Linux-Advocacy Digest #550, Volume #30 Thu, 30 Nov 00 03:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (UnixGeek)
Re: Linux is awful ("Dennis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Netscape review. ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is awful (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (Sandman)
Re: Whistler review. (Sandman)
Re: Linux is awful ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: linux on a 486 (Micah Higgs)
Re: What is the best/most powerful distro of linux? ("Frank Van Damme")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: UnixGeek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:43:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 28 Nov 2000
20:21:00
> [...]
> >> Once again, I'll try to type slowly: the application barrier is
not a
> >> technical barrier; it is a commercial barrier.
> >
> >Why?
> >You can get any application that every application that you
routinely use on
> >windows on linux.
> >Or equilent thereof. They are usuaully free, too.
> >What is this commercial barrier that stop people from moving to
linux?
> >Training?
>
> Yes, that too. Mostly just support for Win32 applications.
>
> >BTW, you said "MS doesn't produce a competitive product, but merely
locks in
> >a monopoly product"
> >Please define competitive product.
>
> One which competes.
>
> >> >> The only barrier anyone is talking about is the *application*
barrier,
> >> >> which you seem to have remained brain-dead ignorant about.
> >> >
> >> >Mainly because I've been hearing again and again that such
barrier does not
> >> >exist
> >>
> >> Well, the people who you heard that from? They were wrong, OK?
Nothing
> >> I can do about it but try to set you straight. If there isn't
such a
> >> barrier, why does Microsoft spend so much money maintaining it by
> >> "encouraging" (threatening) ISVs who don't follow One Microsoft
Way?
> >
> >Such as?
> >Evidence, please.
>
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm
> http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/JamesHoward/JamesHoward5.html
> http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/14214.html
> http://www.brillscontent.com/features/bill_0998.html
> http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
> http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/02/07/schulman.html
> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/incomp.html
> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
> http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/9309d.htm#0272_000e
> http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/dsprgmnt.html
> http://m2.aol.com/machcu/mspquotes.html
> http://www.airmissle.com/antiMS/quotes/
> http://www.vaxxine.com/lawyers/articles/stac.html
> http://www4.bluemountain.com/home/ImportantNotice.html?020399
> http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199806/97-5343a.txt
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-3314493.html?
tag=st.ne.1430735..ni
> http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/microsoft-all.html
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f4400/4469.htm
>
> That'll get you started.
>
> >> >> >What would prevent me from moving to linux/beos/mac/amiga/
Os/2 ???
> >> >>
> >> >> You tell us. What prevents you from moving to a technically
superior
> >> >> alternative which costs less money? Huh? What?
> >> >
> >> >I would disagree with the technically superior part.
> >> >But here is why, anyway.
> >> >Because, right now, Win2K gives me the best balance between ease-
of-use and
> >> >stability (among other things).
> >>
> >> Can't you come up with something that's maybe a wee bit more
concrete?
> >> Particularly if you're going to say you disagree with
the "technically
> >> superior part". Ease of use is just "familiarity", and W2K's
stability
> >> is demonstrably and statistically less than Linux's.
> >
> >No, ease of use is not familiarity.
>
> Yes, ease of use is familiarity.
>
> >Ease of use mean that the system is easy to use.
>
> And it is easy to use if it is familiar, and hard to use if it is not.
> Capice?
>
> >Being familiar with the system helps, of course.
> >How was W2K stability is statistically less that Linux? Netcraft?
>
> No, not Netcraft. Real life.
>
> >I don't find it very credible, sorry.
>
> That's because you have lost the ability to recognize what is an is
not
> credible, because you've been swallowing too much horseshit from
> Microsoft for too long to even be able to recognize reality when
> confronted with it.
>
> >> >I can get Linux's stability with an easiness of use that is
surpass by none
> >> >but the Mac.
> >>
> >> Sure you do.
> >
> >I'm glad you agree.
>
> Your ability to spot sarcasm is obviously the equivalent of your
> technical judgement.
>
> [...]
> >> It does. Yet 90% of all applications support it, most exclusively.
> >
> >Another strange number that you seem to pull out of no where.
>
> Is this to say you have evidence to the contrary, or are you merely
> engaging in a little argument from ignorance, not having any better
> estimation but not wishing to agree with mine?
>
> >> >According to !winadvocates, TCO of non-win machine is lower, so
while the
> >> >initial price tag on choosing another platform may be higher,
according
> >to
> >> >your own side, in the end, it will be cheaper to use something
else.
