Linux-Advocacy Digest #630, Volume #30 Sun, 3 Dec 00 16:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: [OT] Gore & Bush ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Tom Wilson")
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Vann")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have to use (*GAG*) Windows on the job?
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 15:33:36 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <aMcW5.5420$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> MF is of course the british company Micro Focus.
> >> >> I thought you would at least know that.
> >> >
> >> >Why would I know that Charlie? I've never heard Micro Focus referred to as
> >> >MF.
> >> >
> >> >So, Charlie, what's your answer? Why are you still using software to which
> >> >MF have no answer? Why aren't you suing them? Why aren't you changing to
> >> >something better?
> >> >
> >>
> >> No we are not sueing MF.
> >> MF is the only company in the world which provides a compiler
> >> adequate for replacing our mainframes Cobol compiler.
> >>
> >> MF say's the problem is with Windows but they don't
> >> know why.
> >>
> >> >You're in this group whining about Windows 2000 but what are you _doing_
> >> >about it?
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
> >> >
> >>
> >> There's nothing you can do about it.
> >> They don't have Net Express for Unix.
> >>
> >> They stupidly decided they were not going to support
> >> an equivalent product for unix.
> >>
> >> So there's another fucked company on planet earth.
> >>
> >> What can I say.
> >
> >You can say to them, "In light of your decision not to support
> >Linux, we will be starting a search for a replacement product that
> >IS on linux, to be adopted 1st Quarter, 2002.
> >
> >That should grab the attention of the sales department...
> >it CHALLENGES them to come up with a way to save the sales,
> >and gives them adequate time to demonstrate a reasonable effort
> >to meet your specifications.
> >
> >In the mean time....do EXACTLY as what you have told them.
> >
> >
>
> In 1999 we were part of a marketing campaign for Micro Focus
> and had a dozen magazine interviews and were getting phone
> calls from all over the planet. My company name and title
> were published along with my boss and we expressed our
> views about MF Net Express. I told 3 of the magazines
> that we would have picked Linux as our target platform
> had it not been for the fact there is NO COBOL compiler
> available for Linux which is suitable for this kind
> of business.
>
> I was called up by a MF VP to ask why I did this to them.
> I said I told the magazine this because this is what I
> believe. He got heated about this and cancelled further
> magazine interview for our company. Further, the decision
> to put our company name as a reverence on every box
> of Net Express was cancelled.
>
> Next thing I know, one year later, they have a smaller
> less capable version of MF cobol available for Linux.
> It appears to be their former UNIX version they seemed
> to have cancelled 2 years ago for UNIX.
In other words...as much as the VP didn't like your opinion,
GETTING YOUR OPINION OUT did, in fact, bring about the
work towards the desired result.
:-)
>
> >>
> >> Charlie
> >
> >
> >--
> >Aaron R. Kulkis
> >Unix Systems Engineer
> >ICQ # 3056642
> >
>
> What we need is the full NET EXPRESS version of COBOL
> for Linux and I don't know if we are going to get it.
>
> OR
>
> The GNU is developing a compiler and is about half way
> thru the development process. And if I had my choice
> now, I will wait for the GNU one.
>
> And I think you understand why Aaron.
>
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 20:33:13 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <kAnW5.4399$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom Wilson wrote:
> >
> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:38:26 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >well to be honest the legal system never thought we would have such a
> >> >crybaby loser like we have with Gore so b/c of him we are having a 30
> >> >day election instead of a 1 day election with some votes counted 5
times
> >> >and the other 95% counted once.
> >>
> >> Gore did win the popular vote nationally, so your man Bush was really
> >> the minority choice. If the tables were turned, would you be telling
> >> Bush to concede or would you be insisting that he's only taking
> >> advantage of the options available and saying that the electoral
> >> college system needs to be thrown out?
> >
> ><soapbox>
> >
> >Actually, Republicans wouldn't have allowed Bush to follow this course.
