new here and what it means. Actually, I
kind of like your style, even when you are being rude.
> Yes, that seems to be the situation we have here. I would say that the
> majority of business people think that 'winning', rather than competing,
> is the goal of business. By 'competing', you make a profit. By
> 'winning', you get a conviction.
Yes, an obsession with winning does cause irrational behauvior. Besides, I
think thats what they are taught nowadays. They believe that if everybody
tries to win, the competition is an automatic consequence and everyone
benefits. It isn't working very well because the easiest way to win a
running contest is to trip up your opponents. Any child knows that.
> Quite incisive. I do think big of myself, though, so I hope it has some
> little effect, at least. If just one or two people say "yea, that *is*
> anti-competitive" and understand the issues a little clearer and make
> decisions (as either consumer or producer) in a more ethical way, it is
> all worthwhile.
I apologise, I thought you rant because you enjoy it and it relieves your
frustration and bitterness. Still, I do understand issues better after
discussing with you. But your style, which suits me just fine, is propably
bit hard on most people who are still undecided on the Microsoft/Windows
case.
> That's it, yes. Any consideration at all of market share is simply
> monopolization, plain and simple. A lot of Americans (not just because
> of Microsoft) are convinced that the only way to be successful in
> business is to try to prevent others from doing so.
If everyone is cheating, and the referee is blind, playing fair doesn't pay.
> I have no idea, but the subject lines adds a 'VS:' at the beginning
> every time you respond, and the "Reference" header doesn't identify
> valid message IDs. I don't know why.
VS: is 'vastaus' which is 'reply' in Finnish. I don't really understand why
they translate commonly used two letter abbreviations the context makes
clear anyway, but they do.
Well, I once changed the subject line, and was unable to send the message,
so I guess there is something seriously wrong with the reference mechanism.
Try to fix that too...
Checked, has valid references when it leaves... Weird.
Ville
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Steiner)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 01:21:41 -0500
Here in comp.os.linux.misc, "Lina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
spake unto us, saying:
>I'm a Linux newbie. What is the percentage of computers and servers
>running Linux now.
That's a very difficult question to answer, since many copies of Linux
are installed based on downloaded versions (or legally copied versions)
and don't show up anywhere as retail sales.
Out of curiosity, why is this information important to you?
>Will an end-user alternative similar to Linux appear anytime soon?
Nontechnical-user-friendly alternative OSes like OS/2 have existed for
years, but have been overlooked for a variety of reasons (the two most
common being spelled M-A-R-K-E-T-S-H-A-R-E and N-O-P-R-E-L-O-A-D-S).
Today, I would still consider OS/2 and BeOS to be viable alternatives
for a subset of PC users, and UNIX-Like OSes like Linux and FreeBSD to
be viable alternatives for others.
A lot depends on one's level of expertise and on one's precise needs.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>---> Bloomington, MN
OS/2 + BeOS + Linux + Solaris + Win95 + WinNT4 + FreeBSD + DOS
+ VMWare + Fusion + vMac + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! :-)
Life is anything that dies when you stomp it.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 02:55:47 -0400
From: "Anon Y. Mous" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [Q] linux on mac?
apparently, in the boot record of the system disk on the macintosh, there is
a pointer to a second operating system. there once was a package that
allow the system to restart into the other OS, etc. it is my guess that
this was a feature that apple employed for debugging their developments.
what i am wondering is if the linux OS for the macs use this. that's the
conversion that is of interest...
--
*please post to NG only*
==========
In article <8pgu4t$1jt2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> Anon Y. Mous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> if i install linux on a mac, how difficult is the conversion?
>
> It depends on what you mean by "conversion". LinuxPPC has become
> (after quite a long time) incredibly easy to install. Same for
> Yellowdog. Theyre both redhat based.
>
> You of course wont be able to run any of your mac software, but
> it could be argued that that is a Good Thing (TM).
>
>
>
>
> abbie
>
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Vs: Vs: Vs: Vs: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:02:44 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Besides, I am actually the one who asked "how can you monopolize without
> being a monopoly"; I did it to illustrate the problem you were having
> with the word 'monopoly', which is common.
>
Actually - you're not. I did - follow the thread...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:04:07 +0100
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:11:11 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> |
> | If you wish to use WSH in a login script (as proposed ages ago), all
> | that has to work reliably is the login script running reliably, which
> | does.
