Linux-Advocacy Digest #692, Volume #30 Wed, 6 Dec 00 18:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful (Steve Mading)
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS ("Patrick Raymond Hancox")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows review (JM)
Re: Windows review (JM)
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS (JM)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (JM)
Re: Need Advice (JM)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot. (Steve Mading)
Re: [OT] Gore & Bush (Michael Marion)
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Dennis Popov")
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! (Steve Mading)
Re: Linux is awful ("KK")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. (kiwiunixman)
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! (Jake Taense)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 21:44:21 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>> (To tholen)
>>>
>>> Okay we agree, it seems, that intuativeness is purely relative
>>> to what is already known. In the case of Vi, it only appears
>>> unintuative if you are used to some other editor first.
>> Not just "some" editor, but a wide range of editors. Which screen
>> editors besides vi use hjkl for cursor movement?
> Lots.
Namely?
> This is irrelevant.
On the contrary, intuitiveness depends on familiarity.
Familiarity can come from commonality. If it is a common
feature, then using hjkl for cursor movement could indeed
be intuitive to some people. I have no information on
which to base such a claim. If such information exists,
then there is a reason for providing it, yet you're calling
it irrelevant.
> Intuitiveness isn't a popularity contest,
Didn't say it was, in the "likable" sense of the word.
> since, as you have already admitted, it's all relative to what
> the user is already familiar with. You are assuming a user who
> learned another text editor first, and then learned vi.
On the contrary, I'm assuming a first-time vi user. Doesn't
really matter whether the person learned another screen editor
first or not.
> I'm not. This renders everything else you said in your post moot
Incorrect, given that you erroneously presupposed my assumption.
> (except for pointing out how to spell 'intuitive').
>
> You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Irrelevant, given that I'm not trying to.
> If intuitiveness is all relative then blanket statements such
> as "vi is not intuitive" are deceptive.
Fortunately, I didn't make such a blanket statement. My comment
was restricted to the use of hjkl for cursor movement. That's a
rather small subset of vi.
> [snip]
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 6 Dec 2000 21:41:14 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <90f756$f77$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Correct me if I am wrong, but what I understand you are saying is that
: Linux
:> is great however, there are some quirks that need to be fixed up, and the
:> GUI needs to be refined a little more before the mainstream user jumps on
:> the bandwagon. Correct?
: Pretty much, though I can't stand the CLI command set.
I think the reason for the hostility you see here is that people
like me, who *like* the CLI command set, don't want to lose it.
This is why there is hostility toward those who say the CLI is
annoying and should be superceeded by the GUI. I'm all in favor
of making the GUI better, but not at the expense of the CLI. In
an ideal world, every single thing on the computer could be
accessed either way, with the exception of those few apps that
absolutely must be GUI by their very nature and don't make any
sense as CLI apps (like The Gimp). I don't want to see the same
thing happen to Linux that happened to Windows, where today the
CLI has been crippled by the fact that many of the OS setup tools
only exist in GUI form, and the on-line documentation of the CLI is
sparse to none.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Patrick Raymond Hancox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 13:51:18 -0800
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 21:42:07 -0500,
<deleted quote from asshole that started this thread>
> The fact he has this money from the sale of this crap
> just makes my stomach turn. Can you believe he made
> that much money off people selling Windows?
>
> My god! People.
>
> Windows?
>
Microsoft sells other things than the windows family. You forget that he
would still be pretty solidly rich on the income from Microsoft's game
software alone.
...and Flight Sim rocks...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 21:50:40 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>> The fact that it needs to be learned is what makes something not
>>>> intuitive.
>>> By that standard, the only intuative interface is the nipple.
>>> After that everything is learned.
>> Incorrect. You're ignoring the second and third and fourth and
>> fifth and so on instances of an interface.
>>> The insistency that things should be similar to things that you
>>> already know, when taken to the extreme, prevents all progress.
>> Fortunately, I never indicated any such insistence.
> No, you merely imply it by making such a big deal over it.
I see that you don't understand the difference between imply and
infer. Just because you inferred it does not mean that I implied
it.
> If you don't consider intuitiveness so important, it wouldn't
> matter to you whether or not vi is intuitive, and you wouldn't
> care.
I do consider intuitiveness important. I also consider progress
important. When a design adversely impacts one of the two, then
a choice needs to be made. Which outweighs the other?
> And incendentally, my only objection here is in your two-facedness
> when you say intuitiveness is all relative (to which I agree), and
> yet insist on making blanket statements about intuitiveness without
> the appropriate qualifiers.
You're erroneously presupposing "two-facedness", given that I haven't
made any blanket statements without the appropriate qualifiers.
> You can't say, for example, "Foo is not intuitive" and just end
> the sentence there, unless you like lying.
