Linux-Advocacy Digest #150, Volume #30 Thu, 9 Nov 00 23:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week....... ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup ("Les Mikesell")
Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (spicerun)
Re: Wintroll Is Lame. Sorry but it is true (Osugi)
Re: Linux get new term? (Moderator)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
The Result (was: What a mess....) (Jeff Jeffries)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Les Mikesell")
Re: What does KDE do after all ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Disapointed in the election ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:55:15 GMT
"Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a09b725$0$3668$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > no system is protected from stupidity. If he shut it down the wrong way
> > it doenst matter if he was root or not, the filesystems were still
> > mounted and were not UNmounted properly.
>
> Try NTFS.
>
Tried it - didn't like it. When the blue scandisk/checkdsk screen was still
up after a 3-day weekend of trying to fix it up, I gave up.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The laptop with Linux lasted exactly one week.......
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:55:16 GMT
"Bruce Scott TOK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> efw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>no system is protected from stupidity. If he shut it down the wrong way
> >>it doenst matter if he was root or not, the filesystems were still
> >>mounted and were not UNmounted properly.
> >
> >By The Way, is there a possibility that in the near future we will get a
> >faster way to power on/off a computer, without messing with magic words
> >and procedures? Just like the apple][. Just like a videogame. Because I
> >just like that 2 minutes of my life, actually trashed.
> >()efw
>
> Would be interesting to get the power on/off switch to send commands to
> the OS/Bios without actually turning the power off (this was discussed a
> lot circa 1994/5... don't know how or whether the boundary conditions
> for it have changed).
I think equipment has done that almost since the invention of electricity.
The
AT&T 3b2 unix boxes I used in the early 80's had soft power and would
shut down gracefully if you flipped the switch. Many new PC's go the
other direction - you give the software command yourself and when the
software shutdown is complete it toggles the power off itself so you
don't have to wait around.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Spontaneously Crashing Sun Server Coverup
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:55:16 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8uf9j0$je2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > And Win2K can cluster just as well as Solaris, and be remotedly
> > administered
> > > almost as well.
> >
> > Note that you pay several thousand extra for the Advanced Server version
> > on every box for this capability, plus some exotic hardware if you
> > want them to see the same disks. Don't give the impression that
> > normal Win2k has cluster capabilities.
>
> How much is this in regard to the cost of sun's big servers?
>
That obviously depends on how many little boxes and spares you
have to cluster to come out even.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: We will never know what the MS intruder did
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:55:16 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ufbqf$kbo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > >
> > > > You know exactly why nearly every NT box is installed either running
> > > > on FAT or with a second copy loaded on a bootable FAT partition.
> > > > If you don't, there is no way to recover from any of the common
> > > > problems that might happen to make the NTFS filesystem unbootable.
> > > > Good plan, Microsoft...
> > >
> > > Name some.
> > > Aside from trying to install LILO, I can't think of anything that
caused
> an
> > > NT to be unbootable.
> >
> >
> > Filesystem corruption, JACKASS.
>
> Oh, that is scary.
> Give some details.
> Ext2 is much more vulenarable to this thing than NTFS.
If you had any experience with NT you would know it happened to
everyone in the early days, especially back when an abnormal
network packet would crash the machine instantly. The service
packs fixed that, and over the next several years cured most of
the other common problems, but you still expect to lose power
and screw things up sometime. Note that unbootable systems
were so common that the major vendors pre-installing and any
admin with experience always put NT on a FAT filesystem. If
the box had to be secure, they would install again on another
partition with NTFS, keeping the FAT copy as an alternate boot
for recovery.
E2fs does have the same problem, but Linux installations do not
have the inherent problem that Microsoft maintained for all these
years that you are unable to boot a recovery floppy or CD to
go fix an NTFS problem. There are any number of Linux boot
floppies around and most distribution CD's will double as a rescue disk.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:56:16 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8udj0o$46q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> > And how would you do this?
>
> The only sanctioned way to do anything in Unix, of course - by editing a
> text file !
