Linux-Advocacy Digest #982, Volume #30 Tue, 19 Dec 00 21:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! (Russ Lyttle)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (David Steinberg)
Re: Whistler review. (Bob Hauck)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Bob Hauck)
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Gary Hallock)
Re: 10th grader com sci homework request (glitch)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (Chris Ahlstrom)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (glitch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 20 Dec 2000 01:12:02 GMT
On 19 Dec 2000 23:16:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It is widely understood that redhat is the (by far) shittiest linux
>distribution that currently exists.
No such thing is "widely understood".
>> They don't send users off to third parties to get their problems fixed. They
>> do their homework and work out the appropriate fix, and then make it
>> available to users.
>
>They have to, because they themselves are responsible for 99% of the broken
>ness of their distribution.
Nonsense. A lot of the fixes deal with exploits that are common to
all distributions. Or to put it another way, any distributor that
is not willing or able to release updates is negligent or incompetent.
>> The fact that someone does not know as much about computers
>> as you doesn't make them a retard. Some of these so-called "retards" are
>> scientists, doctors, CEOs, etc.
>
>Are you saying that those people cant be lazy and stupid? Have you actually
>KNOWN any scientists, doctors or CEOs?
The vast majority are not "stupid" in any reasonable sense of the word, no.
It's not that easy to get through a PhD or med school with less than average
intelligence.
>No, it doesnt. What makes me superior is my willingess to learn about
>new things,
Maybe they are willing to "learn about new things", but just aren't terribly
interested in learning "new things about computers". The fact that they aren't
interested in learning about your favourite topic doesn't make them lazy or
stupid.
> use my brain consistently to solve problems, and refuse
Maybe they're interested in solving different types of problems. Again,
maybe they don't want to waste time troubleshooting their computer.
>hand-holding so that I may learn efficiently and usefully.
Depending on what you consider "useful" and what you want to "learn", it
could be more "efficient" to have someone else worry about troubleshooting
your computer, so you can just focus on getting work done.
>> They don't want to spend their lives trouble-shooting computers, because
>> for them computers are actually a means to an end, a tool. Not an end in
>> themselves.
>
>They dont have to. You're missing quite alot here.
I don't think so. You seem to think that those who are not interested in
becoming computer experts are somehow lazy or stupid. I'm pointing out
that this simply isn't true, and that being disinterested in computers
does not make someone lazy or stupid.
>> GOing from website to website, trying to cobble together the right stuff
>> is just fine if you like tinkering with computers, but if you just want
>> to use your computer, it's a waste of time.
>
>Cobble things together? Actually, if youd been paying attention to any
>of this at all, you would understand fully that various on-board help
>systems have integrated most of the fill of popular auto-FAQs.
Sorry, what do you mean ?
>Debian, Slackware, SuSe. They all offer distributions that have to
>be cobbled together. (or not, if you dont want to).
No, they don't. The binaries are all prepackaged, complete with post
installation scripts and pre-configurations (even with Slackware).
>>>You are completely incorrect. You cannot stop thinking in windows terms;
>
>> Microsoft did not invent the notion of vendor accountability (in fact one
>> could even argue that they aren't a terribly good example of that) Actually,
>> the hardware vendors probably do more here than Microsoft. Microsoft sort
>> of dump their shrinkwraps and run, while hardware vendors tend to do more
>> in the way of offering solutions and providing support.
>
>And what does any of this have to do with linux vendors? (which is not the
The point is that expecting distributors to offer an acceptable level of
support has nothing to do with "thinking in Windows terms".
It's funny how the Linux zealots talk of "giving it away for free and selling
support", and at the same time defending the lack of quality support.
>> THis has nothing to do with "thinking in windows terms", it has to do with
>> the fact that some users want a vendor who doesn't run for cover and cover
>> their ass whenever something goes wrong.
>
>With a goddamn "experimental" version of XFree? Dude, it says ALL OVER
>THE INSTALL THAT YOU COULD REALLY MESS THINGS UP BY USING XFREE 4.0.1!!!
>
>Why erik did not notice this is beyond me. Its in a really big font too.
If that notice is there and XFree 3.3.x is an option, I'd say the distributor
is not at fault (and maybe it's an act of bad faith on Eriks part. It wouldn't
be the first time).
>> Again, your attitude of superiority is completely unjustified.
>
>If you understood it, you probably would agree.
I understand it, I just don't agree with it.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Russ Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:21:26 GMT
Kasper Dupont wrote:
>
> jtnews wrote:
> >
> > The Intel Easy PC camera is not supported in Linux!
> > You can't even write a driver for it!
> >
> > I got it as a "free" add-on with my new Dell Dimension
> > L600cx, but now it seems I made the wrong choice!
> >
> > Why does a $40 cheapo camera have to be proprietary for
> > Intel? I thought Intel made all their money because they make
> > huge volumes of flash memory chips over their competitors.
> >
> > I better choose the Lexmark color printer as a free add on next
> > time!
> >
>
> Of course it is posible to write a driver for that
> camera, but you would have to reverse engineer the
> protocols.
>
> Depending on how it is connected you could hook in
> a piece of hardware or software to watch the
> communication.
>
> I don't understand Intel's policy, a Linux driver
> would allow more people to use the camera and then
> they could expect to sell more cameras. But
> perhaps they have some secret agreement with MS.