> >>
> >> What sustains the monopoly is the fact that Microsoft can make it
more
> >> expensive for anyone who tries to avoid the monopoly, even if its
> >> cheaper! It *isn't* the initial price tag of choosing an
alternative
> >> which is higher: just the opposite. Remember?
> >
> >*Please* check TPC and read how they make the tests.
>
> What is TPC.
>
> >You might learn something.
>
> I always learn something. Can't help it; it just comes naturally.
>
> --
> 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! =-----
>
--
I just beg you win-freaks to give this a try: take a computer, and set
it aside. get a version of linux, and install it. Get a grown-up to set
up the hardware for you. Every day, use it a little more,
get "comfortable". see if you are not convinced in 6 months, when it is
the only way you have to retrieve email, or surf the net, because your
windows box crashed again. see how many times it bails you out of a
bind. MS may have 90% of the apps, and 50% of the people convinced its
great, anyone who says any microsoft OS is more stable than linux,
shows their ignorance immediately. Even the most die-hard MS fans who
are knowledgeable will tell you linux is more stable, just not
widely "accepted" Thats my standpoint. About a year ago, when winblows
crapped out on my "main machine" (the one with the most powerful
components, of course) I had lost my WIN disk, and was "forced" to
install linux on it, for the time being. Before that, I had 4 systems,
1 with winblows, 2 with Linux, and 1 with DOS and 3.1 (dont laugh, I
like it) Still to this day, it is running linux on that first Install.
After I saw how fast it ran, and how stable it was, I left it how it
was,I couldnt bring myself to remove it, and converted one of my lowly
boxes to win98. The amount of lock-ups I have encountered since then I
could probably count on both hands. (honestly, there have been some)
but not nearly as bad as the blue-screen madness of before. I am glad I
decided to stick with linux, and I think most people will. The
revolution is coming.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:45:33 -0500
Reply-To: "Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Rozzi, my good friend, there's that thing called brain that you need to use
in order to succeeed with Linux. Apparently you lack the above mentioned
item, or don't know how to use it properly.
Skully1900 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Comparing Linux to Windows 2000 is like comparing the Space Shuttle to a
bottle
> rocket and Linux isn't the Space Shuttle. I just installed Mandrake 7.2
and I,
> and the 3 other people using it are not impressed at all. This is our
first
> venture into the world of Linux, and will be our last at least until Linux
can
> match Windows 2000 in some very basic area's. First off we used Mandrake
7.2
> complete from Mcmillan and you should be warned about the false
advertising on
> the box. First of all this is NOT a complete version of Linux if only for
no
> server version install offered. Also the tech support is for TWO INCIDENTS
via
> Email and for installation only. They don't tell you about the two
incident
> part on the box. We sent several questions, none of which were answered.
The
> install program is broken badly. If you type the command for expert setup
at
> the boot prompt which is supposed to turn off hardware checking etc, it
doesn't
> work. It still goes off on autopilot and tries to detect hardware anyway.
This
> was a major problem on a laptop we were trying to install on because it
kept
> detecting the wrong video chip and all we got on bootup was a white screen
with
> no way of killing it except power off. No killing the X-server and no way
into
> an alternet console. There was also no way around this because even on
boot up
> selecting i for interactive was interactive only up to starting X and it
did
> that no matter what we selected.
>
> On the other 2 systems things installed better but KDE 2.0 is very
unstable. It
> too locks up frequently, especially when exiting it but we can kill it and
it
> doesn't take things down. So now it was time to play with the systems. We
were
> able to set up the network ok and get Internet Connection Sharing up and
> running even easier than with Windows 2000 but why no dial on demand that
will
> work with kppp and the Gnome dialer? I know it can be done with scripts
but a
> newbie is going to use kppp which is set up as part of the install.
Security
> seemed preety good taking a trip over to Gibsons site. Most things seemed
to
> work, but there is a major problem and that is what is going to send
people
> back to Windows.
>
> Linux gui just looks terrible. No matter what screen fonts, resolution or
> refresh rate is picked it is simply hard on the eyes. Many of the Gnome
themes
> are dark and hard to see. Netscape is the worst in this reagard being
painful
> to look at even with imported Windows TT fonts using DrakConf. By contrast
> Microsoft Windows is smooth and crisp looking. Mind you were using an
Nvidia
> and a Matrox card, both of which look stunning on Windows. People are
going to
> take one look at this mess and they will return it because it looks so
boxy and
> awful.
>
> We have played with fonts, colors and themes and quite frankly have had
it.