Don't you like consistency? I learned to edit text files on the first
computer
I ever used, and have never found it to be a problem. On the other hand
every time I pop up the 'run' button on a windows box at work I find that
the last thing used was the "real" windows user interface: regedit.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:58:17 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8udvu9$32i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> It should execute
> > nothing and give a warning about anything that it can't display with
> > a safe viewer. Then the users, seeing an unusual warning would
> > be able to delete the virus attempt instead of all their normal
multimedia
> > messages.
>
> There are no safe viewers. Period.
> Or do you want outlook to come with a whole bundle of software just to
check
> your email?
> You could hear the cries from atlantis.
Oh - I forgot that you only have Microsoft products and their consistency
means your point is correct about having no safe programs. It is hopeless.
You better just give up and keep one computer for email and surfing and a
different one where you do your banking and work. On unix, being
multi-user
and networked from the start, programs have always been written with at
least some concept of security and reasonable behavior around untrusted
content.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 02:57:16 GMT
"Curtis" <alliem@kas*spam*net.com> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote...
> > Every mailer that lets the attachment content execute it's choice of
> > interpreter whether it is a program known to be safe or not is broken.
> > That just happens to be the kind that Microsoft wrote.
>
> But how can that happen? Outlook opens the file using the default
> associated application as defined by the user of the system. The file
> cannot determine what opens it. That's ridiculous.
Are you trying to claim that all the people who opened
ILOVEYOU.TXT.vbs really were well advised about
how this was different from other email, knew exactly
what would happen next, and blew up their networks
on purpose? What is ridiculous is that they had no
idea, and no way of telling what it was about to do.
Also, was it the sender that chose to send this to
a program interpreter or not?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:05:19 GMT
"Clifford W. Racz" wrote:
> "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Just a point of fact - Windoze will *require* swap space, even with 512 MB
> > of RAM. It's so a crashdump can be written to disk before the system
> > checks out, in the event of a crash (which BTW is far more likely under
> > Windoze)...
> >
> > --
> > Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
> > jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
> > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
>
> I have yet to, in 9 months of daily usage, have Windows 2000 lockup once.
> But Linux never locked up either, once i got it running.
>
> My Windows 2000 disk cost me $5.
For most people, it costs $120 for upgrade, or over $276 for the full version.
Don't even go there assuming that everyone can get your student discount.
> Took me 2 hours to set up. Since I get
> paid (as a contractor so i work as little or as much as I choose) $20 an
> hour;
You sure aren't a serious contractor.....or you know your work is not worth
even a discount from the industry's contract rate (Try $75-$400 per hour to
start next time).
> I figure Win2000 cost me a total of $45 to get running.
So you spent 2 hours to install W2K according to your math. If you were
running professional rates (not the professional student rate you are
claiming), and let's say your time might have been worth $90/hr., This makes
$180 of your time plus and upgrade disk for $120, making your job worth $300
for those two hours. I assume your install took only 2 hours because your
machine probably already had a running copy of NT so that everything was
already configured. The upgrade just put on the new packages, and you were
done. I'm certain you didn't even have to configure your network that already
had the settings from your NT system.
> In contrast,
> Linux has cost me an estimated $1000 and netted me very little in return.
According to your math, you spent 500 man hours or 12.5 work weeks. I'll give
you the benefit of the doubt and allocate you $400 for adding a Hard Disk and
other cards you felt you had to buy to work with Linux. That means you still
spent 300 man hours or 7.5 work weeks. I think even Claire could install Linux
within 2 man weeks <if he put his mind to it and really was trying to use Linux
seriously>. This tells me that your work isn't even worth $20 per hour if it
takes that long to install Linux from scratch on your system. I'd hate to see
how much time it would have taken you to even install Win2K from scratch on a
machine without any OS or previous OS on it.
> Idon't care who Claire is...
With your apparent contracting skills, I don't care who you are. You aren't
coming anywhere near my computers (including my wife's WinME system).
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wintroll Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:03:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Angular Turnip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Linux simply put is a piece of crap. I installed Mandrake 7.2
yesterday
> on a generic home built system and I can't believe that anyone but a
> real techie would switch from Windows just to run Linux.
