Linux-Advocacy Digest #96, Volume #29 Wed, 13 Sep 00 15:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Computer and memory (Matthias Warkus)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: OO one more thing. ("Rich C")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: OO one more thing. ("Greenwood Packing")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Help! Steve please come back - all is forgiven!!!!!!!! ("James")
Re: Computer and memory
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: OO one more thing.
Re: OS choice (Tim Kelley)
Re: OO one more thing. (Tim Kelley)
Re: OO one more thing. (Joe Glenn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:41:06 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> [...]
> >> >I told you "the credits page". Guess what, the link says "credits".
> >>
> >> You're still posturing, apparently. I thought you'd have given up by
> >> now. I don't *care* what the 'link says'. I'm not a newbie amateur who
> >> goes 'click click click' all day. Give me a real reference, or save the
> >> bits.
> >
> >Only one click, actually.
>
> Still haven't a clue why pedantic ankle-biting does nothing but throw
> your integrity into question, eh?
Just correcting your misrepresentation of my answer.
> >> >[snip usless rant about his browsing habits]
> >>
> >> Maybe you should have paid more attention; you wouldn't look like such
> >> an idiot who pretends to be a programmer but can't even understand what
> >> a complete url reference is.
> >
> >I know what it is. I also know I am not forced to provide you one.
> >As for me being a programmer, I suppose it's debatable, but I have
> >the argument of my code.
>
> You aren't forced to post, either. You aren't forced to be an asshole.
> Yet you do these two thing, but are apparently incapable of providing a
> decent reference.
My reference gets you to the page with very little effort. That's
decent enough for me.
> I won't bother with the standard, rhetorical question
> "why?" because I already know, and I've already explained it. I'm just
> pointing out that it hasn't escaped notice.
You are in no position to explain why I do things.
> [...]
> >Well, one of us had to go and do it, I prefer you do it.
> >You see, I remember how to get there, I don't remember the URL.
>
> You remembered 'www.kde.org', and you remembered that it was the
> 'contacts' page, but you didn't remember it was
> 'www.kde.org/contacts.html'? Why does that seem doubtful?
Actually, I remembered it was the credits page, not the
contacts page. And I remember there is a news page, but the
URL is not www.kde.org/news.html, you know.
So, yes, I was not sure of what the URL was. I rather
give a correct reference, you know.
> Those of us who post with honesty and integrity generally find the URL,
> and perhaps even check the URL, before suggesting that a particular
> reference would be useful to the discussion. You, on the other hand,
> are just being an asshole.
I knew what is in the page. You didn't. If you want to know what's
in the page, you go there and read it. I am not here to do things
for you. If you want the data, be a man and work for it.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:45:42 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:56:43 GMT...
...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > It was the Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:32:34 GMT...
> > ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > Correction: The US posters do not only produce more arrogant and
> > > > idiotic postings that all of the European posters.
> > >
> > > So says you.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO. Talk about Americans trying to speak English.
>
> Again! Speaking of arrogant ignorant Europeans...
>
> "So says you" is a common slang term in America.
So? This is the f*cking *WORLD* and not some kind of American back
yard. I don't speak any dialect, jargon or slang in German newsgroups
either, I speak High German like everyone.
If you expect the world to understand you if you speak some kind of
strange regional slang, *you* are arrogant.
mawa
--
An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect
plan.
-- George Patton
apparently talking about Unix and/or X11
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:53:22 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Interesting that Sun has resisted all efforts to standardize Java,
despite
> >making promises to do so.
>
> Only according to Microsoft press releases.
No, according to fact. Sun pulled out of ISO standardization, then said
they would seek standardization under the ECMA, then they pulled out of
that. There were several very critical emails sent by duped ECMA members
that invested lots of time and effort into the standardization process, only
to be blown off when Sun pulled out.
> >Not true. GPL specifically denies me the freedom to sell a closed source
> >program. It restricts my freedom to use *MY OWN COPYRIGHTED CODE* in any
> >way I see fit.