>
> Between the crashing of the GUI, crappy look and yes the lack of quality
> (although there is no lack of quantity) applications, Linux is a non issue
> around here. It's off our systems and we have fired off a letter to
Mcmillin
> requesting a refund for deceptive packaging.
>
> Rozzi
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:51:52 GMT
"Peter Ammon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > That's not what I said. Kulkis made reference to .exe files not "any
file"
> > I
> > > too have an open file and can rename it. If I have file.txt open, it
can
> > be
> > > renamed file1.txt without having to make a copy because there's no
> > > dependency elsewhere which gets broken, such as shortcuts or
associations.
> >
> > I've never been able to do that while the file was locked. Is there any
> > way to insure that only one program can access a file and when finished
> > with it, make it disappear before unlocking so another program can't
> > open it between the time you unlock and the time you delete?
> >
>
> On Unix, you can open a file and then unlink it, which does exactly
> that. Maybe there's something like that in Windows.
No, if you have it locked you can't delete or rename. And in a situation
where
multiple programs are using the locks to arbitrate access, if one programs
unlocks when finished, then deletes, there is a window where another
can open, lock, and process again. Truncating would probably work but
that is an expensive operation and these are running at a rate of about 15
a second.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:53:41 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > What do you have to prove with that post? Look at Windows 2000
Pro,
> > 650MB,
> > > > a
> > > > > base installation, compare that to, say, Redhat Linux, which maybe
a
> > > > little
> > > > > bigger in size, but includes valuable third party tools such as
tar,
> > gzip,
> > > > > and StarOffice.
> > > >
> > > > a single UDMA66 20Gb drive sells for about $180 or so, last i
looked.
> > 650Mg
> > > > (which, i'm guessing, includes your page file) is not much of a
problem.
> > >
> > > Bloat-ware is bloatware, no matter how much it costs.
> > >
> > > Bloat is one of the reasons why LoseDOS performance SUCKS!
> >
> > That'd change if CS students were forced, for at least one semester, to
> > write assembly code for a small 65xx based system with 8K. Learning how
to
> > do things compactly and efficiently would be the result.
>
> True.
Picture Aaron, if you would, an eighteen year old college freshman. He's a
whiz with VB.
The Assignment: A simple, text prompted, artillery game. (You know the type)
using the above mentioned hardware and an assembler.
Interesting visual, huh?
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:55:51 GMT
God, you sound so much like I do. I had some problems with connecting
to the internet, read the manuals included with my distro, followed the
instructions, and I was surfing the net. I have found the Linux
community very supportive of newbies who are ready to listen to advice.
I posted a question on the MSDN news group whether C# would have the
same features (cross platform etc) as java, I was beaten up for even
suggesting there could be other platforms besides Windows.
kiwiunixman
the_blur wrote:
> So why exactly do WE need to hear about this?
>
> If you're not willing to make things better, don't bitch. You didn't pay for
> the OS. And certainly no one made you buy it. If you're not contributing
> anything to Linux, it doesn't need you.
>
> I installed the same version of Mandrake you did. I couldn't figure out how
> to set up a network card (I'm a TOTAL newbie). I booted up windows, logged
> on to #linuxnewbies and someone there was nice enough to tell me what to do.
> I had an answer from a Linux user (who seemed very knowledgeable) in less
> than an hour.
>
> If you want help, it's there. You just have to look.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:56:25 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > What do you have to prove with that post? Look at Windows 2000
Pro,
> > 650MB,
> > > > a
> > > > > base installation, compare that to, say, Redhat Linux, which maybe
a
> > > > little
> > > > > bigger in size, but includes valuable third party tools such as
tar,
> > gzip,
> > > > > and StarOffice.
> > > >
> > > > a single UDMA66 20Gb drive sells for about $180 or so, last i
looked.
> > 650Mg
> > > > (which, i'm guessing, includes your page file) is not much of a
problem.
> > >
> > > Bloat-ware is bloatware, no matter how much it costs.
> > >
> > > Bloat is one of the reasons why LoseDOS performance SUCKS!
> >
> > That'd change if CS students were forced, for at least one semester, to
> > write assembly code for a small 65xx based system with 8K. Learning how
to
> > do things compactly and efficiently would be the result.
>
> 68xx would be better.
>
> The 65xx line is only appropriate for industrial microcontrollers
> and toys.
>
And therefore an excellent tool to teach floating point theory!
I'm a sadist, Aaron, not a realist.<g>
--
Tom Wilson
Go home Al....
