Linux-Advocacy Digest #302, Volume #30 Sun, 19 Nov 00 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (Uncle Fester)
Re: It's even worse than I thought. (Gary Hallock)
Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory??? (munke)
Re: Need some advice on Linux (nickr_21045)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: It's even worse than I thought. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("Tom Wilson")
Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux ("Todd")
Re: It's even worse than I thought. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: It's even worse than I thought. ("Todd")
Re: wahoo! I'm running now ("Todd")
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux ("jason")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Uncle Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:13:27 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You do if you plan on converting that vinyl collection you found in
> mom's attic to mp3's (click and pop filter plugin's) or making uncle
> george's accordian solo at your wedding sound presentable on the
> cassette copy you promised the guests.
>
> Direct-X allows the use of all types of plugin's for programs like
> SoundForge and it allows manipulation of the sound as well as
> interoperability between programs (ie: the plugin appears as a menu
> item in all programs that support Direct-X).
>
> Linux isn't even in the same league.
I suppose you tell people in the BeOS NG's the same thing? Sorry, but I
refuse to get entangled in all this proprietary software. Even if my
system *were* substandard because of it, (which it is NOT), it would be
well worth it to get the proprietary monkey off my back.
Enjoy your M$ and have a nice day.
--
Chuck Kandler
Never underestimate the power of
Stupid People in large groups.
Registered Linux User #180746
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 23:28:22 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 01:32:09 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Excellent post Charlie. Couldn't say it any better. Claire's
> >remarks about her/his trip to CompUSA was interesting. Do you
> >really hear all that just walking around a store? Those were
> >the sort of anecdotes only a person working in the store would
> >get. Yup, Claire must be a sales person in a computer store
> >somewhere. Probably shows a fair amount of cleavage to distract
> >the customer from what they are buying. :-)
>
> Actually yes you do, especially when you are forced to use CompUSA's
> idiotic method of purchasing some items, like the hard drive I was
> buying.
>
> Step one: Go to the counter where the hard drives are displayed in a
> locked cabinet behind the counter.
>
> Step two: Wait for the salesperson, one of two, to finish with the
> other two idiots (2 of the ones I mentioned in the other thread).
>
> Step Three: Tell him what you want and he gets some number from it and
> writes it on a slip of paper he hands you.
>
> Step Four: Go to the cashier in another part of the store and wait in
> line because she is the only one open and there are 4 people in front
> of you.
>
> Step Five: Pay for the item.
>
> Step Six: Go back to the same counter where the hard drives are and
> wait in line again as the two salespersons are now dealing with two
> other clueless people.
>
> Step Seven: When it is finally your turn, hand the person your paid
> receipt and he goes in the back room and gets the product and stamps
> your receipt.
>
> Step Seven: Wait in line yet again as the security guard checks every
> package against your receipt as you leave the store.
>
> Step Eight: Drive home like a maniac and reflect on why you generally
> purchase these items over the net.
>
> Yes Roy, you can pick up quite a bit of information at CompUSA.
>
> claire
If CompUSA is really that bad then why do you keep hanging out there and
telling your poor stories here. I think you protest too much.
Gary
------------------------------
From: munke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Can't find PC133 memory???
Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:43:10 -0800
Jolf wrote:
> I bought a new mother board, PC chips' VIA KT133 board, with duron and
> 128 M Pc133 RAM.
> But my linux can't recognize all my memory. It tell me that all I have
> is only 64M RAM!!!
> I tried Mandrake 7.0, Redhat 6.0(RH6.2 doesn't work), the same results.
>
> Under win98, 128M Ram is recognized.
>
> Anybody know the problem?
>
> Thanks,
>
Redhat always seemed deficient in this area.......Mandrake has a dialog
box in the expert install process.
When prompted to enable hdparm et cetera there is an option "append" here
you can choose to specify your own memory settings in MB.