>
> Oh, jeez. Not the 'GPL denies freedom' bullshit, again. How does it
> restrict your freedom to use your code in any way you see fit, when
> you're the one who has to place it under GPL? If you want to sell *YOUR
> OWN COPYRIGHTED CODE* as closed source, I'd suggest not putting it under
> GPL. Of course, the fact that YOUR freedom is entirely NOT the issue,
> but rather the freedom of those who are USING your code, entirely
> escapes you.
That's like saying "You're free to do anything you want, as long as you
don't do any of it here".
Not if your code is linked to a GPL'd library it's not. I'm forced to
release the code as GPL. Force is not Freedom.
> >Uhh... a broader, but smaller audience. When 90+% of the internet
> >population is using either IE or Netscape, "broader" is a bit of a
fallacy.
>
> Not when 'broader' is 100%.
>
> >Most Standard HTML 4 simply won't work with Netscape and has a much
better
> >chance of working with IE. CSS for instance.
>
> Sounds like HTML 4 wouldn't be very 'standard' then, doesn't it?
HTML 4 is a W3C standard.
> >> Tex and Latex give you more control over the quality and appearance of
> >> your documents than HTML. If you are targeting the print media, that is
> >> the way to go.
> >
> >HTML is a subset of SGML. SGML most certainly doesn't have the same
> >problems.
>
> SGML isn't anything more than "hey, if you embed tags in a text stream,
> you can, like, *do* stuff with it." It doesn't have any problems
> because it doesn't provide any solutions, by itself.
No, Max. SGML is *NOT* this. That's XML. SGML is a markup language for
professional publishing. It was around before HTML and is very extensive.
Know what you're talking about before you comment on it.
> You're getting to be quite the little troll, Erik. I'd suggest you back
> away, slowly, or I'm going to have to spank you. This ankle-biting is
> for kindergarten; you're supposed to present reasoned arguments of your
> opinion in your posts, not just empty contentions and meaningless
> protestations and ignorance in defense of criminal behavior.
You're getting to be quite an ignorant idiot Max. There is a comment by
(IIRC) Abraham Lincoln. "It's better to be thought a fool, than to open
ones mouth and remove all doubt".
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OO one more thing.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:41:19 -0400
"Greenwood Packing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8poch3$1aeu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm not at all for holding Linux from the newbies as I feel that maybe the
> newbies should learn how to use it better. Perhaps my choice of words is
> poor. What I mean to say is I think newbies using Linux is great, many of
my
> freinds have recently gotten involved with it and I make sure I go out of
my
> way to help them. However I think that when they learn the OS they should
> know how it works, why it works and how to configure it, not how to have
it
> spoon fed so to speak with a GUI client.
>
>
But some people honestly DON'T want to spend time learning how their
computer works. They want to just install programs and run them. For these
people, simple, automated GUI installation and configuration tools are
ideal. The cool thing about Linux is that these GUI tools are simply front
ends for how the system REALLY gets configured: text files. So if you really
want to delve into your computer, you can go read the config files, and
tinker with them directly (making backups of course.)
It also PROMOTES learning, because, instead of staring at a configuration
file and not knowing where to start, you can configure it the way you want
with the GUI, then go look and see what the GUI did. Thus, you have a
tutorial of sorts on what commands and options in the file do. You can then
tinker from there, or go read up on an option to do something that the GUI
tools are not designed to handle.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:56:49 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>Of course. Nothing I say, no matter if I met your current requirements
or
> >>not, would be acceptable to you. You'd just change your requirements
like
> >>you're doing right now.
> >
> >I might change the way I explain why a hammer falls to the ground when
> >dropped, but that won't change the way gravity works, Erik. I'm sorry
> >you can't understand why what Microsoft did was illegal. I'd be happy
> >to continue trying to explain it, if you showed some inkling of being
>
> He is simply unable or unwilling to see the value in ensuring
> that there are multiple viable competitors in any particular
> market in a capitalist economy.
