Linux-Advocacy Digest #968, Volume #30 Mon, 18 Dec 00 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux? (mlw)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windows Stability (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: The Sixth Sense (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (Kaz Kylheku)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:50:11 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Ahlstrom in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 01 Dec 2000
18:35:15 GMT;
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> Indeed, the only thing I routinely use VB for is indeed small applications.
>> But in theory at least, you could do the GUI in VB, and store all your C/C++
>> code (the real work) in DLLs and call them from there.
>
>That's one of my pet peeves. We do projects, and it takes a long time,
>and the manager types start bringing up RAD environments. Never mind that
>we already have a reasonably good one (C++ Builder), they start suggesting
>LabView, or suggest stitching together an app using IE5+HTML+JavaScript+Acrobat
>(for a real-life example).
>
>Then comes the talk of how long it takes to make GUIs. For our projects,
>it's just a pure crap argument. With today's tools, the GUIs are the
>friggin' easiest part. What screws us up is having to invent complex
>sets of objects and protocols for services that we just cannot buy anywhere.
>No matter how good your tools, that kind of complexity just takes time
>to design, code, debug, test, and document. Even the internal interactions
>between GUI components, which RAD does little to address, can be pretty
>complex.
>
>It takes real bravery to argue with someone who claims they've djinned
>up this app that will fulfill the requirements of the project when the
>app does look like it does the job, but leaves many fundamental and
>somewhat hidden requirements (e.g. speed, reliability, and memory usage)
>unanswered. As far as the president or upper management is concerned,
>the job is done, when it is actually only 5% complete!
Amen, Chris. I think you've put Ayende's entire approach to bed with
this comment.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:51:34 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 02 Dec 2000
[...]
>As many years have passed since its introduction, maybe the meaning of
>BASIC has been forgotten.
>It was developed at Dartmouth College in the mid 60's as a mean to teach
>students how to program. I'd rather say as not to program. Nothing else
>than a handy tool for quick things you use just once, IMO. And it's an
>acronym for "Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Interpreter Compiler".
"Beginners All-purpose Symbolic Instruction Code".
>If you think that not many years later, with the same purpose (i.e.
>teaching how to program) professor Wirth at Zurich Polytechnic School
>created Pascal, well, you may see the difference.
Pascal illuminated different aspects of programming. While BASIC was
intended for the most rudimentary "IF...THEN" logic, Pascal is geared
towards the more complex parts of algorithmic processing. A decent
language would combine aspects of both, with the practical support of C+
(libraries and environments and whatnot) and the flexibility of perl.
Perhaps once software becomes properly commoditized in five or ten
years, and is developed in its native academic environment, we'll get a
decent desktop language combined with some good middleware. That's when
things will start really kickin'.
The above post knowingly authored by someone who barely mastered BASIC,
and is keenly aware of his inability to understand real program code
competently.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Is Windows an operating system like Linux?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 22:45:58 -0500
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > A small embedded ROM system can be an OS. The X window system, though
> > > > vastly more complicated, and in some ways similar to an OS, is not an
> > > > OS. The same goes for MS Windows.
> > >
> > > X Windows does not offer scheduling, memory management, file systems,
> etc...
> >
> > Not relevant.
>
> It's completely relevant. An OS provides these things. If it doesn't, it's
> not an OS.
DOS does not do scheduling, but it is an OS, X does have an amount of
memory management. And many embedded operating systems do not have file
systems. Thus not relevant.
>
> > > > > Linux doesn't boot on it's own. It needs a bootstrap loader, such
> as
> > > Lilo,
> > > > > or Loadlin or grub or even the NT bootloader.
> > > >
> > > > Actually that is not completely true. The Lilo loader is a
> convenience.
> > > > It is trickiy to get a system to boot without a loader, but linux does
> > > > not absolutely need lilo. Try using something like dd to copy the
> linux
> > > > kernel to a floppy. It will boot off that floppy with no loader.
> > >
> > > For floppies, sure. But not for hard disks.
> >
> > Yes for hard disks, you copy it to the right partition and it will work.
>
> Oh, that explains why all those Linux-only systems out there run Lilo then.
No, LILO is a convenience. As stated. While it is not absolutely
necessary, it saves the hassle of running fdisk to change the OS in
which you boot.
>
> > > > Besides, a loader is ephemeral, it goes away. DOS does not go away
> under
> > > > Windows.
> > >
> > > It is, however, chained, shackled, and stuffed into a cage (V86
> session).
