Linux-Advocacy Digest #396, Volume #30 Fri, 24 Nov 00 13:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? ("Mike")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: I am finding installing a multi-function card needless reading. (.)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux for nitwits (Jose Mirles)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:12:01 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000
19:07:58 -0600;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I think its possible you might be just entirely confused on this. All
>> systems, including NT, give correct results after a certain amount of
>> time. Its just the counter has rolled over, so a single sample doesn't
>> tell you what the value is, because you don't know when it started
>> counting, and how many times it has rolled over.
>>
>> Unless, of course, you keep track of it. Perhaps these results don't,
>> but to say that the system gives "incorrect results" (except possibly in
>> the case of Microsoft systems, I don't know) is inaccurate. Just
>> because *you* don't understand a number doesn't mean its incorrect. The
>> reporting might give incorrect results (and that may, indeed, skew
>> NT/W2K to lower numbers, since it wraps every 50 days, while Unix wraps
>> every year and a half. If you don't know what you're doing, or what
>> you're reading, this could be an issue.
>
>My question to you would be, how could you know simply by network access
>that your first reading is not rolled over? You don't unless you have first
>hand information from someone inside that says the machine was restarted.
Correct. You *don't* know (or care) if your *first* read is a roll
over. That is the limitation of using counters, and a price that is
worth paying (according to the engineers who actually design such
things, from which Microsoft copied their implementation in this
regard). Because it means your second through Nth read is an accurate,
consistent, and practical (which is to say "correct") value, and in no
other circumstance is this as entirely true.
The point is, you *never* have *any* "inside information" (or must
presume you don't, because you can't verify its accuracy). NOW what are
you going to do? This is a post-post-modernist issue, to be sure. How
do you verify the accuracy of information when you can *never* verify
the accuracy of *any* information. Well, you compare one piece of
unverified information to another piece of unverified information, in
order to determine if it is consistent. This automatically verifies the
information. Meanwhile, your approach is still stuck on the fact that
the first read, or any other read, is unverified: you cannot trust it.
Simple enough to write a snip of code that reports "we've been up since
Jan 1, 1997, without a reboot", or any other (possibly more believable)
number, necessitating that same "inside information" that says the
machine was restarted. Then where would Netcraft be?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:12:06 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 24 Nov 2000 15:27:05
GMT;
>On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 18:37:35 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>>> That is what is known as an "argument from ignorance".
>>
>>No, it's not. I'm not arguing that anything *IS* true or false, I'm saying
>
>Seems to be a common technique of Max's. When in doubt, blindly make a
>completely baseless conjecture, and deride any argument that your conjecture is
>baseless as "argument from ignorance".
So you are ignorant as well, Donovan, of what an "argument from
ignorance" is, despite my providing you with the link to that
wonderfully helpful list of Logical Fallacies? Did you not read it, or
did you not understand it?
An argument from ignorance is not when you say the alternative argument
cannot be correct, because it is unknown, as Erik seemed to indicate.
An argument from ignorance is when you say that the alternative argument
is not known to be correct, because it is not known to be correct. This
is empty posturing, not a logical argument or reasonable position. If,
as Erik wrote, "neither of us know, therefore an argument one way is
just as valid as the other way (in other words, neither is valid)", then
nothing which is not already known can ever be known; an argument from
ignorance.
The "ignorance" being referred to in the term is not the ignorance of
which argument is correct, but of any argument at all. If neither side
is known to be correct, then one examines the supporting arguments, one
doesn't presume that neither alternative is valid. The amount of
ignorance Erik insists on maintaining, in order to remain ignorant, and
profess ignorance as a logical argument (a fallacy), is beside the
point. It is not discussion; it is an attempt to deter discussion, and
nothing more.
Arguments from ignorance are a common technique of a lot of people, and
one of the reasons I post so much. I find them offensive, an insult to
the intelligence of people who are able to reason, which, I must
propose, is a group which would therefore exclude both Mr. Funkenbusch
and you, Donovan.
Compare the argument to ignorance to Occam's Razor. If neither argument
is known to be correct, you don't simply say "well, I guess neither is
known so neither is valid". You examine which is more likely, and
provide supporting arguments which corroborate the alternatives, and
determine which is more valid, and therefore more probably correct.
Empirical testing, of course, would be required to *know* it is correct;
Occam's Razor is an inductive tool, not a deductive one. But in the
post-post-modern world, induction becomes often much more important than
deduction, as there is so much which is not known, and it is a grave and
ignorant mistake to say "therefore it cannot be known".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:13:34 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll save this response until tomorrow, at least, so Erik has time
enough to respond to Sr. Colla's quiz. Here's my gouge, in case
anyone's interested.
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
[...]
>Can you please explain how this will provide an answer to
>the following questions:
>
>1) If uptime was an irrelevant feature, why MS choose to
>implement it, when other OS's (such as IBM's AIX) don't?