>
> Wasn't the purpose of the login script we were discussing in this
> thread to udate the DNS setup of the Windows client to deal with
> changes in the DNS necessary to implement Active Directory with W2k.
> So here's the problem I'm having: unless you are going to each and
> every client to install this script, you need the clients to all be
> running a login script from a centralized server.
>
> Now let's assume they are already doing that. User logs into a
> workstation, workstation executes a script it retrieves from the
> server. Now we go in and change the DNS. Then we change the login
> script to update the DNS settings. User returns, logs in and the
> workstation goes to locate the server to find the login script to
> run. Except now the DNS structure is changed and the workstation
> can't find the server.
>
> Wouldn't this be a problem.
Obviously you wouldn't make changes when you hadn't already got the
replacement DNS up and running...
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:15:21 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Damien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:32:46 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> | news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> | > On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:19:47 -0400, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> | > Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | > | David Sidlinger wrote:
> | > |
> | > | > Unix can be broken just as easily as Windows. It's just
> | > | > that a lot of unskilled developers write apps for Windows that
don't
> | behave.
> | > | > I can crash a Unix machine with C++ just as easily as I can crash
> | Windows.
> | > | >
> | > |
> | > | Really? Please explain how a C++ app can crash Unix.
> | >
> | > Two rules. It can't run as root, and it has to run under reasonable
> | ulimits.
> | >
> | > Also, I expect you to include the source code so I can run it on a few
> | > of the machines I have access to.
>
> | Just declare a pointer and try to write to it's location in memory w/o
> | initializing it. Won't work every time, but, eventually, you're going
to
> | cause some freaky stuff to go on.
>
> No freaky stuff. Just a segfault. Everytime. No cascade failure.
> No crash. If I had more time I would write the program you described
> and run it a few thousand times on a Linux and Sun box. If some one
> would be so kind as to write the C code I'll still do it.
Ok, here is two versions of the C source that was requested. The first one
performs as requested. There a chance that the unitialized automatic
variable "addr", just may some times point valid address causing it the exit
without doing causing a segment fault. So I am provided the second one as
well will do so every time. I runs in an endless loop so the program will
not stop until it is killed or causes the segment fault by incrementing the
address and writing again. Make sure you have the diskspace to hold the
core dumps that these will generate. Other than that no harm should be done
by running these. But don't blame me if they find a real bug. ;-) Also,
don't run these on an OS that does not provide the kind of protection that
unix has to prevent that damage these can cause.
-----
void main( void )
{
int datum;
int *addr;
*addr = daturm;
}
-----
void main( void )
{
int datum;
int *addr;
while( 1 ) {
*(addr++) = daturm;
}
}
-----
> *snip*
> | Most of the people in this NG have
> | experience *administrating* NT, and therefore are usually logged in with
> | administrative permissions on the machine.
>
> All because NT doesn't have a simple a program as 'su'.
However, that does not prevent an admin from hanving two account, one normal
and one with admin access. They don't have to do all their work user an
admin account.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: 11 Sep 2000 07:27:34 GMT
On 11 Sep 2000 02:05:22 GMT, Damien wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Sep 2000 20:32:46 -0500, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> David Sidlinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>| "Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>No freaky stuff. Just a segfault. Everytime. No cascade failure.
>No crash. If I had more time I would write the program you described
>and run it a few thousand times on a Linux and Sun box. If some one
>would be so kind as to write the C code I'll still do it.
Try this:
#include <stdlib.h>
int main()
{
int *x;
int y;
while ( 1 ) {
x = rand();
y = *x;
}
}
Then run it a few thousand times:
while true
do
./a.out
done
Cheers
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Lee Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: The reason I don't care about the flame wars
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:32:27 -0700
I've been a computer hacker (!cracker) for almost exactly 20 years now.
I started out on an Apple II+ with 48k of memory and a single double
density 5.25 floppy. I've seen and worked with just about every popular
computer made between now and then. In addition to the Apple II+ I've
owned a CoCo, a Commodore 64, an Atari 800 and 65XE, A Macintosh, An
Amiga 500, An Atari ST520, A TRS80 Model I, Every level of PC from an
4.77 mhz PC/XT to an Athlon 700. I've been using Linux for five years
now, ever since the 1.2 kernel days. I've also used Windows 2.x,3.x,9x,
NT, and 2000. Before Linux OS/2 was my operating system of choice.