(snipped useless wonderings)
> I booted the CD and it froze solid. Thinking I might have a bad burn,
I
> burned another and had the same problem. So now I leach another copy
off
> the web and try again. Same problem. Thinking maybe my system is
hosed I
> try and boot some other bootable CD's I have and they work fine. Not
one
> to give up, although I guess most people would have given up by now,
> read the readme files which are a convoluted mess, but I finally
figure
> out how to make image floppys and I'm off. The install starts but
> freezes half way through with some kind of a segmentation fault. This
is
> becoming old at this point. I try it one one time and this time I get
> through the entire idiotic install process. Why in the world does
this
> thing need a swap partition when I have 512 meg of memory? Must be
one
> heck of a memory pig.
You used windows to burn those cds right? That is why you wondered
about bad burn before bad download. I have NEVER had a bad burn with
linux. Every linux cd image that I have downloaded and burned booted
just fine.
I find the rest of your install story almost unbelievable. Although
later you mention specific hardware, here you only say "generic home
built system". Why not give us the data on your mobo, cpu, and other
relivant hardware? Perhaps because doing so would reveal that you are
full of sh*t?
Why exactly was the install process idiotic? I found it a bit long, but
easy to understand and comprehensive, with the exception of the sound
setup (wasn't any).
> My first impressions of kde is that it looks hokey, kind of like a
cheap
> Windows clone. With no clue about what these seemingly thousands of
> applications in the menues do, I go for the games. What a
disappointment
> that turned out to be. I think my father used to play these when he
was
> a kid. Even Windows comes with a decent pinball;l machine game. Lame.
Why is kde hokey? What about it made you think that?
and wft are you thinking, judging an os by the games that come with the
install?
> Poking around I start up something called vi which I guessed was some
> kind of editor or something? How the hell do you work that thing? All
it
> does is beep at me and after 5 minutes of beeping I was about to put
a
> screwdriver through my 21 inch monitor. Speaking of monitors, mine
> wasn't listed but my video card was. What the heck is all that
verbage
> about hz and modes and crap? I want a 1024x768 picture. I don't need
to
> know about every pixel on the screen.
Troll alert: you intensionally chose the most arcane editor, and then
complain when you cannot understand it. If you don't know anything
about any of the programs that were installed, you have no license to
complain when you don't know how to use them. At the very least, start
with the programs that are on the panel, not buried deep in the k menu.
Shit man, think about it - you download close to 1.5 gig of os and
software for FREE and then bitch that you don't understand the
programs. If you are that new to linux, spend $40 on a commercial
package and get the phone / email support and the printed manuals that
come with it. But since you are most likely a troll, you have to
pretend like this option doesn't exist.
BTW, IIRC, I wasn't even asked about my monitor, it just worked. So did
3d accelleration. Windows has never set that up for me during install.
Don't think it can even.
Moving right along to my sound
> board which seems to be silent I stumble on the kde control panel but
> every time I try to launch the mixer application I get some message
> about /dev/mixer not available? I have a soundblaster Live Platinum
> card. Maybe I need a driver?
This is a legitimate complaint - try sndconfig (or something like
that), from a terminal.
(snip wintroll whining about unsupported hardware)
Is it getting harder to find common but unsupported software to
complain about?
> I manage to get an internet connection running, no easy trick, and
the
> kde web browser seems pretty decent, but based upon all of the
> incompatabilities I have encountered so far, I wonder how compatible
it
> is with Internet Explorer 5.5.
WTF should it be compatible with ie? Hopefully they would both be
compatible with official html standards, yes?
Again, you leave out specifics - what trouble did you have getting the
internet connection (modem? cable? some other?) working?
What "incompatibilities" have you noticed so far?
> I tried to set up my network but it didn't work. I could ping myself
but
> not the other machine. This was trivial under Windows and worked from
> the start.
Again, a total lack of details.