Because they needed to provide an SNMP implementation to prevent third
party competition from opening a "back door" to the OS monopoly by
making the difference between Microsoft's OS and anyone else's
transparent (other than the failures) from the other side of the
network.
>2) If they decided to implement it, why they did it in such
>a way as to make it utterly useless?
Because they 'integrated' it into the registry. (I must make a
confession here. I'm really lousy with math. I just rechecked my
scratch, and I've found that the SNMP counter is hundredths of a second,
which provides 497 days before wrap. Yet last time I checked, it came
out to 49.7. As I've said, I'm lousy with numbers. Could somebody
please sort this out, and remember that I have trouble keeping track of
whether milliseconds are hundredths or thousands, and which is .001.
Thanks.)
The thing that really sucks about Microsoft's management instrumentation
isn't when the counter rolls over or what; its whether it works, and is
useful, and it does neither. Its as unreliable as the OS itself, as
badly implemented as any other monopoly crapware, and as poorly designed
as the rest of Win32.
>3) If it was still irrelevant why they underwent the effort
>to implement it properly in Win2k?
Its undoubtedly the same code. Just because the OS is massively revised
and hopelessly bloated doesn't mean everything is actually rewritten.
>If it helps to provide such answers, I may consider to take
>the pain.
>If it doesn't, you're simply sticking to a side issue,
>because as usually MS has shown incompetent design, and
>you've no other resort than saying, "but you smell badly".
Alas, in this respect, he is not. The rollover of the uptime counter is
a feature (actually, a function: you need it whether you want to or
not), not a bug, regardless of when it happens.
If you're going to blame something, blame the web servers (or whatever
servers are providing the value directly, which certainly isn't an SNMP
agent) that report it verbatim, rather than processing it to provide the
information you think you are getting. But that doesn't change the
stink, just the source. Its probably monopoly crapware IIS vs.
apache/tux. I've looked at the Netcraft site, and apparently they want
to keep the method they use to determine uptime proprietary. Which only
leaves me free to speculate, actually. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:10:37 GMT
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 23 Nov 2000 07:36:23 GMT, Mike wrote:
> >
> >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Just to make sure nobody blames Donn (who was arguing the other direction),
I wrote the following paragraph:
> >to me. When I write a spec, it has to be usable by others within my
company
> >and my customers. Neither html or LaTex fills that role today. You might
try
> >presenting a LaTex document to a customer, but when I send them a file
they
>
> So send them a PDF instead. man pdflatex. html doesn't "fill that role" ?
What,
> the customer doesn't have a web browser ?
Don't be ridiculous: of course they have web browsers. Maybe you meant to
ask why html and LaTex don't fill the role?
Without going into the historical context, what customers demand is an
editable document. Overall, there are two or three acceptable formats today,
none of which is LaTex or PDF. If viewing was the only criteria, PDF would
be fine, and we'd publish everything that way.
You could argue to a customer that LaTex is editable, but they'd come back
and say that it's not editable by any of the people in their tech-pubs
group, or by the document control group, or by almost anyone else, for that
matter. The fact that it's text and can be edited with a text editor misses
the point that it might as well be written in Swahili. Converting to html,
or Postscript, or any other text based page description language, isn't any
more useful.
So, there are two approaches. You can try to convince the customer that they
should change the way they do things, and train all their people to use and
convert LaTex documents. Or, you could generate documents in the format they
want.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:10:11 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >File associations are configurable from many places, the registery being
my
> >pick, but I could choose File Types or Assoc.
>
> Yes, you could, couldn't you? Too bad you couldn't make any more sense
> of them than any other person. They're a nightmarish monstrosity. If
> you weren't aware of that, it is certainly because you never actually
> tried to do very much with them. BTW, any manipulation (save the
> forgotten capabilities still in WIN.INI for setting up associations)
> involving extensions, associations, or file types, are registry
> configurations. Too bad they're in three different places, with no
> clear relationships and different organizing methods.
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT contain the file assosications.
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\* contain actions on all file types.
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.<some extention> (that is dot extention, btw, you might
not notice the dot) contatin:
"(Default)" field of REG_SZ type, whose value is the name of this extention.
"Content Type" field of REG_SZ type (optional), whose value contain MIME
information about this file type.
For .TXT file types, those are the values on my system:
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.txt\(Default) = "txtfile"
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.txtContent Type = "text/plain"
The data about how to handle the file is stored in:
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\<the value of the (Default) field of the .extention>
A sub key called "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\<the value of the (Default) field of the
.extention>\DefaultIcon" contain a "(Default)" field of REG_SZ whose value
should be a path to an ico/icl/exe/dll file and the location of the icon
inside that file.
A sub key called "HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\<the value of the (Default) field of the
.extention>\Shell" determain the behaviour of right & double click actions
on the system.
