Linux-Advocacy Digest #904, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT (Pan)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Bruce Ediger)
Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT (Pan)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (.)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (.)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (.)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. (Chris Osborn)
Re: Caifornia power shortage... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action ("the_blur")
Re: Finding hardware compatible with Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:38:36 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Dec 2000 16:00:34 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Ian Davey wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Per mile driven, Electric cars take MORE energy to run, due to
>> >transmission losses between the power company and the car, and
>> >in charging up the batteries.
>>
>> Who said you need a power company to charge the batteries? Use a solar panel
>> and you get open source energy right from the sun :-)
>
>
>Do you have any fucking idea of how much energy it takes to produce
>a photo-voltaic cell?
There is also the issue of cost efficacy. I don't know about
cars, but my understanding of housing (limited as it is),
tells me that the average heating bill is on the order of $100 per month,
and that a solar heating system would cost $25,000 as a minimum.
250 months is more than 10 years. As a return on investment, that sucks.
I understand the economics for solar panels are similar -- in fact,
they may be even worse in light of your comment regarding melting sand below.
Until the costs come down (both monetary and environmental),
don't expect a roof-top solar power station as standard equipment, folks. :-)
In light of these observations, I think fusion is probably our only hope,
and even that is sabotagable if people cry "radioactivity! radioactivity!";
while fusion is a nuclear reaction, it's far safer than fission, but
the lay public can't seem to tell the difference between a neutron
and a dendrite. :-) (Or the difference between rarefied plasma,
and solid waste.)
There is the admittedly rather nasty possibility that the costs of
heating a house will go up 5x or more this or next year (PG & E in our
area is already complaining that it costs $.25 per kwH, and they're only
allowed to charge $0.05 or so), which makes the ROI go down. Of
course, that also means that either everyone will want to build
these panels which means a lot of dredging, transportation, more
energy wastage, and such, to build the things, or we're all going
to suffer under high energy costs.
Yuck.
>
>> Why rely on big
>> companies to provide your energy? That's like relying on Microsoft to supply
>> your operating systems.
>
>You are an idiot. With solar panels, you pay a HUGE energy cost
>up front (remember, the first step of making a solar cell is MELTING SAND!),
>which may or may not be recouped (depending on how soon it is before the
>pitifully fragile thing is broken.).
This thought frankly hadn't occurred to me, until you mentioned it.
(A friend of mine some years back brought up the issue of the lead
polluting the environment -- assuming standard lead-acid batteries
for the energy storage, which if I'm not mistaken is the best solution
(pardon the double meaning) at this time; this is addressable through
recycling, fortunately. That also hadn't occurred to me at the time.)
I would have to do some research as to how much energy is poured into
each kg of sand, how that translates into square meters of usable
surface, the efficiency of that surface in converting solar energy
into electricity (last I looked, that was a disgustingly low 20% or so,
although there have been improvements), and computation thereby of
the time to recoup the energy investiture (and cost) of the melting sand
and the manufacture of the panels by selling electricity on the
open market and/or the amount of time it takes to amass the same amout
of energy. My gut feel is that it would be in the thousands, if not
millions, of years.
And then there's the issue of the environmental devastation that
would occur if solar panels popped up all over the place -- the
roof of the house would incur no cost, but that's probably not
going to be enough for the average home unless we become even more
efficient in our energy usage. After all, they require sun power,
but so do plants. (This is in addition to the melting of sand
and the smelting of copper, or perhaps aluminium, for wire.)
>
>At best, solar panels can function as trickle-chargers for automobiles
>in long-term storage. The ratio of CHARGING MONTHS / DRIVING MINUTES
>for a vehicle-sized solar panel is not merely prohibitive, but makes
>your idea idiotically ludicrous.
Why that would even be required, when the battery can be easily
replaced (and recycled), is far from clear. Also, a trickle-charger
can be fed from any electrical source -- coal, oil, nuclear, natural
gas, wind power, geothermal. This is one reason why electricity
is so desirable in the first place -- and why it is so inefficient.
Consider how much heat a pound of coal generates, and how much heat
the electricity generated from the same pound of coal can be
generated, assuming modern heat-cycle/turbine technology. I suspect
this will make the efficiency of solar panels look startingly good!