What I've learned is that there is nothing to be gained from fighting
and arguing with someone else over the operating system or computer you
perfer. It doesn't matter what they like, it doesn't matter what they
think. Convincing them that such and such an OS is better than some
other OS doesn't gain you anything. Do you need their permission or
approval to feel good about the OS you use? If they don't like your OS
does that make their opinion a threat to you simply because they have
one? Does their opinion truly matter in any way to anyone other than
themselves? Do they have power over you? I think you can see that the
answer to all these questions is no.
Advocating Linux is a good idea. Its a great operating system. But
getting in flamewars with people who don't like it doesn't do anything
to increase its popularity. The people who don't like it aren't going
to be convinced otherwise by you berating them.
But ultimately it doesn't matter why some people don't like linux
because they don't matter. If you're a politician looking for votes,
then the opinions of others matter. If you're working someplace the
opinions of your boss and coworkers matter. If you're trying to make
friends and get along with other people, what they think of you
matters. But what doesn't matter are the attitudes and opinions of
people you don't know and who don't know you. People who are on the
other side of the country or even the world. They simply don't matter.
So do yourself a favor and stop wasting your breath fighting with them.
Ignore them because they're really not worth your time.
Lee Reynolds
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The reason I don't care about the flame wars
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:47:41 GMT
You're kidding...right?
Hell!... Flaming is fun! (within certain limits of course)
/IL
"Lee Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been a computer hacker (!cracker) for almost exactly 20 years now.
> I started out on an Apple II+ with 48k of memory and a single double
> density 5.25 floppy. I've seen and worked with just about every popular
> computer made between now and then. In addition to the Apple II+ I've
> owned a CoCo, a Commodore 64, an Atari 800 and 65XE, A Macintosh, An
> Amiga 500, An Atari ST520, A TRS80 Model I, Every level of PC from an
> 4.77 mhz PC/XT to an Athlon 700. I've been using Linux for five years
> now, ever since the 1.2 kernel days. I've also used Windows 2.x,3.x,9x,
> NT, and 2000. Before Linux OS/2 was my operating system of choice.
>
> What I've learned is that there is nothing to be gained from fighting
> and arguing with someone else over the operating system or computer you
> perfer. It doesn't matter what they like, it doesn't matter what they
> think. Convincing them that such and such an OS is better than some
> other OS doesn't gain you anything. Do you need their permission or
> approval to feel good about the OS you use? If they don't like your OS
> does that make their opinion a threat to you simply because they have
> one? Does their opinion truly matter in any way to anyone other than
> themselves? Do they have power over you? I think you can see that the
> answer to all these questions is no.
>
> Advocating Linux is a good idea. Its a great operating system. But
> getting in flamewars with people who don't like it doesn't do anything
> to increase its popularity. The people who don't like it aren't going
> to be convinced otherwise by you berating them.
>
> But ultimately it doesn't matter why some people don't like linux
> because they don't matter. If you're a politician looking for votes,
> then the opinions of others matter. If you're working someplace the
> opinions of your boss and coworkers matter. If you're trying to make
> friends and get along with other people, what they think of you
> matters. But what doesn't matter are the attitudes and opinions of
> people you don't know and who don't know you. People who are on the
> other side of the country or even the world. They simply don't matter.
> So do yourself a favor and stop wasting your breath fighting with them.
> Ignore them because they're really not worth your time.
>
> Lee Reynolds
------------------------------
From: Lee Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Criteria in Evaluating Distributions:
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:49:31 -0700
The biggest problem with getting Linux online is making sure you have a
real modem. Most "name brand" systems that the clueless buy ship with
winmodems or softmodems. Either way you're screwed when it comes to
linux. Now I do know that there have been some attempts to create Linux
drivers for these "modems." Do they work? Who knows, I certainly
haven't heard of any wide ranging success with any of them.
Before anyone even thinks about getting a linux system online they'd
better be prepared to lay down about a hundred bucks for an external
modem. Of course you can always go with DSL or a cable modem, in which
case you HAVE to get the external models. Internal DSL routers and
cable modems are windows only, which means they are EVIL!
Lee Reynolds
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 08:52:57 +0100
"Damien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> *snip*
> | Most of the people in this NG have
> | experience *administrating* NT, and therefore are usually logged in with
> | administrative permissions on the machine.
>
> All because NT doesn't have a simple a program as 'su'.
>
For NT 4, check the Resource Kit. For Windows 2000, check runas (or right
click on a shortcut and choose run as a different user)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