> >They're not stupid. What Gore is doing now is damaging a party already
> >banged-up by Clinton. How the hell else, in this strong economy, could
the
> >election have even been close? What Gore's doing now is adding more
nails
> >to the Democratic coffin. I used to be a STAUNCH Democrat, until around
> >1993. The Democratic party, now, isn't the party I used to support. Their
> >idiotic post-election behavior just re-enforces that decision. The longer
it
> >goes on, the less viable the party becomes. A smart Democratic party
would
> >have gracefully bowed out, allowed the Republicans to have a legitimately
> >questionable four year turn at the helm, then come back and clean house
in
> >2004. As it stands, they're putting 2002 senate races in jeopardy. Mark
my
> >words, the longer this goes on, the more seats they'll lose. Now, any
> >efforts by them to tie up the senate to counter Bush proposals will
appear
> >as more sour grapes. In 2004, they're going to nominate Hillary Clinton.
> >Just watch. It will be an unmitigated disaster!
> >
> >IDIOTS!
> >
> ></soapbox>
> >
> >--
> >Tom Wilson
> >A Computer Programmer who wishes he'd chosen another vocation.
>
>
> There will be no worry about this. When the emporer takes control
> he will disband the imperial senate!
>
> I'll throw out my political views now. Why not.
>
> I think Gore and Bush need to leave. I would like 2 actual candidates
> and I don't think much of either one of them.
>
> Why is it Mc Cain, a vietnam POW, drank urine to stay alive, is
> rejected because he's a liberal/republican. What rubbish.
It the same reason Alan Keyes consistantly gets overlooked. They speak their
minds, even if it doesn't reflect the party line. And, most of the time,
they're right. They would have made one hell of a ticket.
>
> And Gore/Clinton, do I really need to type anything here?
> Why do the democrats always pick the most idiotic freak candidates
> they can find? Why?
They have a somewhat limited talent pool, that's why. You're seeing a
representative slice of the party.
>
> And I agree with your comments. The Democrats haven't supported
> the middle class in 20 or more years.
And haven't conducted themselves with anything resembling dignity or
scruples since Carter.
>
> We have become a nation of extremist parties.
> You are either extreme rightwing or your extreme leftwing and
> the middle ground where most of us stand is not being represented.
>
> This in itself is an extremely dangerous thing.
--
Tom Wilson
"Feminists like to set the pace for how women like Mrs. Clinton are judged,
correct? Well, in recent weeks feminist writers for The Washington Post and
other news outlets have told us that we ought to judge Katherine Harris by
her eyelashes, makeup and wardrobe, and decide based on these criteria that
she cannot be trusted. So it's apparently okay, once again, to judge a
female politician based on her looks, figure, clothes or makeup. This makes
me think of something we can now say about Mrs. Clinton. In line with the
feminists, I want to be the first to go on record as asserting that we
cannot believe anything Hillary Clinton says, because she has a big broad
beam and elephant ankles - and I want to thank the feminists of America for
agreeing with me. "
-- Rush Limbaugh
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[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: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 20:33:11 GMT
"Bill Vermillion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <d_lW5.4396$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Tom Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8Q4W5.6538$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
>
> >> >> Donovan Rebbechi writes:
> >>
> >> >>> The movement keys are placed sensibly in vi (hjkl),
> >>
> >> >> Which is not intuitive. First-time vi users, if they try to do
> >>
> >> > Big fucking deal. NOTHING about computers is "intuitive"
> >>
> >> Incorrect; consider the power switch.
>
> >You'd be surprised....
> >Never underestimate the idiot factor.
>
> Labeling the power switch 0 or 1 is definately not intuitive
> to someone who has not been exposed to computer logic.
True, that was a bonehead idea....
However, this is a society that has grown up with light switches, I don't
think even that particular switch requires a great conceptual leap to figure
out.
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Gore & Bush
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 20:33:15 GMT
"Stefan Ohlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck wrote:
> >On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:38:26 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>well to be honest the legal system never thought we would have such a
> >>crybaby loser like we have with Gore so b/c of him we are having a 30
> >>day election instead of a 1 day election with some votes counted 5 times
> >>and the other 95% counted once.
> >Gore did win the popular vote nationally, so your man Bush was really
> >the minority choice. If the tables were turned, would you be telling
> >Bush to concede or would you be insisting that he's only taking
> >advantage of the options available and saying that the electoral
> >college system needs to be thrown out?