> >
> > Lilo is overwritten once the kernel is loaded, it no longer exists in
> > memory.
>
> And it's still irrlevant.
It is perfectly relevant, Lilo goes away, and need not even be there.
>
> > > > Windows is a DOS extender because the windows 386 executive is a DOS
> > > > extender which provides a DPMI interface. It is through this interface
> > > > Windows operates.
> > > >
> > > > OS/2 on the other hand is not based on DPMI, it is has its own APIs,
> but
> > > > it provides DPMI for DOS applications. It has no core DOS to extend.
> > >
> > > You seem to be confusing Windows 3.1 with Windows 9x. While indeed,
> they
> > > have lots in common still, the kernels are radically different.
> >
> > You seem to be confusing Windows 9x with NT. I refer you to Andrew
> > Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows 95, Developers Resource Kit" or
> > "Inside Windows 95" by Adrian King. (MS Press). Or you could download
> > the Windows DDK and read the help files.
>
> No, I'm not. I've read Unauthorized Windows 95 at least a dozen times and
> know it inside and out.
>
> For instance, page 146 states what DPMI is:
>
> "DPMI stands for DOS Protected Mode Interface [...] Despite the name, DPMI
> isn't the same thing as a DOS extender. Instead, DPMI is a set of INT 2Fh
> and INT 31h services you can use to write a DOS extender thats compatible
> with Windows or 386 memory managers".
>
> In other words, Windows is itself a memory manager, and provides a DPMI
> interface to DOS applications and DOS extenders. Windows itself is not a
> DOS extender.
I will not argue with Schulman's factual observations, because they are
largely accurate. I disagree with his conclusions, which are
questionable. DPMI is the interface by which Windows manages page
manipulation and memory management as well as other things.
The Windows 386 executive is a DPMI provider. It always has been. The
Windows system VM runs in a DPMI virtual machine. This is verifiable.
>
> > > > > Well, the Federal Standard, for instance:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/dir-025/_3689.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > And I'm certain that Apple's OS experts would disagree that MacOS X
> was
> > > not
> > > > > an OS.
> > > >
> > > > This is very vague and simplistic. By this definition emacs is an OS.
> > > > Surely we can find a more precise definition. If we can officially
> call
> > > > emacs an OS, I think Windows is almost as capable.
> > >
> > > So because an authoratative source doesn't meet your needs, it's not
> valid.
> >
> > No because by this definition emacs is an OS, thus, unless we accept
> > emacs as an operating system, we must question the validity of the
> > authority.
>
> Many people do consider emacs to be an OS.
Yes, many people think that velvita is cheese but we must feel sorry for
their stupidity.
>
> > > > > > Take a look low down dude. The Windows executive is a DPMI
> environment
> > > > > > and Windows run in a virtual DOS machine within it. BTW: Windows
> runs
> > > in
> > > > > > the same virtual machine as the actual DOS OS because each Windows
> > > > > > program has to have a DOS PSP.
> > > > >
> > > > > A "DPMI environment"? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
> Windows
> > > do
> > > > > *NOT* run in a virtual DOS machine, they run in unique 32 bit
> protected
> > > mode
> > > > > address spaces with certain portions of the system VMM mapped into
> those
> > > > > contexts. Windows itself runs in what's called the "System VM"
> which is
> > > a
> > > > > protected mode 32 bit address space of it's own.
> > > >
> > > > In DOS Windows, there is a system VM in which ALL windows programs
> run.
> > > > Take a look at the DDK. Separate DOS programs run in thier own VM, but
> > > > all Windows programs run in the same VM. They isolate programs'
> private
> > > > data by manipulating the page table, not but creating virtual
> machines.
> > > > This behavior is well documented, supported by Microsoft's own
> diagrams.
> > >
> > > This is not true in Windows 9x, except for 16 bit apps windows apps.
> >
> > You are most completely wrong here. I direct you to any number of pieces
> > of documentation in the 9x DDKs, but the most handy reference is page 21
> > of Andrew Schulman's "Unauthorized Windows 95, a Developers Resource
> > Kit."
>
> Correct, sort of. I misapplied the term "VM" to mean "Address space". In
> reality, the term VM means simulating a single machine. But, unlike Windows
> 3.x, which runs all windows programs in the same address space, Windows 9x
> runs all programs in their own unique address spaces (with shared system
> address areas).
You are back peddling here. You are covering up for being wrong. I said
right up front that they had process memory isolation by page table
manipulation and that they run in the same VM. You said they had their
own VM. You were wrong, be a man, admit it.
