Linux-Advocacy Digest #704, Volume #30 Thu, 7 Dec 00 01:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS ("the_blur")
Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS ("the_blur")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (B. P. Uecker)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: windoze is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows review (Adam Schuetze)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Sux (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux is awful ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Re: Linux is awful ("Michael")
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Sux (kiwiunixman)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true ("Keith W. Peterson")
Re: OS Installation Help? (kiwiunixman)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:06:56 -0500
> Get a grip. MSFS sucks. It looks the same today as it did when it
> belonged to Bruce Artwick and Sublogic fifteen years ago. I would have
> expected some improvements over the original C-64 version by now, but it
> looks like MSFT has just been sitting on the back of a cash cow and
> sucking up the profits without returning much of anything.
Looks like someone's still sour that bell bottoms and the 'fro went out of
style...
Whatever you're smoking man, save me some =)
If FS is anything like MS Combat FS, it rocks. It's the only other combat
sim game I can think of that are is as good as the Aces series (Aces of the
pacific and Aces over Europe). You probably don't play much, so probably
know nothing about how far aircraft sims have come in 7 years. Maybe your
blind hatred of Microsoft is making you delude yourself into thinking that a
great game is less than it is. You know, people and game studios make games,
Microsoft just backs them with the money and resources.
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: LINUX ROCKS AND WINDOWS SUCKS
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 00:06:56 -0500
> Get a grip. MSFS sucks. It looks the same today as it did when it
> belonged to Bruce Artwick and Sublogic fifteen years ago. I would have
> expected some improvements over the original C-64 version by now, but it
> looks like MSFT has just been sitting on the back of a cash cow and
> sucking up the profits without returning much of anything.
Looks like someone's still sour that bell bottoms and the 'fro went out of
style...
Whatever you're smoking man, save me some =)
If FS is anything like MS Combat FS, it rocks. It's the only other combat
sim game I can think of that are is as good as the Aces series (Aces of the
pacific and Aces over Europe). You probably don't play much, so probably
know nothing about how far aircraft sims have come in 7 years. Maybe your
blind hatred of Microsoft is making you delude yourself into thinking that a
great game is less than it is. You know, people and game studios make games,
Microsoft just backs them with the money and resources.
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:10:53 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:d2DX5.37654$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qcjX5.13502$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > </div>
> >
> > </body>
> >
> > </html>
> >
>
> What happens when you embed an excel page?
What ever the MIME setting for that type is set to will execute the file.
i.e. if Office is installed the sheet is displayed, if not it will ask for
the application to use.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: B. P. Uecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 23:11:27 -0600
Tom Wilson wrote in <7BsX5.5083$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Netware is famous for abending at the drop of the hat. If all you do
>> with Netware is sit it in the corner and serve out saved documents to
>> PC users using IPX, it works.
>
>That's all you should have done with it. Its' what it was designed for.
Yes, no shit, that's why it's dead. Next post: Tom writes in to tell
the world that Lotus 1-2-3 is dead, and anyway you should just use
whatever came with your Linux distro. What a genius.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:11:44 GMT
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:NxDX5.37723$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Anyone remember DOS edit? Now, was that a pile of piss or what that a
> > pile of piss?
>
> No, no, edit is one of the best things Microsoft ever did. You must
> be thinking of edlin. Try telling someone over the phone how to
> fix a dos config.sys file with edlin when they have never used a
> keyboard before.
Arrrrgh! FLASHBACKS!!!!! Nooooooooo!
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: windoze is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:20:20 -0600
"Kenny Pearce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> software is irrelevant. As was previously mentioned, user side software
CANNOT
> cause linux to crash... the program itself may crash (I must admit, I have
had
> my X-server crash once. I came to the conclusion it was literally an act
of
> God (and that's not a figure of speech)), but the kernel itself cannot
crash
> due to the actions of user side software. You simply can't say that of
> Windoze.
That's completely false. Bugs exist in any product, including the Linux
kernel. New bugs are found all the time, and the bug databases have
thousands of them. Some of them are bugs that can cause the system to crash
from a user mode program.