Subkeys of this key will be alternatives to open the file in the right click
menu.
The (Default) field contain the name of one of those sub key (usually Open),
which will be the default action of this file type.
If the (Default) field contain no value, the sub key Open is the default
one.
Those sub keys has each a (Default) field whose value will determain what
text will be displayed on the right click menu.
"&Open" is the most common one.
The & sign will determain what letter will get underlined and can be used to
quickly access this option. If there is no value, the subkey's name is used.
The sub key should have another subkey, called "Command", whose (Default)
field which will contain the path information to the executable that will
open this file type.
For .TXT file types, this would be the key HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile\DefaultIcon\(Default) =
"%SystemRoot%\system32\shell32.dll,-152"
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile\shell\(Default) = "Open"
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile\shell\open(Default) = "&Open"
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\txtfile\shell\open\command\(Default) =
"%SystemRoot%\system32\NOTEPAD.EXE %1"
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Directory & HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\Folder define how folders
(&drives, &special cases such as control panel) and they follow the sames
rules as filestypes does.
This is the basics only, of course.
There is a lot more to it, but that is enough to handle file types to a
level sufficent to most users/programmers, and I don't feel like writing an
essay about the registery right now.
The relationships are quite clear, once you know about them
(and you can probably figure it out on your own, if you've to.)
Can you explain what you mean about different organization methods?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: I am finding installing a multi-function card needless reading.
Date: 24 Nov 2000 17:15:11 GMT
Matt Soltysiak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Well, since you're bright and you know C++, why dont you write a nice
>> easy to install driver for it and share it with the rest of the class?
>>
>> -----.
> I got a better idea: why don't you shut up and get a godamn life.
Uhhmmm...thats one hell of a rebuttal youve got there.
> Many
> programmers don't feel like doing the job for another company that should
> have done the job right in the first place.
Device drivers arent rocket science; especially ethernet pcmcia drivers. I'm
sure that someone with a brain like yours could pound one out in a day...
Or are you simply not capable?
> In fact, why don't you right the
> damn driver?
I wouldnt, but it doesnt exist yet. On the other hand, I could WRITE one,
if I had a xircom card.
Which I dont.
> I doubt you could, because you're stupid, and you wouldn't know
> where to start, eh smart guy?
It seems to me that youre the one refusing.
=====.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:23:32 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The results of Sr. Colla's quiz:
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000
>> Can you please explain how this will provide an answer to
>> the following questions:
>>
>> 1) If uptime was an irrelevant feature, why MS choose to
>> implement it, when other OS's (such as IBM's AIX) don't?
>
>I never said it was an irrelevant feature. Chances are, the uptime feature
>was something that was implemented, but was not used and thus forgotten by
>most people, including those doing patches. It's hard to do regression
>testing on every tiny feature, especially if they are seldom used.
No, in fact older systems did not routinely provide such uptime
information. Nor is uptime reporting a "feature". It is a function: it
needs to be done, whether you understand why or not. Features are
something you take advantage of optionally, by definition.
>> 2) If they decided to implement it, why they did it in such
>> a way as to make it utterly useless?
>
>I don't know. It might have been a simple item on a checklist. "Implement
>HTTP uptime. Hmm.. I'll just return the Tick Count and it's done".
That appears to be the gist of it. Congratulations, Erik. I'm not sure
if this is enough for a passing grade, but you did represent yourself
adequately, in the end. More than I would have expected, TBH, but I
suppose I'm jaded.
I would still like to know where the "HTTP uptime" is reported,
precisely. Netcraft seems to want to keep the real details close to the
chest.
>> 3) If it was still irrelevant why they underwent the effort
>> to implement it properly in Win2k?
>
>I don't claim to know their thoughts, however, it seems only logical that
>Win2k went through massive auditing and this was identified as not being up
>to par. Thus it was re-implemented, like 90% of the rest of the OS.
I'm going to leave that one alone, as I don't like to take advantage of
grammatical confusion caused by ambiguity. Suffice it to say that, yes,
MS probably included it because the market (locked in as it may be)
would reject the product if it didn't include this.
>> If it helps to provide such answers, I may consider to take
>> the pain.
>
>Unless you have evidence that states that this method you speak of is the
>one used by netcraft, don't bother.
Another argument from ignorance. We know for a fact that nobody but
Netcraft (and anyone they've told, which doesn't include us) knows
precisely what their method is. Therefore, pointing out we don't have
evidence is senseless; this is, in fact, why we don't (currently) have
knowledge. Now the next step, if we were attempting to think, would be
to consider how they *might* be doing it, without evidence, and then
seek to correlate that with whatever other information we *do* know.
This should lead us to the knowledge we seek. If, however, you are
attempting to remain ignorant, then saying "don't bother" might seem
more appropriate.