> >
> I'm sorry to budge in, but I just want to say what I think of this
> and that is that it is just sad.
>
> Gore is afraid to lose if a recount isn't made
> Bush is afraid to lose if a recount _is_ made.
>
> Why couldn't they just have done the recount and then accept the
> result of it? Instead they act like children in a sandbox trying to get
> votes included and excluded, recounts made and disallowed.
Mainly because the recounts thus far have been selective and arguably rigged
in Gore's favor. They're creating votes, not counting them.
--
Tom Wilson
"Feminists like to set the pace for how women like Mrs. Clinton are judged,
correct? Well, in recent weeks feminist writers for The Washington Post and
other news outlets have told us that we ought to judge Katherine Harris by
her eyelashes, makeup and wardrobe, and decide based on these criteria that
she cannot be trusted. So it's apparently okay, once again, to judge a
female politician based on her looks, figure, clothes or makeup. This makes
me think of something we can now say about Mrs. Clinton. In line with the
feminists, I want to be the first to go on record as asserting that we
cannot believe anything Hillary Clinton says, because she has a big broad
beam and elephant ankles - and I want to thank the feminists of America for
agreeing with me. "
-- Rush Limbaugh
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:08:54 +0200
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > Have you even tried comparing memory footprints?
> > Right now, OE is taking 15MB (peak at 30MB), IE 7MB (peak at 17MB).
> > Netscape reached 40MB (peak at 65MB at which point I terminated it
because
> > it seem to just want more and more) easily, by simply surfing with *one*
> > window open. And just openning it would take 22- 25MB.
> > Trying to do things with more than one window open increase memory usage
in
> > a totally unacceptable ways.
>
> On my linux box, Navigator and Messenger use 16.9 Mb. Adding another
instance
> of Navigator adds about 0.5 Mb.
Which version?
> You have to take these numbers with a grain of salt. There are different
> ways to grab memory in Win32. The question may just be how much can you
> do before the "Out of Virtual Memory" box comes up (in NT 4).
The way I set this up? I don't think I will.
I've never seen this message in Win2K, which is what I'm using. Both as a
desktop and as a server.
And I have recently doubled my RAM, which has the very odd affect of lower
absolute number of memory taken.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:20:10 +0200
"Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90dr8a$b7q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > False.
> > A properly configured Win2K has no problems staying up for as long as
you
> > like.
> > The only reason it's not up for years is because it's less than a year
in
> > the market.
>
> I have to disagree with you here. My 2 cents, from my experience.
>
> I've been involved with the set up of more than 200 NT Servers, about 5
2000
> Servers, and 5 Linux Servers. Most of the NT Servers were at a bank (I
was
> on their Y2K project).
>
> Not 1 of the NT Servers was up more than 6 weeks. Actually, that's not
> true, one SQL Server remained up for 3 months but had to be moved. So I
> guess kudos for whomever set up that machine. Some of the rest of the
> machines had scheduled reboots anywhere from every night to every couple
of
> weeks. This was to prevent them crashing in the middle of the day. Most
of
> the time, they didn't crash, though, it's just that a service died and
> couldn't be restarted. I shook with fear everytime I clicked 'Stop' in
the
> Services Control Panel.
>
> The 2000 Servers fared better, though, I think that on has been up for
about
> 4 months. I'm not really sure, I'm not with that company anymore. But
most
> of them have had to be rebooted for the same 'dead service' reason. It
may
> be stable if you NEVER EVER EVER TOUCH IT, but that just doesn' t happen
in
> the real world.
>
> The Linux Servers are another matter entirely. Never has one of them
> crashed. The 1st server I set up has been up for 192 days now. And I've
> upgraded the database server, the web server, the ssh server, the dns
> server, and the mail server. Nary a reboot. The only times the other's
> have been down is to be moved, or someone uplugged them, or a hardware
> failure.
>
> Anyway, that's my 'real world' experience. Your mileage may vary.
>
> Adam Ruth
My milage is indeed different.
Why on earth would you restart the whole machine just because a service has
died on you?