Fortunately, I haven't done that. What makes you think otherwise?
> There is no such thing as *universal* intuitiveness - its all relative.
Glad you agree.
> You admit this when talking to me, yet not when talking to Aaron.
On what basis do you make that ridiculous claim?
> (As evidenced by your insistence that it is possible for a part of
> a computer to be "intuitive" to all.)
Where did I allegedly make such an insistence?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:59:28 GMT
On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 13:35:50 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >There's a reason why we got away from the command line...
>> But once you've learnt the commands, you have much more power and
>> efficiency than you would have in a graphical interface. A graphical
>> interface may be best when you're using multiple programs, or programs
>> that require graphics, but you cannot underestime the power of the
>> command line.
>For you and I, yes. I'm a strong proponent of having both the cmd-line
>and the GUI for administrative and power user tasks.
>
>But, if you recall, this thread was about new users and the learning
>curve.
>
>Average users would be less productive in the command line due to the
>huge learning curve and many other factors.
>
>Like I said, there's a reason we got away from the command line. A
>GUI has proven to be more productive (for average and new users, mind
>you).
But even if you're a new user, it's still worth taking the time to
learn how to use the command line.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:59:29 GMT
On 6 Dec 2000 18:55:01 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brian V. Smith)) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM) writes:
>
>|> >The cards I've seen at Office Depot are a little over a dollar a megabyte.
>|>
>|> And you call that cheap? That would mean 128MB would cost about
>|> $130!!!
>Big deal. That IS cheap. Several years ago 128MB would have cost MUCH more.
Just because it was even more expensive years ago, it doesn't mean it
is cheap now.
Anything over 50p/MB is too steep.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:59:30 GMT
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 08:48:45 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>) wrote:
>> That doesn't take away the fact that he's still going to be E X T R E
>> M E L Y rich afterwards, richer than most people could ever imagine.
>> If he was REALLY trying to be nice, he's give away ALL his money and
>> come back down to the level of the rest of us.
>Uh...no, then he'd be a moron. Would you risk you financial stability to be
>just like the rest of them? I sure as shit wouldn't.
>
>WHY GO BACK TO STRUGGLING WHEN YOU GOT IT MADE?
What I was trying to say, was that just because bill gates plans of
giving billions to charity doesn't mean he's kind, he's just got a LOT
of money. He's still going to have more than anyone else could ever
imagine.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:59:31 GMT
On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 15:20:19 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >Exactly 10 shortcuts key. :)
>>
>> 2.
>You forgot to qoute this:
>...there are[shortcut keys] in my notepad (win2000) there aren't on the 9x
>notepad
I'm using 98, what does a notepad on 2000 mean to me? Compare it to a
text editor on a Unix machine two years ago.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JM)
Subject: Re: Need Advice
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 19:59:31 GMT
On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 14:42:08 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>Hi guys. I'm new here and I am becoming interested in Linux. So far I
>have only really used Windows. It's not bad, but still I would like to
>try another OS, and Linux seems like a good place to start. Do you have
>any advice to a tenderfoot trying to get started. You don't have to tell
>me that it's not going to be easy . . . I already know that. but any
>advice as to how to get started would be a big help. Thanks in advance.
www.linuxdoc.org is a good place to start.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 21:56:15 GMT
Steve Mading writes:
>>>> That's the problem with Aaron's argument. It can be used to claim that
>>>> nothing is intuitive. You're quite right to note that intuitiveness is
>>>> not an absolute.
>>> If you really admitted that intuativeness was not an abosulte, you
>>> would refrain from making such blanket statments as "vi is not
>>> intuative".
>> Fortunately, I didn't make such a blanket statement. I did indicate that
>> the use of hjkl for cursor movement is not intuitive to the first-time vi
>> user. That's a rather small subset of vi.
> Okay, I take it back. You did qualify it - but with entirely the wrong
> group.
Who or what is the "wrong group"? I qualified it for anyone who chose
to read what I wrote.
> It only looks unintuitive to users who have familiarity with
> other text editors first.
On the contrary, it can also be non-intuitive to users that have
no familiarity with any text editors. I did not restrict my statement
to just those who have used text editors, though they have the added
problem of "unlearning" something.
> This is not the same as the set of all first-time vi users.
Irrelevant, given that I didn't say it is.
> You didn't qualify it down far enough.
Sure I did. You simply overinterpreted what I wrote.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodwin Acknowledges he's an idiot.
Date: 6 Dec 2000 21:54:08 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> why not alt-ctrl-backspace to restart X
: Didn't know that one.
That's because it's not true. CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE does not "restart" X.
It just aborts it and quits from X. What you are probably seeing is
a system with "xdm" turned on, which is a daemon that does the following:
1 - Launch X server.