I welcome competition. I use multiple OS's. I use Linux, and I develop for
BeOS and Windows. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with an obvious idiot
talking out of his ass.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:29:26 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >And it doesn't change the fact that you are ironically supporting Windows
> >with each post in which you are attempting to bash windows.
>
> We only pay for software licenses when we acquire the software, JS/PL.
> I'm not 'supporting Windows' in any way by continuing to use the OS that
> came on the Dell laptop I use
I hate to break it to you but - you are supporting Windows. You are
unnecessarily relying on the very company you are bashing, which only
mirrors you ingnorance to the world.
>and which is mandated by my employer. Get
> a life, man.
Good one, that lie kind of fits together if someone were stupid enough to
believe that you don't own a computer and have no access to a non-windows
machine, but merely use the one provided by your employer, who by the way
has specifically mandated that it shall not contain any free Linux software.
But who does allow it to be used to send death threats, and whole manner of
non work related newsgroup postings which bash the very company that they
support and currently do business with.
Riiiggghhhtttt.
>
> >Your like a guy that shows up at a "Bash the Japanese Cars Rally" in a
> >Toyota.
> >
> >> Want some credibility, 'JS/PL'? Get yourself a real name, dickhead.
> >
> >I told you - it's John Smith the patent lawyer, now write it down.
>
> I've already got all your lies archived, 'JS/PL', that's not what I
> asked about.
>
> But just in case (and because it will be entertaining): Please expound
> on your knowledge of patent law, so far I see none.
Retainer?
------------------------------
From: "Greenwood Packing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OO one more thing.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:01:21 -0400
But what I'm saying is aren't we promoting lazy users? Aren't we just going
to end up in the same boat as windows? Yes their will be people who like to
go farther and use the text files and the CL but from experience 9 times out
of 10 that's not the case. All they want is to not use Microsoft, And they
don't even know why. I think basically I'm talking about the people who go
on NG's and whine about how their soundcard isn't working and beg people to
help them but they haven't even checked a HOWTO.
> But some people honestly DON'T want to spend time learning how their
> computer works. They want to just install programs and run them. For these
> people, simple, automated GUI installation and configuration tools are
> ideal. The cool thing about Linux is that these GUI tools are simply front
> ends for how the system REALLY gets configured: text files. So if you
really
> want to delve into your computer, you can go read the config files, and
> tinker with them directly (making backups of course.)
>
> It also PROMOTES learning, because, instead of staring at a configuration
> file and not knowing where to start, you can configure it the way you want
> with the GUI, then go look and see what the GUI did. Thus, you have a
> tutorial of sorts on what commands and options in the file do. You can
then
> tinker from there, or go read up on an option to do something that the GUI
> tools are not designed to handle.
>
>
> -- Rich C.
> "Great minds discuss ideas.
> Average minds discuss events.
> Small minds discuss people."
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:04:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Free markets, by the way, are about *minimizing* costs, or rather,
>> >> maximizing efficiency. Pisses the capitalists off, I know, but
>that's
>> >> why they're 'capitalists' and not 'kings'.
>> >
>> >There is no such thing as the "free market" (except in theory).
>America
>> >claims it to be so, while still operating one of the most protected
>markets
>> >around....
>>
>> So you've been reduced to mindless rhetoric, eh? Why don't you just
>> give up? Every market with active competition is a 'free market'.
>Just
>> how silly are you prepared to be to trumpet the wonders of monopolist
>> 'technology'?
>>
>Take a look at the subsidies American farmers get and then tell me that
>there's a free market in lamb. There isn't, there are countries
>protecting their own interests. The free market is a sham.
And lamb has to do with... what? Subsidies for farmers may or may not
prevent free market competition, just as import taxes may or may not do
so. I'm not willing to believe you are competent to even discuss the
issue, however, if you can't distinguish between free markets and
methods of capitalization. Your argument is a sham. Its like saying
there is no liberty, because you can't go around stealing cars. A free
market means competition, and that's all; supply and demand determining
the cost of goods. Now, it may be true that lamb markets are not free.
