Linux-Advocacy Digest #219, Volume #29 Tue, 19 Sep 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: GPL & freedom ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (dc)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the ("Bobby D.
Bryant")
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools (Eric Bennett)
Re: Computer and memory (Grega Bremec)
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (Donovan Rebbechi)
Connect up to 1,7000 Suppliers. ; More than 5,7000 Active buyers (GT info)
Re: New Linux Install (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Computer and memory (Grega Bremec)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Otto")
Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge (FM)
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("Otto")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Nathan Culwell-Kanarek)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (WJP)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (Christopher Browne)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:09:21 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fNx5.2845$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sigh. The goal is to gurantee that any changes are given back to the
> > community fo furthur study/change. Again your trying to change what
> > is meant by "free".
> I don't see "guarantee that any changes are given back to the community"
in
> your first statement. It says:
> > > > " "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy,
> distribute,
> > > > study, change and improve the software."
Here is the complete text:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Point four:
"The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to
the source code is a precondition for this."
> I've already said I see nothing wrong with the goal of the GPL. What I
have
> a problem with is calling it "free". The definition of freedom is in
direct
> opposition to the goal of the license.
You are trying to take "free" out of context. Read the GPL and
you will see that it is indeed providing the freedoms that it is trying
to do. It is also more "free" than other licenses - wrt the "freedoms"
that it is trying to provide.
Stop trying to take the word "free" out of context when talking about
the GPL and your head will stop hurting ;-) (mine too :-)
> > > Now, the first three items are guaranteed by other, less restrictive
> > > licenses as well, and the last three are not more free than other
> > licenses.
> > > So I fail to see how it cain be claimed that it is.
> > Please name another license that gurantees that all derived works
> > are given back for further study/change.
> But that's just it. Now you're guaranteeing that someone elses work is
now
> available for study change, not your own work. Work that is copyright by
> someone else. Work that is owned by someone else. This is one step
removed
> from confiscation.
That is the "freedom" that the GPL is trying to gurantee. The freedom for
others to view and modify code.
Also if you base your work on my work it is not entirly your work is it?
..darcy
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:14:26 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:imNx5.2847$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If your speach incorporates my speach then it isn't really just your
> > speach is it?
> Of course not, but then your speech isn't free if you're putting
conditions
> on it's use.
Why don't you read the GPL and see how it is using the word "free"?
Free doesn't mean "no conditions" it means "availability" (among other
things).
> The GPL violates someone elses civil rights.
No it does not - nobody is forced into using the GPL.
> The right to do what *I* want with my own code.
Only if you base your code on GPL code.
> Even if my code is based on your code, it's still *MY*
> code and I am the copyright owner. Even the GPL acknowledges that.
Yes it does - and requires you to give back to the community so
others can benefit from the work. If you don't like that don't
use the GPL.
> > > The argument here seems to be that outlawing walls, fences, cages, and
> all
> > > other kinds of obstructions guarantees freedom. Except that it
ignores
> > that
> > > a certain percentage of the people *LIKE* to live behind walls, enjoy
> > fences
> > > and like the fact that obstructions keep others out as much as they
keep
> > > them in.
> > And they don't have to use GPL.
> They may have to. They may be forced to (see my other argument about
third
> parties distributing my non-GPL'd code with GPL'd code).
I'd need to see a legal case to proove that. The third part presumably
broke the contract. I doubt that the GPL requirements could be enforced.
Do you have a court case to indicate otherwise?
> > > That percentage of the population should be free to live within a
> > > cage if they want to. Forcing them to live in the wilderness is
> violating
> > > their freedom.
> > Nobody is forcing people to use GPL.
> Actually, the GPL does force others to use the GPL.
This ought to be interesting...
> The description of the GPL even talks about this force.
> Basically it encourages employees of
> companies to use GPL'd code, and then when the company goes to release the
> code it should be "explained" to them that they can't do so without
> releasing the source. GNU then says "The majority of them will go ahead
and
> release the source rather than not make the tool available".
The employees make the choice to use GPL though. Your just
"unhappy" about who made the choice (and rightfully so).
..darcy
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 20:15:03 -0500
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:52:12 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >> >> >Go read Paul 'Z' Ewande's reply to my post and maybe you'll
>> >> >> >learn a thing or two yourself.
>> >> >> Why? It's common knowledge.
>> >> >Then why didn't you give a few examples?
>> >> Why didn't you know?
>> >Because I haven't used W2K. I thought I already told you that.