You can also enter this line at the lilo prompt
before the kernel boots
example:
LILO: # at this prompt type
LILO: linux mem=128M
this will have to be done each time you startup
or you can edit the file /etc/lilo.conf
add this line to lilo
append="linux mem=128M" this will ensure that your mem is detected
everytime...
i have since switched to Caldera 2.4 running Helix Gnome as the
desktop....the best yet
/\/munke
------------------------------
From: nickr_21045 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Need some advice on Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 04:56:41 GMT
In article <8uvcrc$8ih$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A PC (AMD Athlon 1 Ghz) has been shipped to me with Windows Me
> installed in it. The disk size is 30 GB. I wanted to know what I need
> to do now to install Linux on it (but retain the Windows Me). Please
> advise. I am new to Linux but I have always used Unix and I bought the
> PC so that I could install and learn Linux on it.
> Thanks
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
I have a 6 gig hard drive with windows 98, used FIPs on it with my
fingers crossed and was able to shrink downto 3 gigs.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 05:51:56 GMT
"Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> >
> > > I'm not knocking VC++ here, just stating a fact. We are useing VC++
and
> > > the *.exe run slower than similar programs written in C.
> >
> > Out of curiosity, are you utilizing MFC heavily or have you decided to
wrap Win32
> > functions yourselves. I've seen some massive performace increases by
doing my
> > own wrapping. (Not to mention eliminating a LOT of memory leaks)
> >
> A little of both. The live project has lots of legacy code that is
> difficult to do touch, but seems well written. We have a speed problem
> that we have been attacking by your method. Memory leaks haven't been
> much of a problem. We added 64Meg ram to each system and they stay up
> for the required time. We just try not to add more leaks.
>
Windows programming bears a strong resemblence to plumbing at times, doesn't
it? <g>
The Windows project i'm involved with is on hold at the present time. I
relied heavily on MFC and am regretting it. (Leak city) Ran into problems
where ANISOTROPIC mapping produced different results on NT, 95, and 98. (Had
to do my own dynamic image and font resizing for consistant results)
YaddaYadda Yadda....
The Linux project i've just started is proving far more pleasant. I'd almost
forgotten how nice working without a dedicated IDE could be. Forces one to
think! I got far to complacent with VC++.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions
GET A LIFE!
> > <<Snipping my initital drivel>>
> >
> > --
> >
> > Tom Wilson
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Russ Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > > mlw wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I use Linux all the time, I think it is a great system. I
maintain a
> > > > > > > > Windows box, but it is never used except as a TV or for Lego
> > > > Mindstorms
> > > > > > > > for my son. At work, I am fortunate in that I can use Linux.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The one problem I have with many of Open Source people is
this sort
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > emotional dislike for C++.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I use C++ all the time, I can't even understand why someone
would
> > > > start
> > > > > > > > a non-trivial project using C. C++ is a superset of C. Most
C code
> > > > will
> > > > > > > > compile fine with C++, the exceptions being borderline
constructs
> > > > which
> > > > > > > > are probably bad form anyway.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is not a troll! I am being serious and sincere. I am a
software
> > > > > > > > engineer / architect professionally, and I have had to argue
this
> > > > point
> > > > > > > > many times with some of guys we hire. It is my role to make
sure the
> > > > > > > > right decisions are made.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Under what circumstances is "C" a better choice than "C++?"
> > > > > > > > (excluding backward compatibility in an existing product)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > http://www.mohawksoft.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Easy. It isn't an emotional dislike. C++ just isn't suitable
for the
> > > > > > > job. C++ is slower than C by an order of magnitude (almost as
slow as
> > > > > > > Java).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Huh? What compiler are you using, anyway?
> > > > > > Granted, compilation time can be a bit longer, but, I've never
> > > > experienced
> > > > > > slower execution times. With today's optimizing compilers,
that's a
> > > > > > non-sequiter. If I ever come across C++ program that runs as
slow as
> > > > > > byte-compiled Java, my first opinion would be that the
programmer
> > > > > > responsible needs to invest in a good profiler and re-think his
> > > > algorhythms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is difficult to manage any sizable project in C++. Multiple
> > > > > > > inheritance and friend functions are just two reasons. C++ is
almost
> > > > > > > impossible to maintain. C++ has all the weakness of C and none
of its
> > > > > > > advantages. I can think of any number of alternatives to both
C and
> > > > C++.