There is *no need* to do that if a service crushed, you simply restart it,
at worse, you've to stop or terminate it, and then start it again.
And on 2000, you can go to Administrator Tools>Services, and get a very nice
MMC that display all the services, allows you to stop/start/restart/pause
every service which run on the computer.
Frankly, I don't think that you or whoever took care of the NT/2K boxes had
much knowledge in NT/2K, or did their work correctly.
There are plenty of problems that can be solved by a reboot, and it's
defintly the easiest way, which take the least thinking. However, it's
neither the only one nor the best.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 3 Dec 2000 22:28:55 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:W%wW5.29885$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:90dcco$ojf9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Apperantly, it suffers from exactly the same problem.
> > > > > > > > Netscape 6 require /usr/local/netscape to have read/write to
> > *all*
> > > > > > users.
> > > > > > > > Since it stores *user spesifics* settings in there, instead
of
> > > > storing
> > > > > > them
> > > > > > > > in /home/<user>/netsacpe
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not exactly the same case. It's just a suggested default
> > > > > > > path (unwise suggestion, I agree). I didn't like it, and I
> > > > > > > installed to /home/<user>/netscape. Didn't need to get an
> > > > > > > updated version, just entered the right path in place of the
> > > > > > > default. However I'm not sure it was necessary, because user
> > > > > > > specific data are kept in a .mozilla folder on my user home
> > > > > > > directory.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > I mean that in *nix you only have a filesystem, with some conventional
> > > setting which are intended to provide security. An user or a sysadmin
> > > has easy means to increase or decrease security for a single
application
> > > or for a full range of them. Therefore it's possible to run in a safe
> > > mode an application whose programmers screwed up security because of
> > > error/stupidity reasons.
> > > On Windows you don't have such a possibility: the registry has been
> > > designed on a fixed way, you can't move an entry from HKLM to HKCU in
a
> > > way transparent to the application, so either the security scheme
> > > designed by MS or selected by the applications suits you, or you're
> > > screwed up.
> >
> > You can move nodes around, using registry exports & some minor text
> editing.
> > The problem is that you've to define to the application where to look
for
> > it, which is impossible unless the programmer gave you a way to do so,
or
> > you've the code.
> > Also, you can fine-grain the security of every node & key in the
registry.
> > That is how I got my dailer to work.
> > I just don't like it when I have to do extra work because lazy
> programming.
> >
>
> I don't have time to check what Netscape 6 does right now, but it is *not*
> a problem in unix to have a directory where anyone has write permission
> only to their own file(s), and others have only the permissions the owner
> or superuser wants to give them. /tmp and /var/spool/mail being well
> known examples.
You can't give permissions to values in the registry, and I've not checked
the way N6 stores itself in the registry (I has enough resaons to hate it.)
but usually, each user has its own node in the registry, backed with his
files the disk, so you can give each user its node, and access to the files
on disk, and make it work.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 20:33:16 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Tim Smith wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 02 Dec 2000 18:38:26 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >well to be honest the legal system never thought we would have such a
> > >crybaby loser like we have with Gore so b/c of him we are having a 30
> > >day election instead of a 1 day election with some votes counted 5
times
> > >and the other 95% counted once.
> >
> > So you think Gore should just give up, even though the difference in the
> > current totals is well under the margin of error for the way the votes
> > were counted? There are many sources of errors in vote counting, and
> > normally these don't matter, because the difference is big enough that
> > even if all the errors went the same way, it would not have made a
> > difference. That's not so in this case. That fact that every time they
> > use a more accurate counting method, the difference narrows, indicates
> > that they have not yet found a good procedure. Gore owes it to those
> > who voted for him to keep fighting until there is actually good evidence
> > that he is not rightful winner.
Yes, he should give up. He's going to lose and take his party down with him.
Idiocy like that is the reason I left the party in 1993.
>
> If Bush were on the other side of this count, his party would be just
> as contentious and whiny (you'd see posters like "Bash/Shamey" or
> "Bosh/Shammy" or somesuch).