2 - Run the X login widget on that X server (and possibly
other programs that can be set up by the admin to run at
this time, typically things like a message-of-the-day
display, or something like that.)
3 - When the user logs in, su to him and run his window manager.
4 - When the X server quits, go back to step 1.
All the ctrl-alt-backspace does is quit the X server. Xdm is what is
launching another one.
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Gore & Bush
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 22:12:08 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
Not that I've been keeping up with COLA completely.. but this is the first
time in awhile that I've found myself in complete agreement with you Chad.
> This margin of error occured all over the nation. In fact, Miami-Dade had
> one of the lowest occurances of no-votes or voter error in the entire nation.
I love the "how come the rich Repub counties have newer, better counting
machines, while the poor demo counties have older, less reliable ones?"
arguments. It's ironic that such arguments are made when Palm Beach is one of
the richest counties in the _country_ (or so I've heard and read).
> If we were to make a special case for these few individuals, we would
> esentially be disenfranchising the 1-2 million other non-voters in the rest
> of the nation.
Exactly. Besides, the instructions for voting make it very clear that you
have to make sure the "chads" are removed. I know that I damn well did when I
filled out my ballot.
> So what's your point? Both candadites knew the rules going in. That
> is what the Constitution has said since it was ratified. In fact,
> Gore knew it all too well, otherwise he would've campaigned only
> in New York and California (which is why we have the Electoral College
> in the first place). He knew the rules, he lost. Get over it.
The fact that the electoral college was formed in the first place was the
smartest thing they could do. It showed that they knew (and some feared) a
pure majority rule, knowing that a few cities alone could control everything
while entire states' voices would be unheard.
Another claim that bothers me is the "we live in a democracy.. count the
votes" one.. technically we live in a Constitutional Republic, not a
democracy.
--
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
There's even a parody for people opposed to hunting: Deer Avenger. In it,
bazooka-toting deer lure potbellied hunters to their death with such "genuine
hunter calls" as a feminine cry of "Help, I'm naked, and I have a pizza." ->
Joshua Quittner, in an article on the Hunting computer game craze in the
12/7/98 issue of Time
------------------------------
From: "Dennis Popov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:14:20 -0500
another claire wannabe, huh? all right people, whoever tries to argue with
this troll will immediately be labeled as a total moron.
Swango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows 2000 rocks and Linux is a sluggard if ever there was one. I
> tried Redhat and took the server install option and it promptly wiped
> out my entire hard disk. Fortunately I had a backup but what if I
> didn't?
>
> Even after that Rocky Horror Show, using Linux is like moving back in
> time about 10 years in the computer world. My scanner, printer, and
> USB camera don't work. My Cdrw gives errors all the time although it
> seems to burn fine. My cordless mouse doesn't work properly and I find
> kde to be sluggish even on a 600 mhz system with 256 megabites of
> memory.
>
> Windows 2000 is so much better and from what I have seen Whistler is
> going to be even better than Windows 2000.
>
> To it's credit, at least Linux didn't ruin any of my hardware, quite
> possibly because it doesn't support any of my hardware.
>
> Back to Windows for me and maybe I will look at Linux sometime down
> the road, but for now it's a coaster.
>
> I can see why Linux is free, because they would never get out of court
> if they charged people for this tripe.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: 6 Dec 2000 22:10:29 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The last thread I started concerning the current OS
: your using is very interesting reading and it's
: still getting attention.
: I thought it would be interesting reading and
: refreshing to see your PC history's revealed here.
: So from the time you first got any kind of PC forward,
: SOUND OFF.
: From mainframe land we found the
: VIC 20. A commordore based machine with 256K of ram I think.
: Then it was a VIC 64.
The Vic 20 had less ram than the c64, and the c64 had 64 K, so
no way did the vic20 have 64 K. I don't rememnber exactly how
much it had. It's hard to compare the two, though, since the
Vic20 had its basic interpeter in ROM and this was not counted
in the RAM total, while the c64 had pretty much the same basic
ROM interpeter, but the ROM was only used to present a permanent
image to copy into RAM at boot time. Once booted, the basic
interpeter ran entirely out of this RAM, and the ROM was never
used. So this basic interpeter took up a part of that 64K RAM
figure. (This feature allowed machine language programmers who
didn't need the basic interpeter to overwrite its memory with
their own code, which gave them more room to work with.)
------------------------------
From: "KK" <[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: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 22:24:09 -0000
This is the longest running debate I have EVER seen on a linux newsgroup.
it is also the most pointless debate as everyone is entitled to their own
opinion, however it is rather stupid of windows users to snag off linux in
a linux newsgroup. dont you have other things to do you people?
"Dennis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:904t51$[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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 22:27:29 GMT
And another one sees the light.