For instance:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=63063&repeatmerged=yes
or
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=52773&archive=yes&repeatmer
ged=yes
Ideally, in an ideal world, what you say would be true.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam Schuetze)
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
Reply-To: adam at adam-schuetze dot org
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:17:38 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 03:03:40 GMT, Kelsey Bjarnason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Grandpappy doesn't _want_ to hack kernels, he wants to write documents and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> browse the web; what possible use are command lines and hacked kernels to
> him?
Because all good documents are written in vi, with tex. If you
don't understand the command line, you'll never figure out tex.
But then I'm biased of course. I think gui's are for weenies
who are to stupid or lazy to figure out the command line. I
mean really, how hard is it? Its not rocket science.
*donning asbestos underwear*
--
Adam Schuetze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Get my pgp keys at http://www.adam-schuetze.org
- pgp fingerprints -
rsa: B8 80 DA D6 BB CA 80 5F C5 68 1C 08 FE 3E 65 1C
dss: 46 CB B3 C3 A1 C9 BA 57 7C B4 A1 6A BF 8F 2D 95 2B 7A 1D 77
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:25:24 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%IvX5.5120$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I said "not possible unless you have admin privs". Which is true. You
> need
> > to get admin privs in order to install a trojan that could do this.
>
> Are we talking about a false dialog being left on the server console or a
> workstation or are we talking about physically pre-empting the logiin
> sequence with a trojan?
I'm talking, there is no way for a user mode trojan to simulate a login to
NT in a way that would fool anyone except someone with no idea how to log in
to NT.
In most Unixen, you need only write a program that clears the screen and
prints "Login:" and accepts input, then prints "Password:" and accepts that
input, then su's to that user or calls login themselves to steal passwords.
This would be indistinguishable from a normal login to anyone but the most
advanced user (and even then they would have to be looking for it to
notice).
In NT, a user mode program cannot capture C-A-D, thus it cannot simulate an
NT login in a way that would fool someone that has ever logged into NT
before. It would be immediately obvious that something was wrong unless
they were paying absolutely no attention.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:27:31 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > | Here's a tip in return: When working with Office 2000, it is so slow
> > | it's like your system froze.
> >
> > And the tip in return to that. If Office 2000 runs so slow that your
> > system seems to freeze it's time to get a Pentium.
>
> If only I could give you a clue in return... Office 2000 runs like a dog
> on a Celeron 450 with 128Mb. And like pure SHIT on a P2-300 with 64Mb.
Uhh.. Office 2000 runs faster than Office 97 and Office 95 before it.
They've heavily componentized the code and made the memory footprint much
smaller. It is measureably faster on a slow machine, and noticeable on a
fast one.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 07 Dec 2000 05:21:40 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 03:55:14 GMT,
Swango <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux
>the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big
>wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......
>Linux Sux the big wazoo......
>Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......
>Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux
>the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big
>wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......Linux Sux the big wazoo......v
<hundreds of lines of similar stuff snipped>
>"It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
Hahahah 300 lines of repitition and ya cant even do THAT right!
Look at the uneven variation, of your list
"Steve/Heather/Keys88/Claire_lynn/Amy/Swango" !
Get Linux and you'll be able to do lists correctly man, as it is, your just
a sad little Wintroll :(
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 22 hours 45 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:36:01 -0600
"Jerry Peters" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:wbAX5.41$d62.2380@bgtnsc04-
> > I'm not claiming that Win98SE is rock solid stable, just that it's not
as
> > instable as people seem to think if it's properly maintained.
>
> You're joking, right? The only "routine maintenance" my Linux system
> gets is its weekly backup. I certainly don't need to do all of
> the crap you listed to keep it perfectly stable. The fact that you
> need to do all of these things is indicative of a very poor design,
> but then again we all knew that about Windows already.
That's not really the issue. The statement was that it's impossible to keep
windows 9x up longer than a few hours. That's patently false.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:36:45 GMT
On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:43:42 GMT, Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 01:44:14 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000 01:35:53 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>
>>> >Actually, no. The keyboard driver has nothing to do with it. C-A-D is a
>>> >hardware reset, not a software one.