You've now also got me wondering about solar ovens (made out of
aluminium foil). Presumably, that foil needs energy to produce --
quite a bit, if one uses bauxite; somewhat less if it's recycled.
Ugh.
>
>[Hint, this concept worked for the moon landing only for a couple of
>reasons:
>
>1) The lunar rover is a VERY light vehicle ( couple hundred pounds)
> as it had no need for 5-mph bumpers, or other safety features.
>
>2) The current generated by any photovoltaic cell on the moon is
> orders of magnitude greater than here on earth, due to the lack
> of an atmosphere around the moon.
3) The government had gobs of money to spend at the time, mostly
because of political considerations (the Soviets were also working
on a vaguely similar program, during the era of the "space race").
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 82 days, 23:16, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:45:05 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> The argument that "Linux doesn't cost anything, while NT Workstation costs
> some spare change" might convince a home user, but isn't going to convince
> a large company. The people who make these kinds of arguments are making
> arguments from a home users point of view (developer time doesn't cost
> anything, and financial resources are limited), but the same arguments
> don't apply to business (development time is expensive, software is relatively
> cheap)
Your argument depends on whether the professional development tools
actually speed things up. That is not always the case. I can build
web-based applications with lower overhead, faster, with the free perl
interpretor than any 2 developers on our mainframe using a $15,000/year
per seat license 4gl that we had been using previously for those types
of applications. Perl is also a good deal more flexible and doesn't
require client-side scripting such as javascript to handle simple chores
like menu selections, etc. that most 4gl's run into.
And we haven't even gotten into portability issues. Porting most
applications written in Perl from an AS/400 running OS400 and qshell to
linux, bsd, NT, solaris, etc. is a trivial task unless you explicitly
require DB2 in your design. That same kind of solution is not possible
if you use a 4gl, or VB, or any other professional tool that is tied to
an OS.
Because of performance issues that same free development solution is not
a viable option under NT. To get comparable performance and development
time you run into $10,000 in licensing cost alone, which is not "spare
change" for a mid range corporation.
Oh, and back to an earlier discussion about why you are wrong about why
it is often a good thing to be able to treat numbers as strings ...
($sec,$min,$hour,$mday,$myear,$year,$wday,$yday,$isdst)=localtime(time);
$year = $year + 1900;
if ($myear < 10) {$myear = "0"."$myear";}
if ($mday < 10) {$mday = "0"."$mday";}
$time = $year.$myear.$mday;
Yields an 8 digit field avery time in 5 lines of code. Useful when you
rely on a timestamp to do something and your time function doesn't
automatitically treat date/time values of less than 10 as a 2 bit
field. otherwise, you'd have to use 3 seperate fields and a whole lot
more logic to accomplish the same task.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Ediger)
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: 15 Dec 2000 10:44:34 -0700
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe about the use of "hjkl" as cursor movement commands:
>the less-innovative clones later. Vi may have been the innovator,
>or perhaps the author had experience with something similar.
DEC VT-100 terminals, and some of the more accurate VT-100 clones had
arrow keys in a row. I recall them as lying above the keys, where the
F9-F10-F11-F12 keys on a Pee Cee keyboard today. I know the arrow keys
weren't above the numeric keypad. That's where PF1, PF2, PF3 and PF4
were, right? Or maybe the "gold" key was there, I dunno.
The arrow keys went left arrow/up arrow/down arrow/right arrow.
Exactly the motions that the h, j, k and l commands perform in "vi".
I assumed that Bill Joy (or whoever) put in hjkl because of familiarity
with VT-100 arrow keys.
--
Once, galactic empires might have seemed a Post-Human domain.
Now, sadly, even interplanetary ones are.
------------------------------
From: Pan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Server licensing Cost: Linux vs. NT
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 09:51:42 -0800
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> I;'m not a Windows advocate. Unlike the clowns in this newsgroup,
> I've contributed to the Linux community.
Many of the "clowns in this newsgroup" have contributed to the linux
community". Most of the clowns who have aren't pricks about that fact.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://salvador.venice.ca.us
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: 15 Dec 2000 17:54:12 GMT
mitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 00:50:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
> Ebert) wrote:
>>
>>Here's another interesting - unsolvable thread.