> > > > > > > But C does have the history behind it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It's difficult to manage a sizable project written in any
language. The
> > > > key
> > > > > > is consistent structure. Though, I prefer C out of familiarity,
I can
> > > > see
> > > > > > C++'s strengths. Especially where cross platform development is
> > > > concerned.
> > > > > > Placing platform specific code into class wrappers with
consistent
> > > > > > interfaces is an undeniable plus in its' favor.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Tom Wilson
> > > > > > Registered Linux User #194021
> > > > > > Also...
> > > > > > NT 4.0 User
> > > > > > Win 95/98 User
> > > > > >
> > > > > > They're operating systems...Not religions
> > > > > > GET A LIFE!
> > > > > Current project is Visual C++. On Linux, I use GPP. The speed
disparity
> > > > > isn't as great there.
> > > >
> > > > Even though I'm likely to draw flames, I rather like VC++. I've used
5.0 for
> > > > several years. I think its' the first time MS actually outdid
Borland in the
> > > > language arena. (Come to think of it, the first time was when
Borland
> > > > decided to put TurboBasic up against VB)
> > > >
> > > > At any rate, i've just started with GPP and therefore am withholding
any
> > > > opinions about its' performance.
> > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > > > > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > > > > Not Powered by ActiveX
> > >
> > > --
> > > Russ Lyttle, PE
> > > <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> > > Not Powered by ActiveX
>
> --
> Russ Lyttle, PE
> <http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
> Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 05:52:24 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No I'm saying that you Penguinista's live in a fantasy land where you
> think everyone else has nothing better to do but read How-To's in
> order to try and make Linux functional. Every single person I know who
> has tried Linux, most made serious attempts, has dumped it and
> returned to Windows.
You obviously are limited in the number of people you know.
Either that, or someone has suggested Linux to these people without taking
their experience level into account.
> They simply got sick and tired of spending hours searching for answers
> to what would be trival to do under Windows. And even if they found a
> solution, more often than not, it was half assed and required even
> more reading to implement.
Is learning evil?
God forbid someone actually read!
>
> Some people design operating systems. The rest of the world prefers to
> run applications and Linux is dismal in that area.
Then they may run applications on Windows to their hearts' content. No-one
is stopping them. If they should decide to stretch their minds a bit and
learn how a computer actually works - If they should decide to
....gasp....learn something, they may try Linux.
No, Linux is not for everybody. Nor will it ever be.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions
GET A LIFE!
>
> claire
>
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 20:43:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:52:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>The Linux community is so out of touch with reality as far as the home
> >>user /desktop Jane is concerned it is comical.
> >
> >[snip examples of gross stupidity]
> >
> >So...you're saying that Windows is for morons?
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 05:52:26 GMT
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v60qr$ed4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > I'll agree with that!
> > I'm at work, logged into my LinuxBox at home via dial-up PPP. I'm
running
> > multiple telnet connections. One is compiling a kernel, One is in Emacs
> > where I'm editing a Perl script, Another is compiling KDE2.0 source
RPMS.
> At
> > the same time, I'm sending more KDE2.0 RPMS via ftp, AND checking out
the
> > Perl script in IE explorer. At the same time, the local login is merrily
> > running screensavers.
>
> Just what the home user is wanting & needing to do all the time!
>
> Still waiting for the peanut gallery to get it.
>
The average home user had nothing to do with the comment. It had to do with
Linux's performance on older equipment. Before you criticize the "peanut
gallery", make certain you're following the thread. The parts you omitted
would have born this out.
As for your point. I agree totally. John Q User has little business playing
with Linux. I'm not John Q User. I'm a programmer working on dedicated POS
software.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions
GET A LIFE!
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I thought Linux was always available free of charge?