>> We've talked about it so frequently here that I don't buy that excuse.
>
>Not with me you haven't.
And you skip all .advocacy messages that aren't addressed to you? You
skip all messages except those directly addressed to you? We both
know that's not true.
>> >> >> >One might think you didn't know any more
>> >> >> >than I do on W2K.
>> >> >> Why? Because you aren't paying me to educate you?
>> >> >Why should I pay you? You obviously don't have a clue.
>> >> How so?
>> >In that you apparently don't know the difference between W2K and Win98.
>> Proof?
>
>Your failure to provide examples of the diferences between the two. "Paul
>'Z' Ewande" was able to rattle off a brief list with no problem. Why
>couldn't you?
You act as if I should jump every time you ask a stupid question.
Don't be silly. You can go to www.microsoft.com as easily as anyone
else.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 19:26:42 -0500
Jason N wrote:
> It's simply software bugs and poor design. Enough said. The next version of
> windows is supposesd to fix all this.
Ah, at least they understand the concept of invariants!
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:27:20 -0400
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > We ALSO know that CFC are extremely heavy molecules that really
> > > > don't make it into the upper atmosphere.
> > >
> > > Wasn't the 3.6ppb the concentration IN the upper atmosphere? So we
> > > know
> > > they ARE there.
> >
> > I don't believe those figures.
> >
> > 3.6ppb at ground level...MAYBE...in the upper atmosphere? not a chance.
>
> Well, then, could the person who originally provided that figure please
> provide a reference?
I certainly don't find the above logic very convincing in the absence of
some sort of real calculations to back it up. Obviously "it's heavy"
and "it's light" isn't precise enough, or there would be no helium at
sea level, yet according to my chemistry textbook it is there at 5 parts
per million.
The absolute mass differences with CFCs are much bigger, but the
relative mass differences are smaller. Dinitrogen has a mass of 28,
helium a mass of 4... a sevenfold difference. I'm not sure this is the
proper relationship to use, but if it is, then sevenfold is not enough
of a mass difference to entirely exlude molecules based on weight. And
the mass difference between N2 and CFCl3 is less than sevenfold, so if
we apply this standard, mass alone would not prevent CFC presence in the
upper atmosphere. Maybe my relationship is wrong but somehow I doubt
Aaron is going to provide us with the exact relationship between mass
and ideal distribution of gases in a simple planetary atmosphere system.
So, I'd like to see some numbers to show that the mass effect is big
enough to substantiate a claim that CFCs "don't make it into the upper
atmosphere". It doesn't sound right to me at all.
What my book does say is that mixing across the major boundaries of the
atmosphere is thought to be very slow... which as far as I can tell has
nothing in particular to do with masses.
Meanwhile, here is an indirect observation that seems relevant:
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/noah/publictn/elkins/cfcs.html
=====
Large amounts of reactive stratospheric chlorine in the form of chlorine
monoxide (ClO) that could only result from the destruction of ozone by
the CFCs in the stratosphere were observed by instruments onboard the
NASA ER-2 aircraft and UARS (Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite) over
some regions in North America during the winter of 1992.
=====
So, clearly we are getting reactive chlorine in the upper atmosphere.
If CFCs are not the delivery mechanism, perhaps Aaron will propose how
it arrives there. Presumably is would not be diatomic chlorine, since
by Aaron's above argument that too would be too heavy to get there
(indeed, the mere fact that *any* chlorine compounds are there *at all*
would seem at odds with his assertions).
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:26:18 GMT
...and Steve Mading used the keyboard:
>
>It's a common misconception that Godwin's law is about any mention
>of Hitler at all. This isn't true. It's specifically about comparing
>a person to Hitler, as in, "You are like Hitler because....".
OK, I stand corrected and apologize for my misconception.
Anyways, the entire thread had degenerated into something so senseless
by now that I don't think my claim was far away from being true though.
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 20 Sep 2000 01:28:30 GMT
On Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:24:41 GMT, Richard wrote:
[ snip ]
I completely disagree with your contention that filenames and file types
are ( or should be ) strongly related.
Consider this -- which is more intuitive:
pulldown menu ->
rename file
....
or
pulldown menu ->
rename file
change file type
I'd consider the latter more intuitive.
from a cli perspective, you could do something like this:
file change [tab]
and tab completion gives the following output:
name
type
mtime
access
...
IOW, I think these could be "related", but I believe your coupling
of these two things is artificial.