Game over, man!
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Netscape review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:56:43 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> And what they did with MS office carry's over
> to what they did on the internet also.
>
> You know, I can't even view the MS website
> properly with Netscape as the ONLY browser
> you can see it with properly is MSIE.
The funny part is that I bet they don't even know
that. They probably just used the Microsoft tools
they sell everyone else that claim to follow standards
but in fact don't interoperate correctly with anything
else. Perhaps they have even deceived themselves.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:23:37 GMT
Skully1900 wrote:
> Comparing Linux to Windows 2000 is like comparing the Space Shuttle to a bottle
> rocket and Linux isn't the Space Shuttle.
No, Linux is like Airbus, the underdog of the Aircraft industry, that,
even though Boeing is used by the majority of Airlines, Airbus produces
better Aircrafts. When I was in Aussie I travelled on an Ansett
Australia Airbus, the economy class seats were like the first class
Boeing seats, inside the plane, it was also much quieter than a Boeing 737.
> I just installed Mandrake 7.2 and I,
> and the 3 other people using it are not impressed at all.
SO you need a support-crew when installing/trying out software? What
would impress you, lovely-jubbly skins, an extra bloated Office
application, or were you hoping that some one would feel sorry for you
and distribute a distro especially for you.
> This is our first
> venture into the world of Linux, and will be our last at least until Linux can
> match Windows 2000 in some very basic area's. First off we used Mandrake 7.2
> complete from Mcmillan and you should be warned about the false advertising on
> the box. First of all this is NOT a complete version of Linux if only for no
> server version install offered. Also the tech support is for TWO INCIDENTS via
> Email and for installation only. They don't tell you about the two incident
> part on the box. We sent several questions, none of which were answered. The
> install program is broken badly. If you type the command for expert setup at
> the boot prompt which is supposed to turn off hardware checking etc, it doesn't
> work. It still goes off on autopilot and tries to detect hardware anyway. This
> was a major problem on a laptop we were trying to install on because it kept
> detecting the wrong video chip and all we got on bootup was a white screen with
> no way of killing it except power off. No killing the X-server and no way into
> an alternet console. There was also no way around this because even on boot up
> selecting i for interactive was interactive only up to starting X and it did
> that no matter what we selected.
So, what are the system specs? if you want to get Linux up and running
so badly, give me the specs, and I will help you, or are you too stupid
not to know what specs are? Have you made this one judgement because
you have one distro and it failed?
>
> On the other 2 systems things installed better but KDE 2.0 is very unstable. It
> too locks up frequently, especially when exiting it but we can kill it and it
> doesn't take things down. So now it was time to play with the systems. We were
> able to set up the network ok and get Internet Connection Sharing up and
> running even easier than with Windows 2000 but why no dial on demand that will
> work with kppp and the Gnome dialer? I know it can be done with scripts but a
> newbie is going to use kppp which is set up as part of the install. Security
> seemed preety good taking a trip over to Gibsons site. Most things seemed to
> work, but there is a major problem and that is what is going to send people
> back to Windows.
Most newbies to computers only have one computer any way, so, your
comment regarding internet sharing is rubbish. Did you try look on the
web for instructions on how to set it up? Most of the newbies I know
follow the instructions to the word and always get things running, it is
only when you try to do short cuts, then things start to go wrong.
>
> Linux gui just looks terrible. No matter what screen fonts, resolution or
> refresh rate is picked it is simply hard on the eyes. Many of the Gnome themes
> are dark and hard to see. Netscape is the worst in this reagard being painful
> to look at even with imported Windows TT fonts using DrakConf. By contrast
> Microsoft Windows is smooth and crisp looking. Mind you were using an Nvidia
> and a Matrox card, both of which look stunning on Windows. People are going to
> take one look at this mess and they will return it because it looks so boxy and
> awful.
>
> We have played with fonts, colors and themes and quite frankly have had it.
>
> Between the crashing of the GUI, crappy look and yes the lack of quality
> (although there is no lack of quantity) applications, Linux is a non issue
> around here. It's off our systems and we have fired off a letter to Mcmillin
> requesting a refund for deceptive packaging.
>
> Rozzi
Well I must be one of those very rare people who can get a system up and
running (using the standard installation program) and not suffer from
any other these problems. I am running KDE2, Xfree 86 4.0, and Netscape
6 with out any problems (that is how I posted the comment), the
occasional application may crash, but it does not take down the whole
system. Sometimes the system may appear to have frozen, however, wait a
few seconds, and pow, back to normal.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:28:04 +0100
In article <9040f5$6if4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can have as many as you like with linux, no arbitrary limits.