>>
>>Name the THING you can do with Windows you
>>CAN NOT do with Linux.
>>
> Buzz, Cubase, Gigastudio, Play Games, MSN Messenger.
"MSN Messenger"
Sir, you have no business using linux at all. What you must do is stay
far, far away from operating systems geared toward people who are something
other than entirely lame.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:56:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, kiwiunixman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:22:53 +1300
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The cleaner, long term solution is to use fuel cells and ethanol.
>Burning ethanol the conventional way is very inefficient, however, when
>used in a car with fuel cells, it is more efficient. Now, the big
>hurdle is whether the big car corps will see the light and finally
>produce a car that uses fuel cells.
[1] Fuel cells still consume fuel. That fuel is a hydrocarbon; the
only fuel cells I know about are hydrogen-based, which is about
as clean as one can get; the rest of the fuel gets converted by
some other device -- a "cracker" -- into either pure carbon
(unlikely, as that would be messy and endothermic), carbon dioxide
(which is the same problem we have now), or some other
hydrocarbon-based chemical, which wastes hydrogen, and some of
those hydrocarbons can be poisonous, especially if nitrogen
gets involved -- hydrogen cyanide is HCN, and is deadly, although
fortunately unlikely; a more likely result would be formaldehyde (H2CO)
or formic acid (HCOOH), both of which are annoying pollutants;
the nitrogen might produce nitric oxides.
Hopefully, the "cracker" will be cleaner than the internal combustion
engine is now -- but I do wonder.
[2] The manufacture of those fuel cells is a high-tech process. That
in itself isn't bad -- computers are, too -- but it's not clear
whether the energy expenditure in the manufacture can be recouped
in the use; consider the solar panel, which is basically melted
sand and a few bits of wire. It takes energy to melt that sand.
(Thanks to Aaron for pointing this out in another thread.)
I'd be curious as to how that compares with current manufacturing
processes for standard-bore combustion engines, although
I'm not sure how to research or compute that at this time.
[3] It is not clear to me at this time whether ethanol is a useful
fuel alternative, or merely a method by which agribusiness can
dispose of useless products (by fermenting them). Gasoline and
diesel, liter for liter, are almost the most efficient chemical means
of storing energy, if I'm not totally mistaken. (Paraffin wax
might be better, but it probably won't burn as quickly.)
Part of this might simply be that gasoline is about an 8-carbon
chain (and 18 hyrdogen atoms), whereas ethanol only has two
carbon atoms, and 6 hydrogen atoms, one of which is already attached
to an oxygen atom -- which means it's partially oxidized already.
A small part, to be sure. (Unfortunately, ethane -- the unoxidized
variant -- is a gas, and therefore somewhat harder to handle
and quite a bit less dense.)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 82 days, 23:43, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: 15 Dec 2000 17:58:40 GMT
David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>> Here's another interesting - unsolvable thread.
>>
>> Name the THING you can do with Windows you
>> CAN NOT do with Linux.
> Play most commercial games and watch DVDs (legally!).
Uhhmmm...you realize that you can "legally" watch dvds under
linux too, dont you?
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:03:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Steve Mading
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 13 Dec 2000 22:52:31 GMT
<918ujf$fea$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>: Steve Mading writes:
>
>:>>> Admitedly, those presumptions could have been wrong.
>
>:>> As well as your presumption that the Esc key is closer than the
>:>> cursor keys.
>
>:> A. Measure the distance from 'a' to escape. (left pinkie)
>:> B. Measure the distance from 'j' to left-arrow, or 'k' to up
>:> and down arrows, or 'l' to right arrow. (right-hand's three
>:> fingers that operate the arrows).
>
>: On whose keyboard? Yours? That's not available to me.
>
>On any standard 104-key or 101-key keyboard. If yours is
>different, then say it or shut up.
As I understand it, Tholen uses a laptop, whose keys are
quite differently laid out. I don't know which laptop.
This is neither good nor bad; it just means that assumptions
based on the standard 104-key layout are just that -- assumptions.
It also means that Tholen's assumptions, of course, based
on HIS keyboard, may not relate too well to those of us
not using a laptop.
To resolve this whole argument -- if that's possible :-) -- one
might do some form of comparative testing, using both Vi and Brief.