As for APIs, I believe that my way is nicer for programmers, but
this is really a secondary concern. My primary concern is that storing
type info in the name is unintuitive *for the user*
>I'm sure that the fact my conclusions are perceived as a personal
>attack to the readers has nothing to do with it, right? It's only a
>reaction to the abstract affront of my /over/generalizing ....
Well, both. Of course people get pissed off when you insult them.
>> What do you mean by "complicating" ?
>
>Two functions instead of one. Two different things to learn
>and memorize. Two entries in a reference book. Two methods
>in the class definition.
For the user, see above. I don't think my way makes things harder.
For programming ? Nothing's more annoying than learning one function
that does several different things, especially things that you wouldn't
expect it to do.
>Side effects are inevitable. The only question is how obvious
>they are. The meaning of extensions seems pretty obvious to
>me, as long as you have meaningful extension names.
Yes, because you "grew up" with extensions.
>> No one's going to take you seriously while you continue to post
>> these bigoted, spiteful and downright ignorant comments. Programmers
>> are not terribly nasty people. They are certainly considerably less
>> bitter than you seem to be.
>
>So why is it that programmers keep complaining about "Real Lazy"
>users?
There you go again, acting like a bigot. Not all programmers "do it",
not all the people who "do it" are programmers, and the programmers
that "do it" do not "keep complaining".
> And why is it that they resent users' perfectly reasonable
>demands and perfectly accurate criticisms?
Again, you're over generalising, and ranting like a bigot.
> And why is it that they
>write software that acts like a mean son of a bitch towards users?
Lots of reasons. I've already discussed this.
(*) "Bad design" tends to have a lot to do with design that is hobbled
by compatibility requirements. Which, may I remind you, are imposed
by the *users*.
(*) Obviously, not every feature in existence can be implemented. This
is due to development time constraints, which again, are ultimately
imposed by the users.
>But it only seems to be against users, and that's hatred and bigotry.
I doubt that many developers despise *all* users of their software.
>And you should know that intolerance of intolerance does not
>make one a bigot.
You aren't displaying "intolerance of intolerance", you are displaying
a blanket hatred directed at a certain group ( namely "programmers" ).
And that, is bigotry.
BTW, this rhetoric against the "programmers" isn't much different to
the rhetoric levelled at certain groups by histories most famous bigots.
The "programmers", like the "communists", the "landlords", etc make
a convenient target for your irrational hatred. However, if you actually
met a few "programmers", you'd find that very few actually matched your
propgandistic, bigoted charicature.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: GT info <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Connect up to 1,7000 Suppliers. ; More than 5,7000 Active buyers
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 09:40:16 +0800
Taiwan leading B2B portal site : "Taiwan Products Online".
http://www.manufactures.com.tw
http://www.taiwansource.com/ )
Sources for buyers or sellers, importers or exporters, distributors or
manufacturers. Checkout the following website profile :
__________________
Suppliers: 1,7000.
Active Buyers: 5,7000.
Pageview : 1,650,000( Monthly )
__________________
Services include :
All Taiwan / China Online Companies Search Engine.
B2B marketplace.
Buyers List.
Taiwan Trade Opportunity:
Offer to Buy.
Offer to Sell.
Free e mail account for Trade Visitors.
Product Promotions.
New Product Announcements.
C l e a r a n c e.
Total EC solution, etc.
__________________
39 Product Categories.
17 Industry Sites:
__________________
Computer Sources.
Electronics Network.
Machinery Directory.
Furniture Net.
Textile Network.
Taiwan Hardware.
Toolsource Online.
Taiwan Bicycle Net.
Auto Parts Directory.
Packaging Network.
Construction Online.
Toys & Children's Goods.
Sports Goods Online.
Telecom Net.
Office Suppliers Online.
Gift Web Online.
Houseware.
__________________
We aim to facilitate international trade and to provide unparalleled
matchmaking service between buyers and suppliers. It is just as easy as
a click to unlock the power of b2b commerce on the Internet for buying,
selling and sourcing orders.
We sincerely invite you to visit our website and wish your
business going better.
Best Regards,
Taiwan Products Online
( http://www.manufactures.com.tw
http://www.taiwansource.com/ )
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: New Linux Install
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:01:57 GMT
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 11:51:45 -0400,
James M. Luongo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I plan on installing Linux Mandrake 7.1 for the first time. I need some
: help. How big should the partitions be? And, I heard something about
: LiLo not recognizing a Linux partition after a certain disk cylinder (or
: sector, whatever). I think it was 1023, but I'm not sure. Is this
: true? Help!