It may be true that lamb markets are not free because American farmers
are subsidized. Then again, it may be true that American farmers are
subsidized in order to *ensure* that the market *is* free, and based on
competitive pricing. It may be that without subsidies, the American
farmers would not be able to maintain a profit on raising and selling
lamb, and that would prevent competition from holding down the cost of
imported lamb. Be that as it may, I've never contended that every
market in the world is a free market. Nor do I need to in order to
recognize your argument is a sham. Free markets exist whenever
competition demands efficiency and low cost from producers by providing
available alternatives to consumers should they decide to seek a better
deal from a different vendor.
--
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: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Help! Steve please come back - all is forgiven!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 20:11:28 +0200
This NG is really boring since you left. Please come back. All is
forgiven.
James
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:12:16 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:45:42 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It was the Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:56:43 GMT...
>...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > It was the Tue, 12 Sep 2000 00:32:34 GMT...
>> > ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >
>> > > > Correction: The US posters do not only produce more arrogant and
>> > > > idiotic postings that all of the European posters.
>> > >
>> > > So says you.
>> >
>> > ROTFLMAO. Talk about Americans trying to speak English.
>>
>> Again! Speaking of arrogant ignorant Europeans...
>>
>> "So says you" is a common slang term in America.
>
>So? This is the f*cking *WORLD* and not some kind of American back
>yard. I don't speak any dialect, jargon or slang in German newsgroups
>either, I speak High German like everyone.
>
>If you expect the world to understand you if you speak some kind of
>strange regional slang, *you* are arrogant.
Considering the level of American cultural contamination of
the rest of the planet, this isn't quite so arrogant. Really,
where do you think Americans pick up their idiosyncratic
usage patterns?
--
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:13:13 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:56:49 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>Of course. Nothing I say, no matter if I met your current requirements
>or
>> >>not, would be acceptable to you. You'd just change your requirements
>like
>> >>you're doing right now.
>> >
>> >I might change the way I explain why a hammer falls to the ground when
>> >dropped, but that won't change the way gravity works, Erik. I'm sorry
>> >you can't understand why what Microsoft did was illegal. I'd be happy
>> >to continue trying to explain it, if you showed some inkling of being
>>
>> He is simply unable or unwilling to see the value in ensuring
>> that there are multiple viable competitors in any particular
>> market in a capitalist economy.
>
>I welcome competition. I use multiple OS's. I use Linux, and I develop for
>BeOS and Windows. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with an obvious idiot
>talking out of his ass.
Unless you've got some useful citations, or legal credentials
you are the pot calling the kettle black...
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: OO one more thing.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 18:16:35 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 14:01:21 -0400, Greenwood Packing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>But what I'm saying is aren't we promoting lazy users? Aren't we just going
Not necessarily. As long as the front end tools serve as a
tutorial of sorts for the underlying structure, we're not
just attracting a cabal of morons but a cabal of morons
that might be littered with more curious sorts. There is
potential common benefit from attracting those sorts of
users even if less productive ones come along for the ride.
>to end up in the same boat as windows? Yes their will be people who like to
>go farther and use the text files and the CL but from experience 9 times out
>of 10 that's not the case. All they want is to not use Microsoft, And they
10% is still not a bad yield actually. That's 10% of a group
that may have not bothered otherwise, or felt that their needs
were adequately addressed by the available network effects
(applictions).
>don't even know why. I think basically I'm talking about the people who go
>on NG's and whine about how their soundcard isn't working and beg people to
>help them but they haven't even checked a HOWTO.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS choice
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:17:01 -0500
Greenwood Packing wrote:
>
> Why is it necessary for people who favor Linux or any UNIX like OS to
> fight with those who use Windows?
One. Because windows users troll linux newsgroups with annoying
articles.