>> If it doesn't, you're simply sticking to a side issue,
>> because as usually MS has shown incompetent design, and
>> you've no other resort than saying, "but you smell badly".
>
>Incompetant? That depends on what the requirements were. If a working
>accurate uptime was part of the requirements, then yes. If it was just
>something thrown in as an item on a checklist, then no.
There's no real difference with monopoly crapware. There's stuff that
defends the monopoly, and there's stuff that's on a checklist. Good
design never enters into it, as Giuliano Colla has so admirably
described on adm.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:25:34 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 24 Nov 2000 12:34:10
> No, I don't "got that". You're prevaricating. They do care about what
> they're using. That's why Linux has so many languages it supports. It
> doesn't support the one or two you wanted, because you don't give a shit
> about what language you're using, as long as you can get it on monopoly
> crapware, because you're too brain-dead and deluded to recognize the
> inferiority of such a solution. IOW, your whole language rant was a
> ruse, and had it not been language, you would have found some other
> miscellaneous issue to try to discredit the more functional system in
> order to defend your bogus choice to use monopoly crapware.
I've netiher the inclination nor the time to start a major GNU project.
Windows gives me full support for the languages that I need, out of the box,
and I don't have to code for this.
Language is not a miscellaneous issue, dude. The mere fact that you seem to
think that it is disqualify you from talking about this.
I would assume that you live in the USA or another all/mainly-english
country, this is a a reason for your ignorance, but it's no excuse.
> >Most people in the world *don't* know english, therefor, they need an OS
in
> >their own language, and they'll pay for it.
>
> Most people who use computers do know English,
You *really* don't know what you are talking about, do you?
We can start with the home users, move to secreteries and clerks, and move
on practically forever.
You need to be quite good in english before you can use a
english-only/english-enabled computer to any degree of usefulness.
> and your fantasy that
> catering to every minor language in the world is a free market response,
See iceland.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 19:29:24 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 22:55:44
> [...]
> >Windows support a lot of languages, including full translations of most
of
> >the popular software from Microsoft. (Windows & IE & Office the most
notable
> >of them, but not the only one.)
> >Linux? I don't know.
> >I *do* know that to the languages that *I* need, Linux is no alternative
> >unless I plan to make a dist of my own.
>
> So you're just going along with the monopoly, haven't even examined
> whether other systems meet your needs, and expect us to give a rat's ass
> about your opinion of operating systems?
Yes.
Because the language thing is only a small reason why I like Windows.
Unlike most people, I've a good knowledge in english, and I can handle all
english system.
I've experiance with several OS, including half a dozen or so linux dist
(excluding versions), I choose windows because it's the one best suited to
my need.
------------------------------
From: Jose Mirles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux for nitwits
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2000 17:32:02 GMT
Nutty Professor wrote:
> As one of those Linux nitwits, I have to disagree. I own a ThinkPad
> 701C notebook. The 701C comes with an external floppy drive and no
> CD-ROM. This means that in order to install Windows 95, I must
> create dozens of floppy disks, then spend hours inserting them into
-- snip --
As an average user of both Windows and Linux, I think that Linux
still has a ways to go to catch up with Windows. While I had no
problems with the installations of Linux (Redhat 6.1/7.0 and Mandrake
7.1/7.2), I have seen too many people quit after being confused with
the questions asked during installation.
Heck, at work we give out a small application called Packet PC,
designedto offer a quick means to call in and connect with or
mainframe applications. It comes on two diskettes and we have people
that can properly install that! It's just a small Windows app, type
"a:\setup" in the RUN option and it does the rest.
I have seen tons of people in Best Buy and numerous PC shops with
simple Windows problems. Frankly, I am surprised by some of the
things I have seen people bring back their PC for. I have come to the
conclusion that some people just want a simple looking, simple
running OS to use. They don't care about the problems, securities,
etc. The average Joe and Jane will not use MS's Windows update or
install any patches. I can't even count the times I have heard users
complain of a virus and they are running a AV program with a year old
.dat file.
Fact is, I have noticed that most of the Windows users I deal with,
have no intention on learning anything about their PC or OS. They can
make Excel sing or an Access database do incredible things, but have
no idea how to update a driver. They rather pay someone (which is
something I love about Windows users) to install drivers and update
their boxes.
Linux newbees tend to be people that aren't afraid of their PC and
want to use it to the max. They aren't afraid to compile an
applicatiion or use the command line. Until Linux is completely user
friendly (like it or not, that means EVERYTHING from the GUI) it will
never be mainstream.
Personally, I hope it never gets there. I like it the way it is. I
like the command line, since it is faster and you can add the
parameters you want.
In close, your previous post with the problems of installing Windows
with no CD rom, is far beyond the common Windows user. Most of the
ones I have dealt with would whine and complain. Linux would totally
confuse them.
--
Jose
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Who in the hell is the President!!??
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