Take a document and do some edits on it -- the same document,
the same edits -- using someone reasonably competent in
Vi, and someone reasonably competent in Brief, both individuals
having similar words per minute scores -- and of course using
identical equipment.
Then do the same test, using rank newbies armed with cheat sheets.
It's quite obvious that Vi's layout is somewhat arcane, but it's
not obvious whether performance -- the number of words typed and/or
the number of corrections -- suffers thereby. But it does
have a learning curve.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random curve here
up 83 days, 00:01 running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:05:00 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 14 Dec 2000 09:35:10 GMT
<iv0_5.104$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Aaron R. Kulkis writes:
[snip]
>> Tholen...
>> when you finally realize how utterly worthless your life is...
>> remember to slit lengthwise.
>
>Kulkis, when you finally realize how utterly worthless your invective
>is, remember to come back here and apologize.
>
Is it me, or is there some sort of repeating pattern here? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 83 days, 00:07 running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:10:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tom Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 15 Dec 2000 07:58:05 GMT
<hak_5.1352$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> BY THE WAY! {FACTOID}
>>
>> I started this thread to talk about the hacking into of
>> Microsoft and the theft of their operating system code
>> including Whistler.
>>
>> Isn't it interesting the comments and opinions of
>> the vast moron Windows using public.
>>
>> They are not even remotely concerned with the possibilities
>> of new hacks and viruses which will be launched due to
>> this code theft.
>
>There are a fair number of professionals out there who are rightly concerned
>about it. The home user couldn't care less, though.
*This* home user might...if he were using Microsoft. :-)
(I haven't booted my dual-boot machine into Windows 95
for 83 days now -- see below.)
>
>>
>> Further, they are not even remotely concerned about
>> the notion that Microsoft Corporate HQ was broken into
>> and the implications it has for YOUR current business
>> security posture.
>>
>> Amazing.
>
>No, scary is the word you're looking for.
Indeed.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random use of Linux here
up 83 days, 00:12 running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: 15 Dec 2000 18:10:30 GMT
Ken Klavonic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>
>> Seems like people are having trouble naming ONE THING
>> Microsoft invented.
>>
>> So I'll try it again on it's OWN THREAD.
>>
>> Name one thing, just one thing Microsoft actually
>> invented.
>>
>> You don't even have to give me a LINK to prove it.
>>
>> Charlie
> I'm sure you mean "one *good* thing" that Microsoft invented" right?
> Otherwise it's just too easy.
> I've not been following the other thread, but the nubmer one thing that
> comes to mind is the little scroll wheel on the mouse. I don't recall
> seeing anyone else doing that until after MS started shipping with them.
Microsoft does not make or design mice, they were (at the time that
the scrollwheel was introduced) repackaged logitech mice, designed
by logitech engineers. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chris Osborn)
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: 15 Dec 2000 18:17:57 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Name the THING you can do with Windows you
>CAN NOT do with Linux.
Why I need Windoze:
Run my Adobe apps:
Illustrator
PhotoShop
ImageReady
Dimensions
So I can use my nifty hardware:
Logitech PageScan Color Pro
IBM DFP T55D with Matrox Millennium G200
Matrox Rainbow Runner
Microsoft Cordless Phone
Why I use OPENSTEP:
Better GUI
Application development
Stuart
Mynah
Fixx'm
Webster's
--
Chris Osborn Full System, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2160 Jefferson St., #240
http://www.fullsystem.com/ Napa, CA 94559
Webhosting that *works* - 99.99% uptime - First 3 months free
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Caifornia power shortage...
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:24:22 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Craig Gullixson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 13 Dec 2000 15:06:01 GMT
<91838p$1i0e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Chad Myers wrote:
>
>> As much as great nuclear facilities are, the nuclear waste problem in
>> the U.S. alone is staggering. Coal power plants are becoming cleaner
>> every year and producing more power. We should build a few more around
>> the country to hold us off until the Tokomak comes online in 5-10
>> years and provides the entire world with enough electricity for decades.
>
>Ah, the fusion thing. It has been expected that cheep fusion power will
>be available in a 10 to 20 year timeframe since at least the late '50s.
>Also, there are waste issues with fusion. I'm not saying that fusion power
>would be a bad thing, but there are serious problems with both putting
>together a useful power plant and with the plant becoming radioactive ...