>>>
>>> No it isn't. It is just another key combination that the BIOS handles
>
>>I stand corrected. However, you can't replace the keyboard driver unless
>>you have permissions to do so.
>
>Yes, if someone can replace the keyboard driver, any further attempts
>at security are pretty meaningless. I agree that the secure attention
>key idea does have some merit as far as assuring that what you're
>looking at is really a login screen.
The bottom line is that MS could have used any key combination they wanted
to. C/A/D/ is only a cool idea for logging in if you want to fuck up the
usage of other operating systems that treat it, as was the original intention,
for rebooting.
If you're paranoid about login simulators when using possibly unfriendly linux
systems, hit c/a/BS first.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Michael" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000 15:30:52 +1000
"Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jerry Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
>
> | > I'm not claiming that Win98SE is rock solid stable, just that it's not
as
> | > instable as people seem to think if it's properly maintained.
> |
> | You're joking, right? The only "routine maintenance" my Linux system
> | gets is its weekly backup. I certainly don't need to do all of
> | the crap you listed to keep it perfectly stable. The fact that you
> | need to do all of these things is indicative of a very poor design,
> | but then again we all knew that about Windows already.
>
> Properly maintained has to be taken in context.
>
Personally I don't feel maintanance should need to be as constant as it is
with windows. Weekly scandisks and defrags, viruscans and registry scans.
This waste's too much time that could be used doing better and more useful
things. My home box that I use linux on except for one problem (which was
HW - dud mobo) has never given me a reason to comlain, once it was up and
running.
Windows usually takes me more time to get working properly. On install they
take about the same. The big difference is that it takes me 2-3 hours to
config, tweak, install extra, patch etc etc a new linux system to my liking
(this is from recent seting up of my system). With windows, to set up,
install software, use windowsupdate, start to fix problems that arise
because of those programmes, and not to mention the endless reboot, this
figure is close to a day, not a quarter of one.
> There are a lot of lousy applications out there that cause nasty
> conflicts with other applications on the system, add inappropriate
> registry entries, or are just plain unstable themselves.
>
And who created the registry?
Who designed the OS that it was so easy to create "lousy applications"?
> Even with Win2k here, which I don't lift a finger to maintain in any
> active way, I experience nasty conflicts between applications and have
> to either not use one of them or avoid using them altogether. It's just
> that with Win2k, the machine invariably (always in my experience) stays
> up, while with Win9x, the machine often goes down.
>
I have never experience either problem with linux, even before updating a
system. To be fair, I rarely use bleeding edge software on a system I want
to be stable, on my play system I use newer (read beta versions, development
release) software, and slightly more probs are encountered. But that is my
choice, not so in windows.
> Avoid bad applications and you can have a surprisingly smoothly running
> system (not Unix or Win2k stability but a system eons away from one that
> crashes 5times a day). The more applications and crap you install, the
> more likely you'll be bitten by a bad one.
>
I feel I should be able to install any program, and as many as I like
without the fear of the application hosing my system. I see this as bad
design in the OS as it *lets* it happen in the first place.
> If you keep having to reinstall Win9x when a problem arises, note that
> you may be reinstalling the errant application or driver over and over
> again, leading to the same problem each time.
Fair point. Can I have the source to try and find the problem? Oh, ok, I
can't. Will tech support help me? No, I don't want to reinstall again.
Damn.... Back to linux!
I've witnessed this on
> many an occasion. Norton System Works being a prime example since I
> noted this happening on 6 of my friends systems. It was like a frigging
> epidemic when Norton System Works came on the scene. The poor soul
> reinstalls and then installs the 'wonderful' Norton System Works
> immediately after. Problems recur ..... why? ... Win9x is hopelessly
> unstable? NOT. At least not this time.
>
In my experience I have it crash before setup was completed, twice in a row,
next time (each attempt choosing exactly the same options, and software to
be installed) didn't get the problem. Next machine, same problems.
-m
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:32:17 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
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.
Intel MDS800 with iSBC-80/10, Pertec 8 inch drives, ASR-33. Burned my
own EPROMs for the O/S. The kind with the little window on top, used to
have to stick 'em under a UV light source to erase 'em, 1024 x 8 or
something like that. 8k RAM board and a homebrew HPIB/IEEE-488 I/O.