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 05:52:25 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Or the grossly overpriced distributions in the superstores like
> CompUSA.
>
> There is one that is in this big fat box (Professional Linux?)that
> includes all kinds of archive CD's, various distributions and
> essentially a collection of junk that you can get for free on the net.
>
> It sells for $149.00.
>
> What a gross rip off.
>
> claire
Hence the existance of advocacy groups such as this.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions
GET A LIFE!
>
>
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 14:52:36 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Go to www.netmax.com
> >
> >They offer several Linux distributions with nice firewall and server
> >configuration packages. Except for one thing. They don't offer their
> >products for download. It seems that they are selling a GPL'd OS without
> >offering a freely available version or source code to that version.
> >
> >Interesting how it's so easy to violate the GPL and nobody does anything
> >about it.
> >
> >
>
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:02:19 +0800
"JoeX1029" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >JoeX1029 wrote:
> >>
> >> i tend to agree. GNU/Linux was not and is not for the desktop.
> >
> > It is ready for the desktop. It sits on mine and runs everyday.
> >It does everything I need an OS to do with a plus being added
> >stability and the avoidance of virus's and the like that plague
> >the OTHER OS.
The problem with most Linux geekvocates is that they don't understand that
people don't *want* an OS, what they want is to be productive or have fun on
their PC. Only OS geeks and developers actually *like* or need to have
interaction with the OS.
Linux isn't even remotely close to being able to be deployed in front of
consumers. It is one of the most unintuitive, hard to use systems around.
That doesn't necessarily make Linux a bad OS, but it does make it hard to
penetrate the consumer market where MS concentrates almost all of their
effort on ease-of-use.
Additionally, MS makes it so easy for developers to write for MS OSes. Take
MSDN subscriptions for example.
Also, look at how hard MS works to make a gaming API. DirectX. It really
is a terrific API. If some Linux guru could emulate DirectX on Linux or
even implement it on Linux directly, wow, just think at how easy it would be
to port games and the like over to Linux.
There are just so many other examples of why Windows 2000 and the like are
way beyond Linux. Look at DCOM+. Linux doesn't have anything *like* it.
I can write a simple COM object (it has become a lot easier to write COM
objects) - and use it or imbed it into *any* COM aware application (which is
just about every major piece of software for Windows).
Hell, I could go on and on. But the religious Lunitix here will just write
it off and wonder why so many people still prefer to *buy* Windows rather
than use Linux for free.
Oh well.
-Todd
> >
> >--
> >Jim Broughton
> >(The Amiga OS! Now there was an OS)
> >If Sense were common everyone would have it!
> >Following Air and Water the third most abundant
> >thing on the planet is Human Stupidity.
> >
> Yes, i know it runs on your desktop. It runs on my desktop and server
too.
> But i've seen lots of genuine probs from WIndows users. Face it, it aint
quite
> ready.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:14:26 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >kiwiunixman wrote:
> >>
> >> Have to agree with you Lynn. Until Linux is made totally "halfwitt
> >> proof", the average Joe or Jane moron will never move to Linux.
Windows
> >> is almost there (after seeing the latest clips of Windows Whistler),
and
> >
> >Oh really.
> >
> >"made for nitwits" is exactly what caused the spread of
> >
> >Melisssa, ILoveYou, etc.
>
> Let me try and tell you why I'm not even remotely worried about
> the comments from Windows USER LAND.
>
> #1. People like Claire and others can BITCH but when push comes
> to shove, they end up following the line - what ever it is.
> This should be very evident to most folks after having read
> her 9 steps to buying a hard drive at comp usa thing.
>
> #2. Linux will end up being the WINNER in the OS wars for the
> simple reason, it's FREE.
Unfortunately it won't. Even if its' free (See #3)
>
> #3. Linux will never be the OS for nitwits.
Thereby guaranteeing Windows' majority place on the desktop. Most people are
susceptible to hype, are fascinated by bright shiny things, and don't like
work. That's not a cynical view - It's a reality.