And maybe you can help me with a windows problem I am having. The two
machines are set up properly but cannot "see" each other. neither
appears in the others "network neighborhood", but file transers are
possible if you type the location into the address bar. Network games
also work just fine. Strange isn't it? All the setting are correct, but
nothing appears in network neighborhood.
Networking with my linux boxes, on the other hand, either works
perfectly or not at all.
> Why is everything seem so complicated with Linux?
>
> I've played with Linux for a couple of days now and I am giving it
the
> boot right out to the curb. Linux seems to want me to buy new
hardware
> just to use it. Sure there a lot of free programs included, but most
of
> them are useless to me. The others are more like toys compared to
what I
> use under Windows and while I do have to download share and freeware
for
> Windows, it is worth it because the applications are so much better
and
> easier to use.
Totally subjective. And you gloss over much of the cost involved with
Windows programs.
> Adobe Photoshop which came with my $99 scanner is one example.
Paintshop
> Pro is another example. That Gimp program seems to need all kinds of
> plugins to do anything useful. And even if these programs are already
on
> my system Gimp can't figure out where they are and neither can I.
As far as I am aware, this is pure fud. Unless you screwed up your
install, the gimp should work just fine from the start. And it does
more than the typical home user needs. (I have never compared it
feature-to-feature with photoshop or paintshop pro).
> It is simply too hostile a system to work under. I want to use my
> computer not build a new one.
(snip of more wintroll whining)
> Linux is just plain complicated and lame.
Linux might be complicated (but then many people consider the clock on
their vcr complicated). Linux is not lame. Your pathetic desire to
spread misunderstandings about linux is lame, as is your attempt.
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Moderator <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.politics.election
Subject: Re: Linux get new term?
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000 22:21:59 -0500
"Bradley J. Milton" wrote:
>
> Now that Bush won the election, what does that mean for Linux?
> I understand that the White House uses a lot of Windoze now. Do
> you think this trend will continue under the new administration,
> or is there hope that there will be more support for Alternate
> OS'es for the Internet Age?
Seeing how the republican party has sided with Microsoft in this
anti-trust case, and has even considered passing legislation that
wouldn't let Microsoft not be a monopoly, I doubt it.
And it isn't decided yet. The difference is down to 217 votes, with
a few largely democratic counties that haven't finished counting.
--
-Moderator
"Unfairly but truthfully, our party has been tagged as
being against things. Anti-immigrant, for example."
-George W. Bush, New York Times, 7/2/2000
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:31:50 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8udjdo$rnk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > Wilful, deliberate, ignorant and just plain stupid misinterpretation
of
> he
> > > said does _not_ help you in any way, it just makes you look childish.
> >
> > So the people who are spreading the virus are really
> > doing the right thing by opening it, in your opinion?
>
> Opening an email does not spread a virus.
>
Is that the 'guns don't kill people' argument?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:36:45 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > I've never had a problem with an NT fileserver.
> >
> > If you really trust it, completely fill a large NTFS filesystem with
> > tiny files. See if it ever the same afterwards. I suspect that may
> > have happened some time or another. Most (but not all) unix
> > filesystems consume directory space and slow down access
> > in directories that have once had a huge number of files, but
> > this goes away when you delete the directory and create a
> > new one.
>
> I'm surprised nobody has ever fixed that yet.
>
> directories should always be compacted by one block whenever possible.
Some of them might. I think many will truncate the directory back
to nothing or one block when the last file is removed without
having to remove the directory itself. However, I have heard that
NTFS has a table somewhere that grows as you add files and it
never releases the space until you reformat.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Jeffries)
Crossposted-To: comp.graphics.api.opengl,comp.os.linux.x,comp.unix.programmer
Subject: The Result (was: What a mess....)
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:42:27 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
>That said, requiring all of KDE might be a bit much. But basing his
>code on Qt might make a lot of sense.
>
>
>>For that reason, I'd recommend Motif.
>
>Only if he doesn't want to make a Windows version.
In fact, I have decided on Qt. There are a million libraries. I was
tempted to wonder, how can all these different libraries be truly
compatible with all the different *nixs?