>
> > You are thinking about how NT runs Windows applications which is totally
> > different.
>
> Yes and no. NT runs the Win32 subsystem in the same VM as the Win32
> applications. The NT Kernel (not Win32 kernel) runs in a seperate VM
> though.
This is wrong too. Windows NT runs 32 bit applications in their own VM.
It runs 16 bit applications in a single VM, but you can optionally run a
16 bit application in its own VM.
One can also run 16 bit applications in the same VM as 32 bit
application if the 32 bit application starts the 16 bit application
within its VM, you can even thunk to it.
>
> > > > If you take the time to read about how to make DOS calls from a VxD,
> in
> > > > the DDK you will see you must make sure you are in the system VM
> before
> > > > you can make a DOS call.
> > >
> > > Again, irrelevant to Windows 9x.
> > >
> > > > Also, take a look at Andrew Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows"
> which
> > > > tells of how DOS is in the system VM, and its extensive dependency on
> > > > DPMI.
> > >
> > > Again, irrelevant to Windows 9x, since Windows 9x's memory management is
> > > done in 32 bit protected mode and radically different from Windows
> 3.1's.
> >
> > You are completely wrong here. The only major low level difference
> > between 3.11 and 9x was the addition of VxDs. The Windows 3.11 for
> > workgroups was, for all practical purposes, a technology preview of the
> > low level additions to be made in Windows for Chicago. Specifically VxD
> > FAT and 32bit networking.
> >
> > The books to look at, should you want to have an informed discussion,
> > are:
> > Inside Windows 95, by Adrian King, Microsoft Press. (Page 64 has a good
> > picture)
> > Unauthorized Windows 95, Developers Resource Kit, (Page 21 has another)
>
> The picture you mention contradicts what you said. You said:
>
> > > > Also, take a look at Andrew Schulman's book "Unauthorized Windows"
> which
> > > > tells of how DOS is in the system VM, and its extensive dependency on
> > > > DPMI.
>
> Clearly from Schulman's picture, DOS is *NOT* in the system VM nor does it
> detail how Windows depends on DPMI, only that it provides extensive DPMI
> services.
If you spent the time to read the text surrounding the picture, it makes
big mention that Microsoft has left DOS out of this picture.
The paragraph starts with:
"In the meantime, there's one very noticeable feature of this diagram:
MS-DOS is missing" and goes on to explain, that DOS is present only left
out of the diagram for marketing purposes.
That whole chapter explains and verifies everything I written here, and
the only difference between Schulman's position and mine, is that I
don't believe Windows is an OS.
>
> > Clearly from your assertions, you are mistaking 9x and NT. That's an
> > easy thing to do if you are not a developer.
>
> No, I used a term incorrectly. Yes, Win9x does things in many ways the same
> way as Windows 3.x, however Win 3.x was only a skeleton infrastructure to
> what Win9x became a virtual complete system.
Windows 9x is hardly a complete system. What makes Windows 3.11 not and
OS and 9x and OS? Neither are operating systems.
>
> Claiming that bunch of girders erected in a lot is a building is a far
> fetch, but if you add walls, floors, windows, doors, plumbing, electrical
> wiring, lights, it becomes correct.
My dad was an Iron worker. He called the buildings being erected
buildings, but he also called work being done to extend an exiting
structure an addition.
>
> Windows 3.x was only about 10% of an OS, while Windows 9x implemented 89%
> more. You may argue that if it's not 100% it's not an OS, and you're free
> to do so. But it's close enough for me.
The difference between 3.x and 9x is so minimal you would be surprised.
Seriously, download the DDK and give it a read through and through. You
won't like what you read.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:43:52 GMT
On 19 Dec 2000 03:35:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C.
Shradrakaii) wrote:
>Many manufacturers are remarkably beligerent about providing enough information
>to write a driver. I think they believe they're giving their secrets away if
>they do so. This is why projects like SANE (scanner support) and ALSA (sound
>card support) are often behind the times. Often, the only road to support is
>to assemble a driver from scratch, poking at input and output until its
>behaviour can be defined.
Translation:
Linux has third rate hardware support and unless you
are interested in waiting for someone else to write a driver for you,
or write it yourself, you had better read the HCL real good before
purchasing ANY hardware for Linux.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:43:40 GMT
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 23:12:34 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think ARK would make a good geosynchronous satellite.