>
> #4. Claire and company will eventually learn to use Linux
> and probably start a campaign against HERD someday.
I doubt that.
>
> #5. Never take anybody who thinks Direct X is a benefit
> to society seriously. Take her example of recording
> an LP and making an MP3 or was it a cassette?
>
> Claire - There is an audio in and out jack on the
> back of every sound card. Linux will make an MP3
> from this. Direct X has nothing to do with Audio in nor out.
>
> Linux DOES have audio auditing software. See Debian.
>
> #6. Linux embedded really means windows buried.
Only in the embedded arena...
Hell, MSDOS does better than Windows in embedded applications.
>
> Hope that clears that up.
>
> Thanks
>
> Charlie
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
Also...
NT 4.0 User
Win 95/98 User
They're operating systems...Not religions
GET A LIFE!
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: It's even worse than I thought.
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:11:49 +0800
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 17:52:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The Linux community is so out of touch with reality as far as the home
> >user /desktop Jane is concerned it is comical.
>
> [snip examples of gross stupidity]
>
> So...you're saying that Windows is for morons?
Bob, she wasn't talking about Windows, she was talking about how Linux
wasn't ready for the desktop.
It's clear that UNIX/Linux geeks will never understand why people don't
*want* an OS, they want to be able to DO things.
Example:
I plug in my digital camera to a USB port using Windows 2000. What happens?
A folder pops up with all of the pictures ready to be displayed or edited,
whatever.
I plug in my digital camera to a USB port running Linux. What happens?
NOTHING.
---
That's just one example of how Windows makes things easier to use for the
common consumer. Hell, even an OS geek should appreciate that.
But no.
A Linux geek would rather type something like: digpx -i -q -O32 -upk
/sys0:x
And how to find out how to do that? Use MAN pages of course.
But if you don't know what you are looking for, how do you even use MAN
pages????
Face it.
Linux ain't even *close* to being *considered* to be deployed to the common
consumer.
I don't even like it and I like OSes in general.
It's almost as if Linux were designed to be unintuitive and hard-to-use.
-Todd
>
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: wahoo! I'm running now
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 14:18:19 +0800
"rich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> So I am slowly putting my RH 7.0 machine back together again -- after a
> very nasty experience with a bad hard disk and a flakey video card.
>
> Glitches: Specifying memory addresses for the NIC. It would be much
> better if there were some way of doing this automagically, but even if
> you have to do it by hand, a quick prompt that you should be using 0x
> style memory addresses would be a Good Thing. Sigh.
Or use Windows 2000 and have it automatically installed and configured (for
both PCI or legacy ISA cards). Why should you have to know memory
addresses??
> Nice things: I put the CD ROM in and it automounted.
WHOA!
> How cool is that?
Just as cool as it is in Windows 2000?
> I'm also dancing in the virtual aisle because I finally, finally got
> Samba installed and configured.
Setting up file sharing on a 2000 server is almost automatic. Why bother
with trying to figure out things and getting frustrated? Have the OS do the
hard stuff for you.
> And after probably 2 months of
> infrequent work (say, 1 or two hours a week,) and about 10 hours of
> concentrated effort, I'm beginning now to really understand this little
> box.
Sheesh. I almost have to believe that you'd rather tear yourself apart
trying to get Linux do the most simplest of all things rather than actually
get the job done.
> The NT server is now dark, waiting for the moment when it will become
> the next Linux server on the network. I can't wait.
Oh boy oh boy oh boy. Why are you even using NT? Windows 2000 is released,
btw, and pretty much smokes Linux on all counts.
> --
> Windows 2000: Designed for the Internet.
> The Internet: Designed for Unix.
------------------------------
From: "jason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 06:31:00 GMT
Direct-X virus? Know what you are talking about before you post kid.
--
jason
http://mindcritic.cjb.net
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8v7if6$18i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You're right. We linux users don't have to worry about the forthcoming
> wave of Direct-X specific viruses targeted at losers like you.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