Since you're installing Mandrake 7.1, the 1024 cylinder limit is a
non-factor. Why? It uses grub for its bootloader, so no 1024 cylinder
limit..
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:45:54 GMT
...and Nathaniel Jay Lee used the keyboard:
>
>Self realization sucks;-). I think that's what my dad was
>trying to say (in his ever eloquent way).
Self realization hurts, until you realize that the pain comes from
your bonds being broken. After that, it turns into relief.
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:47:11 GMT
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: : If it is connected to Internet, then it is vulnerable. Your system might
be
: : more protected than others, nonetheless, it isn't fool-proof.
:
: No, it's connected to the 'net, 24x7 even. I never claimed it was 100%
: invulnerable to any sort of attack. You seem so very fond of the recent
: rpc.statd and wu-ftpd attacks. Well, I'm not running NFS, so rpc.statd
: is a non-factor (though I installed the patches anyway), and I'm not
: running an FTP server either, though I do have an FTP daemon installed,
: and it's not wu-ftpd. By virtue of either using a different package, or
: not running the affected software, my machines are in fact, not vulnerable
: to the attacks you've been harping on.
I'd care less about the rpc.statd and wu-ftpd attacks, my point was that no
system connected to the web can be considered invulnerable.
: : The very same ping/syn flood can take out your own network also for the
: : duration of the retaliation. Check-mate comes to mind, not to mention
the
: : fact that hackers can gang up on you and then you are really in trouble.
You
: : won't have a chance to defend a ping/syn flood with the same.
:
: ping flood, yes, but that's not a security compromise. That's just a DoS
: attack. syn floods are another DoS, but can be avoided using an IDS. I
: may be wrong here (not likely), but I've never heard of a root compromise
: that was the result of a ping or syn flood. Besides, you're getting hit
: with big nasty ping floods? Call your ISP, they'll be glad (if they're
: worth more than a nickel) to block the ICMP requests bound for your
: netblock(s) at their border routers.
Syn flood can be used for buffer overflow attacks, which can make a system
vulnerable. The attacker can insert his/her own code, at the time of the
buffer overflow with system access and then game is over. Check Point
Firewall-1 does have a syn-defender mechanism in place, however it isn't
foolproof depending on the servicepack being used. The ping flood is just a
DoS. It seems that you have a high opinion on the IDS, which I disagree
with. That's not to say that it can't help, most certainly can. However, it
is not a bullet-proof solution.
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: filename extensions are NOT a kludge
Date: 20 Sep 2000 01:29:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Brian Langenberger wrote:
>> If one ignores all the current file naming conventions, there are
>> two problems at need to be solved:
>> 1) The system needs to know what programs can act upon a given file.
>But this is wrong. You aren't doing typing, you're doing type CHECKING!
The analogy fails quite miserably.
>The system most emphatically does *not* need to know what can act on
>what. The system only needs to know what the user *wants* to act on
>what.
That's what the current system already allows you to do.
If the user has to specify all that manually, then we
already have that system. If the system somehow tries to
guess what the user wants and allows the user to change
the default association, that's already there too. Your
reasoning is not only senseless, but it's getting more
inconsistent as well.
>If the user wants to give garbage input to a program, why the fuck do
>you
>want to stop him?
Why the fuck do you think that's what he says? Of course
some programs won't be able to make sense of some input,
but that's exactly what the standard unix UI allows one
to do, simply allow the user to use whatever combination
of programs and data.
>And people still claim programmers aren't on power
>trips?? Sheesh! (And if the only reason you don't want your program to
>run on random input is because it will cause it to crash and expose it
>as
>bug-ridden ...)
Geez, if the programmer wants to allow the user to use
any combination of data and programs as Unix does, then
he hates users because users won't be able to find the
right combinations, and if the programmer decides to
help that out by allowing default associations, then he
is doing that so that his bugs won't be exposed? Yeah
that makes a lot of sense.
>I've said it before and I'm saying it again; you have had your brain
>fried
>by C/C++.
I think your brain's been fried by fire and a wrong dose
of Smalltalk
>> In the case of the first problem - what a file actually contains -
>> the system has little need for an extra tag to tell it what it can
>> already figure out quite easily.
>Correct. But irrelevant and antisocial.
You fit the latter two adjectives rather well.
>> .../pictures/vacation/...
>> .../movies/vacation/...