> > No 'no one *need* 1500', no '640M is enough for anyone'.
>
> Why would you need 1500 applications?
> Give me a good reason why would you need 1500 application installed.
no one installs 1500 applications for the NEED of it, but any installation of
just about any given installations comes with more than one application-type
file.
If I search for application files in the PhotoShop 6.0 directory it finds 26
files. Mostly droplets. If I search Office 2001 directory I find 9 applications.
And so the story goes, with every application there are applications. Me myself
has got 835 applications installed on my computer, and I do not NEED them all
on a regular basis, but most of them come in handy once in a while. And no, I
do not have 835 original CD's in my office for the installation of them all.
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: Sandman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:29:07 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > You can have as many as you like with linux, no arbitrary limits. No 'no
> > > one *need* 1500', no '640M is enough for anyone'.
> >
> > Why would you need 1500 applications? Give me a good reason why would you
> > need 1500 application installed.
>
> The trick is that he's counting things like grep, ls and man as
> "applications". By that logic I have 1200 or so "applications" on my NT
> workstation, 1500 wouldn't be much of a stretch.
and why shouldn't he count applications like "grep"? It IS an application, so
it should be included. :)
--
Sandman[.net]
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:29:43 +0000
In article <904r7f$chf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "UnixGeek"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Agree. Fully agree.
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an AMD K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
From: Micah Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: linux on a 486
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 23:31:48 -0800
i have a 81 meg hard disk and only 2 megs of ram. i would get more ram
but it is the old 30 pin kind for IBM type computers. dose anyone have
this kind or know how to get it cheap?
and befor i fdisk the computer to laod linux is thare a help book so i
dont kill the computer.(i am new to linux) the only system i know right
know is ms-dos. so how differnt is linux from the other systems?
thanks,micah
Bruce Scott TOK wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Micah Higgs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >is it possibul to put linux on a 486/66mhz with only a floppy drive?
>
> Floppy only is tough, though there are likely solutions. I ran with
> Linux on a 486/DX2 40 with 4 MB ram and 80 MB hard disk for several
> years. It is very possible but you have to know what you are doing to
> do the install since all the defaults on the modern easy packages will
> install much more than 100 MB.
>
> Run Slackware or Debian if you are going small on old hardware...
>
> --
> cu,
> Bruce
> drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
> sign the Linux Driver Petition: http://www.libranet.com/petition.html
------------------------------
From: "Frank Van Damme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What is the best/most powerful distro of linux?
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 08:34:57 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donovan Rebbechi"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mandrake 7.2 and RH 6.2 are "binary compatible". Personally, I use RH6.2
> with a lot of Mandrake packages on top. I like Mandrakes package
> selection, and am starting to feel that it's the "right" upgrade path.
> Redhat blew it with that mickey-mouse compiler.
Grin... better did it the other way around.
--
Never underestimate the power of Linux-Mandrake
7.2 on an AMD K7 800 / 128.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:43:43 GMT
You'd be amzed how many platforms one goes through after facing the,=20
"fuck, I can't believe it Windows (NT/98/95 or) has fucking crashed=20
again! Whats wrong with this piece of shit!", at least two to three=20
times a day.
kiwiunixman
PS. I removed the other groups as I donot like being an asshole magnet.
Curtis wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>=20
> =BB I have used Windows 3.1/3.11/95/98/98se/NT/2000, NT was the bigge=
st joke of
> =BB them all, installed a driver and NT failed to load, resulting in =
a blue
> =BB screen memory dump, not very fault tollerant or reliable!
>=20
> <cough> More than the OS's you named before it??!! That's simply not
> true.
>=20
> Curtis,
> | ,__o
> !___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
> <(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 07:51:50 GMT
Just had a look at the code behind the email, still using Windows with
Forte as your news reader, and connects to the internet via AT&T
Internet Service, very interesting. So your positive Linux experience
was actually one of your pipe dreams?
kiwiunixman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2000 11:13:21 -0600, "Conrad Rutherford"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hey Aaron, want YOUR hint?
>>
>> Hey, look at this car.
>> Well, it's not really a car yet, it's just a bunch of parts made all over
>> the world by different people and one guy stored them all over the place and
>> you can get them from here and there and none of them are supported by the
>> other parts but you could assemble them together yourself or pay someone
>
> snip..............
>
> Great post :)
>
> claire
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