"Swango" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Windows 2000 rocks and Linux is a sluggard if ever there was one. I
> tried Redhat and took the server install option and it promptly wiped
> out my entire hard disk. Fortunately I had a backup but what if I
> didn't?
>
> Even after that Rocky Horror Show, using Linux is like moving back in
> time about 10 years in the computer world. My scanner, printer, and
> USB camera don't work. My Cdrw gives errors all the time although it
> seems to burn fine. My cordless mouse doesn't work properly and I find
> kde to be sluggish even on a 600 mhz system with 256 megabites of
> memory.
>
> Windows 2000 is so much better and from what I have seen Whistler is
> going to be even better than Windows 2000.
>
> To it's credit, at least Linux didn't ruin any of my hardware, quite
> possibly because it doesn't support any of my hardware.
>
> Back to Windows for me and maybe I will look at Linux sometime down
> the road, but for now it's a coaster.
>
> I can see why Linux is free, because they would never get out of court
> if they charged people for this tripe.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 11:39:03 +1300
Swango wrote:
> Windows 2000 rocks and Linux is a sluggard if ever there was one. I
> tried Redhat and took the server install option and it promptly wiped
> out my entire hard disk. Fortunately I had a backup but what if I
> didn't?
Why didn't you read the instructions? Why did you install the server
option when clearly you needed the desktop setup option? What version of
Redhat were you using? Have you tried any other distro (I find SuSE
better in all respects)? Why didn't you use the customised installation?
>
> Even after that Rocky Horror Show, using Linux is like moving back in
> time about 10 years in the computer world. My scanner, printer, and
> USB camera don't work. My Cdrw gives errors all the time although it
> seems to burn fine. My cordless mouse doesn't work properly and I find
> kde to be sluggish even on a 600 mhz system with 256 megabites of
> memory.
USB and cordless mice. Question, how many users out in computer land do
you believe have a cordless mouse? very few and far between, Linux is
built for the mass's, not the minority with the most obscure hardware,
and if you want support, why don't you contribute to the source code?
Did you check the HCL USB devices? It is a very well known fact that
these are not supported under linux (apart from a few USB mice), my
advice, wait until 2.4.0 comes out. Are you delusional about the speed
when using kde? I have a Pentium III 550 (Coppermine) w/ 128MB Ram,
10gig HDD, SB Live! Value, TNT2 32MB AGP and a 40x cdrom, I am running
KDE2, and it fly's on my hardware configuration.
>
> Windows 2000 is so much better and from what I have seen Whistler is
> going to be even better than Windows 2000.
Have you tried it? I have, and believe me, after 1 year in the great
Microsoft think-tank I thought they might of actually come out with
something a little more revolutionary.
>
> To it's credit, at least Linux didn't ruin any of my hardware, quite
> possibly because it doesn't support any of my hardware.
Why would it? the only way to screw hardware under any OS is to have ya
screen refresh rate too high.
>
> Back to Windows for me and maybe I will look at Linux sometime down
> the road, but for now it's a coaster.
Same with my copy of Windows 95B (I sold my copy of Winblows 2000 Pro)
>
> I can see why Linux is free, because they would never get out of court
> if they charged people for this tripe.
No, I paid for my copy of Linux ($NZ189.95), and it is worth every
penny. Wake up and smell the coffee sonny, I have been using computers
longer than have been on this earth for, and because one whippersnapper
like you cannot handle a real OS and then go off and cry at COLA to
prove some anecdotal fable. Go back to you sheltered life under the
window whilst the rest of society moves forward.
kiwiunixman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jake Taense)
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000 22:49:33 GMT
In article <90mdgl$fng$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: VIC 20. A commordore based machine with 256K of ram I think.
>
>: Then it was a VIC 64.
>
>The Vic 20 had less ram than the c64, and the c64 had 64 K, so
>no way did the vic20 have 64 K. I don't rememnber exactly how
>much it had. It's hard to compare the two, though, since the
>Vic20 had its basic interpeter in ROM and this was not counted
>in the RAM total, while the c64 had pretty much the same basic
>ROM interpeter, but the ROM was only used to present a permanent
>image to copy into RAM at boot time. Once booted, the basic
>interpeter ran entirely out of this RAM, and the ROM was never
>used. So this basic interpeter took up a part of that 64K RAM
>figure. (This feature allowed machine language programmers who
>didn't need the basic interpeter to overwrite its memory with
>their own code, which gave them more room to work with.)
>
>
Vic-20 specs:
CPU - 6502A running at 1.0227 MHz
ROM - 16KB
RAM - 5KB (3.5KB usable memory) expandable to 32KB
Screen - 22 columns by 23 rows, 176x184 pixels, 16 colors
Sound: 3 voices plus white noise generator
C64 memory situation - (from memory, unverified):
39K of usable memory for basic, but 54K if you pitched out the interpreter.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