Two. Because we've all used windows and it's driven us insane.
Three. We can understand why someone would *have* to use
windows, but not why they could possibly *like* it.
Four. Because windows is just garbage.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OO one more thing.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:29:25 -0500
Greenwood Packing wrote:
>
> But what I'm saying is aren't we promoting lazy users?
Absolutely. If someone wants to sit in front of a computer and
run a program and get work done that is great.
> Aren't we just going to end up in the same boat as windows?
I don't think so because the problem with windows is not lazy
users or ease of use. The problem with windows is that is was
designed poorly with no thought for networking or multi-user
capabilities, and that it doesn't work well. Windows is NOT
"easy to use", it is a bitch. But there are a lot of windows
programs out there, and they usually work for a while.
Think of it from a sysadmin or programmers perspective. Windows
does not offer the degree of control that unix type systems do.
If I ran a linux network, of all linux workstations, I would be
able to quickly do anything for anybody. I can troubleshoot
problems more quickly - I can fix things when they go wrong.
With windows I am sometimes - well it seems most of the time -
helpless. I've had problems that were just unsolveable, forcing
me to jury-rig things. It has come to the point where windows is
so complicated and entropic that the only way to fix it most of
the time is to reinstall from scratch. The only way to
troubleshoot problems is primitive and time wasting trial and
error tactics. That is totally unacceptable to me, yet
unfortunately most people in the IT industry accept this blindly
because they know no other way. The bottom line is that I do not
have the sort of control over the system that let's me get things
done in the way I want.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Joe Glenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OO one more thing.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:30:18 -0500
I don't think we end up in the same boat as Windows at all. I think
most people have no desire to understand the inner workings of
the OS and want the OS and software to configure itself.
And if some people whine because their sound card doesn't work
then WE as a community haven't succeeded in building a smart
enough environment for the average user. (Disclaimer, I am not
trying to pretend *I* developed and GUI... but you get my point.)
Personally I learned allot about LInux from using the GUI to configure
things and figuring out what it did. You have to start somewhere. And
it think it is very important to have a good gui if we want the rest of
the world to migrate toward an operating system that is compatible
with the rest of the 'world'. I also think we need to have to be able
to run WINDOWS applications reliably before people with make the
switch. They are not ready to abandon their old software and OS. If
we can change their OS first, then we can migrate them away form
their software. But we need an OS that is as friendly as possible; we
need a good GUI for them to use.
I noticed the Mac now came out with a UNIX based OS. Good move, I
think. I have never been much of a mac fan... but I think that is a great
move to use a real operating system.
Joe
Greenwood Packing wrote:
> But what I'm saying is aren't we promoting lazy users? Aren't we just going
> to end up in the same boat as windows? Yes their will be people who like to
> go farther and use the text files and the CL but from experience 9 times out
> of 10 that's not the case. All they want is to not use Microsoft, And they
> don't even know why. I think basically I'm talking about the people who go
> on NG's and whine about how their soundcard isn't working and beg people to
> help them but they haven't even checked a HOWTO.
>
> > But some people honestly DON'T want to spend time learning how their
> > computer works. They want to just install programs and run them. For these
> > people, simple, automated GUI installation and configuration tools are
> > ideal. The cool thing about Linux is that these GUI tools are simply front
> > ends for how the system REALLY gets configured: text files. So if you
> really
> > want to delve into your computer, you can go read the config files, and
> > tinker with them directly (making backups of course.)
> >
> > It also PROMOTES learning, because, instead of staring at a configuration
> > file and not knowing where to start, you can configure it the way you want
> > with the GUI, then go look and see what the GUI did. Thus, you have a
> > tutorial of sorts on what commands and options in the file do. You can
> then
> > tinker from there, or go read up on an option to do something that the GUI
> > tools are not designed to handle.
> >
> >
> > -- Rich C.
> > "Great minds discuss ideas.
> > Average minds discuss events.
> > Small minds discuss people."
> >
> >
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