No, they wouldn't have been that stupid. All the loser in this situation
would have to do is sit back and let the other guy have a term of
questionable legitimacy in an economic downturn, come back in 2004 and win
in a landslide. Gore and the Dems could have won BIG in 2004 with a senate
majority and the oval office to boot had they just cooled their irons and
thought things through. It's not like Bush could have done the Dems much
harm, seeing the 50-50 split in the senate and the aforementioned legitimacy
question. He'd have been a lame duck, nothing more. But, noooooo! They have
to fight it out with blatantly rigged recounts. The military ballot
thing...REAL GENIUS! People are already pissed about Clinton - Let's piss
them off some more! Let's make ourselves a laughing stock. Let's make Jay
Leno's next four years productive!
Fucking idiots.
>
> What the frikkin' pundits don't mention is that, in 1960, when Tricky
> Dick narrowly lost, the Republican party litigated in the same way
> as the Democrats now.
And when they realized the PR costs, they were smart enough to quit. And,
incidentally, come back to win later.
>
> If you want to hear a bunch of people who whine even when they're
> winning, look at the Republicans.
Whining is non-partisan...
Both sides make me sick!
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 15:35:17 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <T9pW5.8795$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> >> From mainframe land we found the
> >>
> >> VIC 20. A commordore based machine with 256K of ram I think.
> >>
> >> Then it was a VIC 64.
> >
> >I've never heard the VIC being described as a mainframe. It certainly never
> >had 256k of RAM! The VIC 64 was a 64k machine, I can't remember how much
> >the VIC 20 had.
> >
> >--
> >Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
> >
>
> NO, I commoth from mainframe land into the land of PC.
>
> And I think your right. The 64 had 64K and the Vic 20 had? 2k???
Vic-20 had 16k R/W mem + 4k ROM
> I really don't remember. That was 20 years ago.
>
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Vann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 20:35:10 GMT
In article <TbxW5.885$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Vann the helper robot starts winding up. . .
<snip>
>> What you SHOULD be doing is running something like Windowmaker, and
>> adding bits and pieces of KDE (or gnome, or whatever) that you need, as
>> you see fit.
>
> Yes. Even though KDE isn't all that bad, I'm probably going to
> "downgrade" to a less resource intensive wm.
As a personal user of Blackbox, I'd have to recommend that. I used to use
WindowMaker on my 486, and it ran fine, but ever since I got my new (
Well, it's old now ) computer I've been running blackbox.
http://blackbox.alug.org, if you're interested. It's fast, small, and it
can be made to look damn good. It's a matter of personal choice, though,
there isn't much difference performance wise between blackbox and
windowmaker on a machine like that.
>> > 2000 is simple to setup. In fact, it asks for nearly no information.
> Why
>> > do you criticize things you've never obviously used?
>>
>> 2000 is indeed very easy to set up. I'm running it right now, and
>> after a hellish time finding a video driver for my TNT2 Ultra
>> (hercules) that
> didnt
>> lock the machine up and bear the nessesity of re-installing every time,
>> im pretty happy with it.
>>
>> Though honestly, I still use unix for pretty much everything except
> playing
>> games and looking at pretty web pages.
>
> Yeah, I can't stand web browsing in Linux. I keep a high resolution
> desktop on a 21" monitor, and it's almost impossible to read the text on
> lots of pages. Increasing the size of the text just makes the text
> blocky and virtually unreadable.
Well, I used to have that problem, but there are ways to solve it. First
off, you can increase the dpi used in XFree86. For me, I have this line
in /etc/X11/xdm/Xservers:
:0 local /usr/X11R6/bin/X -nolisten tcp -dpi 92
The -nolisten tcp is for added security, since I don't use the networking
features built into X. -dpi 92 is pretty self explanatory. Then, if you
use the x font server ( I don't with XFree86 4.01 ), edit
/etc/X11/fs/config, and make sure there is a line like this:
default-resolutions = 75,75,100,100 Now, you can install truetype fonts,
if you want. There's a nice tutorial on how to do that at
http://www.linuxnewbie.org. Again, TTF font support is built into XFree86
4.01, so there will be additional steps if you're using XFree86 3.3.x
I run my monitor at 1280x1024, and the text looks perfect in netscape.
See, now this wasn't so hard, was it? *cough cough*
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