I think he already is.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:43:43 GMT
On Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:08:00 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So why hasn't anyone ported NT to the S/390? :-)
>
>Anyone is MS, of course, and who said they didn't?
Me. I'm saying they didn't. You can, however, get a single-board PC
that lives inside an AS-400 that runs NT. Why anyone would want that, I
have no idea.
>Even if they did, they are unlikely to release it, because it wouldn't pay.
>Microsoft is a company, after all.
I think IBM is too. In fact, they just sold a big-ass 390 that's going
to be running Linux. A European ISP bought it to handle 800K users and
1000+ corporate web sites. They're paying something like $3 million.
Sounds like real money to me. Sell a couple of those and you've easily
paid the development cost.
>WinCE is based on NT, FWIW.
No it isn't. It is a separate codebase and in fact runs on a number of
platforms NT doesn't (e.g. ARM). It also lacks NT's security model and
a fair hunk of the NT API's don't work or work differently.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Windows Stability
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:43:44 GMT
On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 17:39:08 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Windows 9x does provide memory protection between apps, it's just that
>certain portions of the OS are mapped into all address spaces, so Win9x can
>corrupt the OS itself, though not other apps.
If the OS gets blown away, so do all the apps. Ergo, there is no real
protection between apps.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:44:23 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> I just read a post where you revealed that you are not in the U.S.A. (Britan
> I assume) which would explain why you seem to have a different view on what
> the word Liberal is.
Actually, I merely said that my favorite beverage is Boddington's Pub
Ale, brewed in Manchester. There's nothing like it if you can find it
on draught; even in cans it is nice. We have a lively contingent of
Brits and other football-loving breeds here in Charleston (SC).
> As far as the Armed Forces suckling anything, I'm not sure what you mean.
There are many entities grabbing for a teat on the government cow.
The military gets the biggest tit. Physics research, unless weapon-oriented,
sucks hind tit.
> Perhaps next time the Queen is threatened we won't come to your aid, if you
> really think our armed forces aren't up to task.
You bloody Americans are awl alike, thinkin' we need yur friggin' army
to come in 'n' save the status quo. Which one o' yur cities 'ad ta
hunker down beneath Heinie buzz bombs, eh what?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 09:53:16 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 2 Dec 2000 02:15:55
[...]
>A programmer that tries to undertake a major task with VB should be taken
>out and shot.
A programmer that tries to undertake a major task on Windows should be
laughed at, or pitied, depending on his circumstances.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:49:15 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
<trimmed>
>
> Links to SO 6 are avaliable at the SUN website:
>
> http://www.sun.com/developers/openoffice/
>
Thanks I already have a link to SO5.2 which is where that leads once you
look for binaries. So where's the beef?
> Gary
>
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:49:31 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> In short...The Democrat party platform is indistinguishable from
> Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
Sounds rather like something Jesus might have said.
> Question....What happens to the DIFFERENCE between the vast wealth produced
> by a man's abilities, and the moderate level of *needs*?
>
> If you said:
> "disappears into the hands of bureacrats and politicians,"
> then you go to the head of the class.
You need to look into some excellent tax shelters.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:51:20 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > I thought you were talking about liberals, not communists. The two are
> > complete opposites.
>
> If you're talking about Jeffersonian liberals, that would be correct.
>
> If you're talking about modern Demoncrook party liberals, they
> are indistinguishable from communists.
Except, of course, they wear 3-piece suits, drive Lamborghini's,
and employ nannies.
Or is that Republicans? Dang, I can never get it straight.
------------------------------
From: Chris Ahlstrom <[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: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:54:40 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> The problem with most liberals is that you NEVER bother to verify
> your ideas against reality....and when the results differ from
> predictions, you start assuming that reality must be wrong.
Actually, I would have characterized that as a reactionary failing,
not a liberal failing.
According to the principles of cybernetics, feedback mechanisms
are the most sure way to trace a path through the present.
Unfortunately, in many people, the input half of the feedback
loop is short-circuited.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kaz Kylheku)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:58:10 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:39:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
[ idiotic top post rearranged into conventional Usenet reply order]
>On Mon, 18 Dec 2000 19:19:32 -0500, jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>The Intel Easy PC camera is not supported in Linux!
>>You can't even write a driver for it!
>
>Welcome to the "Joy of Linux".
Don't be a retard. The unavailability of specs for proprietary hardware is not
a Linux problem. It's a problem that affects users of free software, which
includes Linux. It's not a problem *caused* by that software.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