>You use both if you want. But sorry, not in Unix because Unix
>doesn't have multiple logical containment. Another fuckup in
>the design.
Actually it's simply that you don't know what you're
talking about. Unix has no problem doing both. Other
schemes of data arrangement could be better in this
regard, but they fall short for other purposes.
>> Anyway, the point of all this is that there are better ways
>> to store file information than merely appending letters
>> to the ends of them. We should look for better solutions
>> to these sorts of problems. But in truth, I doubt we'll see
>> the file extensions vanishing anytime soon.
>Typing information is a unique kind of metadata, vastly
>different from any other kind of metadata. For one thing,
>types are likely to be reused again and again, and they have
>to be portable across components in a machine and even
>across machines. Directories are not so portable.
Nor is ANY new scheme that anyone's going to invent for
a new system. We already have MIME types for portable
types, though it's not so well standardized when it's
used to encompass all kinds of proprietary data.
Dan.
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:58:47 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: Otto wrote:
: >
: > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
: > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
: >
: > : > Oh wow, hundreds of systems are compromised on the daily basis with
old
: > : > exploits. Availability means nothing, applying the patch might. It
: > doesn't
: > :
: > : Are you implying that patches should automatically seek out un-patched
: > : systems, and automagically install themselves?
: >
: > No, I had no intent to do so. There's way too many exploits possible
with
: > the "auto" update.
: >
: > Otto
:
: Then what the fuck are complaining about, asshole?
I wasn't aware that you'd need a reason to complain in this newsgroup. You
are most certainly one of the people in this newsgroup, who should be
treated on the same way as you treat people. However, that would require
someone to sink down to your level i.e.. lonely and bitter Unix
administrator who's time passed by, which I refuse to do. So long Aaron....
Otto
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathan Culwell-Kanarek)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:02:35 GMT
On 20 Sep 2000 00:58:58 GMT, "Anthony D. Tribelli"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You do realize that OS/2 1.x was Microsoft's second attempt to dump DOS
>and that Microsoft's first attempt to dump DOS was Xenix? WinNT (aka OS/2
>NT) a third attempt? But those damn end users ...
I thought that OS/2 was IBM, not Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:09:51 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 19:36:45 +0100, "Nigel Feltham"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>If someone needs dos, they could try Free Dos.
>
>
>How many new computer buyers purchasing machines with Win-me preinstalled
>and then finding they need a flash upgrade and cannot start in dos will
>actually
>know of the existance of freedos / dr-dos (also at least partially free) and
>any
>other free versions of dos that may exist as many new buyers will only know
>the software they had in their hardware bundle and to them no other
>operating
>systems exist except what they are using.
>
Just a quick comment from an OS/2 Warp 4.0 - Slackware 7.1 - Windows
98SE user.
Win-me will not recognize autoexec.bat and config.sys files, except for
those lines containing the "set" instruction. I may be wrong, but, I
think that Win-me ignores these files upon boot-up, which effectively
prevents using any other DOS on the same partition as Win-me.
I installed Win-me on two "home-brew" computers - this one, and, after
that didn't work out so well, my wife's. Neither install lasted longer
than seven hours because of : lack of driver support for legacy cards,
lack of flexibility in the M$ file explorer layout, and the lack of
support for certain software packages which rely on DOS - i.e.,
Partition Magic and Drive Image.
Just my $.02
Bill
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 02:09:15 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Nathan Culwell-Kanarek would say:
>On 20 Sep 2000 00:58:58 GMT, "Anthony D. Tribelli"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You do realize that OS/2 1.x was Microsoft's second attempt to dump DOS
>>and that Microsoft's first attempt to dump DOS was Xenix? WinNT (aka OS/2
>>NT) a third attempt? But those damn end users ...
>
>I thought that OS/2 was IBM, not Microsoft.
I knew people who did co-op work terms in Redmond, Washington, working
on OS/2 back in the late 1980s.
IBM may have _funded_ it, but roughly until the time of version 1.3,
Microsoft was contracted by IBM to write a whole lot of the _code._
Some of that code actually survived to OS/2 2.0... :-(
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/>
Rules of the Evil Overlord #134. "If I am escaping in a large truck
and the hero is pursuing me in a small Italian sports car, I will not
wait for the hero to pull up along side of me and try to force him off
the road as he attempts to climb aboard. Instead I will slam on the
brakes when he's directly behind me. (A rudimentary knowledge of
physics can prove quite useful.)" <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