Well, thanks to the internet and lots of questions on lots of newsgroups
and mailing lists, I think I've come up to speed enough to make a choice,
and just as importantly revise my world view of the future of unix (and
I'd love to hear thoughtful comments on this).
Pretty soon now, the tool-selecting issue is not going to be "is this
going to be compatible with all the platforms." Rather, the issue will be,
"which one of the multitude of options the linux army has produced will
still be around in five years?"
Because....Linux is becoming THE Unix (whether everyone likes it or
not...I do). SGI, Sun, everyone will support Linux. Then, eventually there
will be no reason to develop under Solaris or Irix when you can develop
for all platforms not by choosing GNOME becuase it's available on multiple
*nixs, but by choosing Linux, becuase it's going to run on every Unix box.
This will free you to select any Linux tool you want. So which one should
you want?
Since I started asking my questions to figure out what environment to use
for my project, I have been informed about 10 or 20 solutions. I want my
development environment, as well as my run time environment (the libraries
the app will depend on) to still be around in five years. Which of these
options will be?
The answer is obvious. The ones that have the most momentum now have the
greatest probability of being vital in five years. The unix universe, and
the open source mentality, will always insure that there are additional
alternatives, ranging from slick to downright eccentric, available to any
mainstream solution. But I think it's safe to say that GTK+ will still be
around.
I program in C++, so would prefer KDE/Qt. So the big question for me is,
will KDE be around? I think the answer is yes. There a lot of C++ folks
out there, and I think they largely prefer KDE, unless like many they
choose based on the emerging standard. Now that KDE has their licensing
straight (right?), people will support it, for the sake of its superiority
for C++ programming.
If, on the other hand, it were written in C like GTK+, I would say Qt is
doomed. But I'm willing to gamble my recoding time that KDE will be as
viable, if not as widely used, as GTK+ in five years. Just as C++ will be,
relative to C.
Any thoughts?
Thanks for all of your answers, thoughts, and opinions, they have been
immeasurably useful.
Thanks,
Jeff
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:45:34 GMT
"Relax" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a0b4b5f$0$14416$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ketil Z Malde" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In my book, S.u.S.E has "released" Linux with ReiserFS. Does that
> > count? It's still being worked on, of course. Does that make it not
> > count?
>
> Let's put it in another way: would you bet your job on it?
Yes - I'm running it in production on some machines where the speed
of recovery after a possible power loss or other failure is important.
One machine has >100Gigs (after hardware raid eats a bit) so an
e2fsck run would take a long time. But, it hasn't been down since
the initial testing several months ago.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:47:03 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I wouldn't bet "my" job on anything with the word Linux in the
> description.
>
> claire
Since your job appears to be public relations for Microsoft, no
one would expect you to...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:48:19 +0000
DTZ wrote:
>
> I just went though the process of recompling the KDE sources (because
> the binary RPMs got me into libc trouble). This went quite flawlessly,
> except it took something like 12 hours to compile.
>
> Then I played around with it a bit, everything looked quite nice, got
> some crashes here and there, lots of noise from the harddisk but the
> overall impression was "it's nice".
>
> Then I thought to myself: I can compile a linux kernel within 20
> minutes and it does multitasking, filesystems even handles my
> soundcard, but what does KDE actually do ?
>
The Kernel is possibly smaller than KDE. I removed many of your remarks
about KDE, but in my experience (you mentioned portability) any X apps
work fine on KDE.
What it does above all else, is provide an easy desktop on Linux.
That counts for a fair bit!
Tom
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Disapointed in the election
Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 03:53:24 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I vote for the candidate I believe in, Nader. In four years Nader is
> going to be a major player, especially after Bush or Gore screws this
> entire country into the ground.
>
> claire
>
As I said before, I understand you voting for Nader, whether or not
he'll be a real player in 4 years (and I doubt that). I just think
people who voted Nader ought to have voted Gore, cos in this election,
Nader isn't a player really, and Gore is the lesser of 2 evils.
On a less pragmatic and more moral point of view - you have courage in
your convictions, so go out and change your country for the better!!!!!
Tom
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