Then a Commodore PET, VIC-20, and C-64. Did some early packet radio
with the VIC/C-64 using a homebrew PLL RTTY modem. Long dry spell, then
got an AT&T 3B1 (PC7300) running UNIX. Followed by an AT&T PC6300PLUS,
also UNIX. Another long dry spell, then this Linux box.
I'm amazed at how little the PC has changed in twenty-five years.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:36:19 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
No-Spam wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000 17:14:20 -0500, Dennis Popov
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >another claire wannabe, huh? all right people, whoever tries to argue
with
> >this troll will immediately be labeled as a total moron.
> Nope its the Wintroll himself, accept no subsitutes!
Thought it looked markedly familiar, what with the "x-no-archive"
attribute, and the same unimaginative script.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Sux
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 05:58:17 GMT
ooooo, What an intellectual giant you are, you are so talent, gee, I
want to be as cool as you are.
(If you haven't noticed I was being sarcastic)
kiwiunixman
<snip pathetic attempt justify being a Wintroll>
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 06:01:49 GMT
"tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90n4ie$jmj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <2aEX5.37756$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Netscape is also horrible, but I don't know if it's Netscape or the
> > > font thing again. I've added the lines to the startup file that
> gets
> > > Netscape to use a little large fonts; I still can't adjust the size.
> >
> > Just go to edit/preferences and change them. The real problem is
> > that most web pages specify fonts that you don't have and the
> > substitutions look bad.
>
> Doesn't work; it doesn't let me change any font sizes like the browser
> under Windows (& IE). We're talking not even logged on -- just reading
> Mandrake's own help stuff. Online is worse.
Some fonts are scalable, some aren't. If you select a bitmap font you
will have some fixed choices in the drop-down. If you pick a scalable
font you can select the 'allow scaling' checkbox and specify a default
size.
> > No, Microsoft and Apple put a lot of effort into making fonts look
> good
> > on cheap monitors. X wants lots of real pixels. However, I think
> the
> > default configuration looks a lot better on Mandrake 7.2. If you have
> > a dual boot configuration you might want to tell it to grab the
> windows
> > fonts too.
>
> Thanks for the suggestion, but I've done that with no luck.
It doesn't do anything to just put them in the system. You have to
configure the apps to use them. The exception is where a web
page specifies the font to use.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Keith W. Peterson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Is Lame. Sorry but it is true
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2000 23:03:12 -0700
I am but two weeks into my Linux experience, and it blows Windows away.
I installed Mandrake 7.2 (after removing windows) and had no problems what
so ever. I now have a PC which runs Linux, and one that runs Win98. In the
two weeks since I have had Linux, I have spent double the time on the Linux
system because it just kicks butt!
May I suggest that you built a crappy system and that is why you had
problems.
As I read through your post, you just made me more and more angry. You are
clearly someone who just has some fit to pitch and had to do so publicly.
If you don't like Linux, don't use it. It's that simple.
KWP
Angular Turnip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Linux simply put is a piece of crap. I installed Mandrake 7.2 yesterday
> on a generic home built system and I can't believe that anyone but a
> real techie would switch from Windows just to run Linux. Are the people
> trying to market Linux to the general public serious or are they living
> in some cave somewhere playing with their calculators? If I wasn't smart
> enough to save a drive image of my Windows partitions I would be crying
> right now. I wonder how many people have tried to install Linux and blew
> away all of their Windows programs and data.
>
> I booted the CD and it froze solid. Thinking I might have a bad burn, I
> burned another and had the same problem. So now I leach another copy off
> the web and try again. Same problem. Thinking maybe my system is hosed I
> try and boot some other bootable CD's I have and they work fine. Not one
> to give up, although I guess most people would have given up by now,
> read the readme files which are a convoluted mess, but I finally figure
> out how to make image floppys and I'm off. The install starts but
> freezes half way through with some kind of a segmentation fault. This is
> becoming old at this point. I try it one one time and this time I get
> through the entire idiotic install process. Why in the world does this
> thing need a swap partition when I have 512 meg of memory? Must be one
> heck of a memory pig.