I'm curious as to what those waste issues are, myself. I'm aware
of two fusion methods.
The "classical" method -- 4 H => 1 He plus gobs of energy -- has not
been proven to be practical yet AFAIK, but is arguably the cleanest
method. Its main risk appears to be flying protons (hydrogen atoms
kicked up to tremendous speed by a fusion implosion nearby), although
there may be other risks I'm not aware of.
The "deuterium-tritium" method is more practical, but suffers from the
issues of tritium being a radioactive gas, and stray neutrons from
the reaction.
Within these two methods, there are a number of ways -- plasma bottling
and laser implosion being the only two I'm familiar with at all --
to induce the reaction.
>
>>Trust me, I'm no environmentalist or tree hugger, but I'm practical.
>> Plutonium 239 has a half-life of 24,000 years or so. The only practical
>> disposal is into outer space or embedded deep in geologically stable
>> shelf rock far below underground water run off systems in a remote
>> part of the desert.
>
>Or you could recycle it and use it to generate power ....
I for one wouldn't mind "breeder reactors". I'm a little annoyed at
people who do -- although there are issues regarding handling
of plutonium (the most poisonous substance on earth; a gram, if
spread into the air, would kill every human thereon). However, my
understanding is that fuel rods could be safely handled, for a
few hours, by an unshielded person, with little more risk than
drinking ordinary tap water. (This is of course *after* manufacture,
but *before* they're placed into the power plant and being "used up"
to produce power.) I could be wrong, though; I don't work in
nuclear power plants.
There are also issues with those who would nab some of the plutonium
and make bombs with it.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 83 days, 19 running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Blurry Fonts: Is there a solution?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:30:12 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Les Mikesell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Dec 2000 02:39:13 GMT
<ljBZ5.43053$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >and simple tasks under Linux are IMPOSSIBLE under Windows.
>> >
>> >you know...like changing the IP address AND keeping the machine up.
>>
>> As I understand it, that is no longer an issue in Win2k and WinMe.
>>
>
>You still can't change the machine name without rebooting.
I can't say. I am not all that enamored of Windows; I was
merely correcting a pedantic point.
I would hope that Microsoft finally learns that rebooting a machine
to "fix" a problem is a bit like replacing a blown fuse (or resetting
a breaker, nowadays) without checking the wiring, turning something
off, or unplugging something first.
At best, rebooting a machine is overkill. At worst, it's highly disruptive.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random non-reboot here
up 83 days, 00:30 running Linux.
------------------------------
From: "the_blur" <the_blur_oc@*removespamguard*hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: OS and Product Alternative Names - Idiocy in action
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:33:27 -0500
> Can you prove that if we refrained from calling Microsoft M$, Microshaft,
etc,
> that the US would not suffer this fate? Maybe our insulting Microsoft is
the
> only way to protect this country. Can you PROVE the contrary?
Your statement:
Maybe our insulting Microsoft is the only way to protect this country.
The negative / contrary statement to the above is:
Maybe our insulting Microsoft is NOT the only way to protect this country.
I think we can agree that he statement above is in theory at least, true. =)
I think that's why we have armed forces =)
Of course you can negate it in several ways:
Maybe our NOT insulting Microsoft is the only way to protect this country.
Maybe our insulting Microsoft is the only way to NOT protect this country.
So anyway, you suck and so does the logic of the horse you rode in on. =)
Standing in for the requisite
asshole college professor,
Freddy
We now return to your regularly scheduled flamethrowing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Finding hardware compatible with Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:35:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 12 Dec 2000 15:00:57 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I'm looking at getting a new system in the new year, but I'm looking to
>> find which hardware (modems, video cards, etc) will work with Linux.
>> Is there a good site anywhere that will tell me what works and what
>> doesn't?
>
>Check the supported devices list at RedHat or SuSE, etc.
>
>video: http:/www.xfree86.org/
>modem: any ISA or external modem, most non-"winModems" (aka LoseModem)
Pedant point: www.linmodems.org -- although I'm not sure that's
for the casual user. It sounds like a neat hack, although
I've not done any research into whether Linmodems work better
than standard UART ones, not having one myself (I use an external 56k).
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 83 days, 00:36 running Linux.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