> My first impressions of kde is that it looks hokey, kind of like a cheap
> Windows clone. With no clue about what these seemingly thousands of
> applications in the menues do, I go for the games. What a disappointment
> that turned out to be. I think my father used to play these when he was
> a kid. Even Windows comes with a decent pinball;l machine game. Lame.
> Poking around I start up something called vi which I guessed was some
> kind of editor or something? How the hell do you work that thing? All it
> does is beep at me and after 5 minutes of beeping I was about to put a
> screwdriver through my 21 inch monitor. Speaking of monitors, mine
> wasn't listed but my video card was. What the heck is all that verbage
> about hz and modes and crap? I want a 1024x768 picture. I don't need to
> know about every pixel on the screen. Moving right along to my sound
> board which seems to be silent I stumble on the kde control panel but
> every time I try to launch the mixer application I get some message
> about /dev/mixer not available? I have a soundblaster Live Platinum
> card. Maybe I need a driver? Next is my printer, a Lexmark z51. I look
> through the list of printers and I have never heard of any of these
> printers? Is this list from 1990 or something? My printer is a pretty
> popular model, and isn't that new. I guess Linux can't print which seems
> funny considering how much documentation comes with it. I think I'm
> starting to understand why all of this verbage is necessary. This is one
> hostile of a mother.
> On to my USB scanner which locks up the entire system when I probe for
> it. The scanner a Canon usb scanner is not listed as well. Does Linux
> only run SCSI devices? It's in trouble if that is the case because SCSI
> is dying as far as personal systems are concerned.
> More fun: my Logitek wheel mouse is semi functional. The wheel works but
> the hovering doesn't. Also how do I assign functions to the wheel? Under
> Windows it's a snap?
>
> I manage to get an internet connection running, no easy trick, and the
> kde web browser seems pretty decent, but based upon all of the
> incompatabilities I have encountered so far, I wonder how compatible it
> is with Internet Explorer 5.5.
>
> I tried to set up my network but it didn't work. I could ping myself but
> not the other machine. This was trivial under Windows and worked from
> the start.
>
> Why is everything seem so complicated with Linux?
>
> I've played with Linux for a couple of days now and I am giving it the
> boot right out to the curb. Linux seems to want me to buy new hardware
> just to use it. Sure there a lot of free programs included, but most of
> them are useless to me. The others are more like toys compared to what I
> use under Windows and while I do have to download share and freeware for
> Windows, it is worth it because the applications are so much better and
> easier to use.
>
> Adobe Photoshop which came with my $99 scanner is one example. Paintshop
> Pro is another example. That Gimp program seems to need all kinds of
> plugins to do anything useful. And even if these programs are already on
> my system Gimp can't figure out where they are and neither can I.
>
> It is simply too hostile a system to work under. I want to use my
> computer not build a new one. Half of my pretty standard hardware
> doesn't work, I haven't figured out how to get dma working on my drives
> for instance.
>
> Bill Gates should include a free copy of Linux along with every copy of
> Windows he sells because once people try Linux for the first time, there
> will never be a second time. Linux in and of itself is the best reason
> to not use it.
>
> Linux is just plain complicated and lame.
>
> I've re-installed Windows from my DriveImage and everything worked fine.
> At least Linux didn't abort my system.
>
> Richard
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS Installation Help?
Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2000 19:04:19 +1300
I think people talk about their hardware spec's because one needs to
demonstrate the environment which Linux is being used in. A typical
Wintroll reply would always go along the lines that the computer used is
"top of the range" or "tonnes of memmory" as justification for why Linux
gives better Desktop responsiveness than Windows.
kiwiunixman
JM wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2000 00:22:54 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>
>> Can't find the dimensions my suppliers website, however, I would say it
>> would be 4-5cm high.
>
>
> It pisses me off when everyone here goes on about how much RAM they've
> got and how big their hard disks are and how good their operating
> systems are etc.
>
> They should trying using Windows 98SE on 28MB of RAM on a 3GB hard
> disk.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