>
> --
> Kasper Dupont
Probably it is a "Windows only" camera. It uses the PC cpu and memory to
operate the camera rather than electronics in the camera. Windows
continually polls the camera for data. This makes the camera lots
cheaper to build, but uses up computer resources. Works fine on a single
user/ single task OS, but not under a multiuser multitasking OS like
Linux (or Solaris or BSD). So you truly can't write a driver for Linux.
At least not one that would make anyone happy.
--
Russ Lyttle, PE
<http://www.flash.net/~lyttlec>
Not Powered by ActiveX
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:29:05 -0500
Russ Lyttle wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Russ Lyttle wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Steve Mading wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > : 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.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The story I'd heard is that Bill Joy's terminal actually had
> > > > > > little arrows drawn on the keycaps right on the hjkl keys, and so
> > > > > > that's what he used. The fact that this was fast because it was
> > > > > > under the right hand (well, shifted off by one key) was not a planned
> > > > > > benefit. It was sort of accidental.
> > > > > Why were the arrows drawn on his keycaps?
> > > >
> > > > Part of the factory production, in fact.
> > > >
> > > I can understand that. But factory production does not take an extra
> > > step for no reason. I think that those conventions were already
> > > established much longer ago. Anyone have a layout of older keyboards
> > > from back in Teletype days? When ESC and CTRL meant something? I've lost
> > > my references on those during one of my moves. I don't use VI much, but
> > > I thought its conventions were based on a much older tradition.
> >
> > As I remember, it's a traditional IBM Selectric layout, with CTRL in
> > place of the caps lock, and Escape on the far left end of the top row.
> >
> I just looked at my old Selectric. The VI commands are much easier on it
> than on my PC keyboards. But I don't think that is it. However, do you
> remember the fuss when IBM came out with the PC keyboard instead of the
> Selectric layout? The PC keyboard is much less ergonomic than the
> Selectric keyboard. Especially the Windows variant. Anyone out there
> make a Selectric style keyboard for PCs?
Get a Happy Hacker keyboard.
It's almost identical to the old Lear-Siegler ADM-3/5/5a/5+ series
of terminals which are GREAT for vi.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Date: 20 Dec 2000 01:36:05 GMT
Chad C. Mulligan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: Half rabbit. I was explaining that at least MS completes their projects
: eventually. Where's the next kernel?
Well, you said Windows 2000 was TWO years later than Microsoft had
expected. Let's give Linus and friends another year and see what they
come up with.
Do you actually have a point anymore?
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:43:43 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 13:48:29 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, I do know that poorly written printer drivers do more than
There seem to be a lot of "poorly written drivers" for NT. Maybe
they're hard to write?
> what they're supposed to do and in the process usually mess everything
> up.
How would they do that if they don't have priviledges?
> I mainly use HP and Lexmark printers and I've never had a problem.
I have. The 5si driver had a number of problems. It didn't crash the
machine or anything, it would just sometimes refuse to print until you
reinstalled it. Using the driver from the Microsoft (which lacks a few
features nobody seems to care about) fixed that.
Never had that problem with Ghostscript. It prints to the same printer
just fine (also missing some features).
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:43:44 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:03:47 -0600, Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never known a soldier that wanted to risk everything for nothing.
Yet, in the past, that's what the US government has asked of them. That
is one thing that, thankfully, seems to have been greatly reduced of late.
> I don't mind the quarter billion price tag of our military.
You misspelled "trillion".
> We should double that and put half the doubling into payraises and r&D
> damnit!
Payraises are fine. Readiness is fine. Most of the R&D they do is
sensible. Lots of things the military does are worth paying for, I can
certainly agree with that.
OTOH, there are a lot of things the "Military-Industrial Complex" does
that need to be questioned. Questioning these things does not imply
that the questioner doesn't support the men and women in uniform. In
fact, it is our duty as citizens to keep an eye on things that cost a
quarter- trillion dollars a year.
> I DO mind the trillions we spend on black hole entitlement programs.
Which ones would those be? Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? None
of the other ones even come close to those. However you feel about
Social Security, you can bet that no sane politician is going to try to
eliminate it. Yet they are the only entitlements that are of the same
order as the military budget.
AFDC, the Food Stamp program, Head Start, all the other welfare programs
combined don't even come close to those. We're talking about three
orders of magnitude less than "trillions" per year. And they've just
recently been through a major reform too. Maybe we ought to see how
that turns out during less good economic times before we go fixing them
again.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:46:43 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
"Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Chad C. Mulligan" wrote:
> >
> > > "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
> > > >
> >
> > Are you blind? Follow the links. They will lead you to:
> >
> > http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/get_binaries.html
> >
>
> Which leads to SO 5.2 from Sun.
>
No. It leads to the builds for 605, 609, and 613:
http://a1484.g.akamai.net/7/1484/2064/OpenOffice605b/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffice605/linux_install_605.tar.gz
http://a1544.g.akamai.net/7/1544/2064/OpenOffice609/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffice609/linux_609_install.tar.gz
http://a1496.g.akamai.net/7/1496/2064/OpenOffice613/anoncvs.openoffice.org/download/OpenOffice613/install613_linux_intel.tar.gz
Could you at least try clicking on the link before making such statements?
5.2 is available at:
http://www.sun.com/products/staroffice/5.2/get.html
Gary
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:02:08 -0500
From: glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10th grader com sci homework request
Sounds like you need to do more homework as you got some of your 'facts'
wrong already
Tina Wyndham wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I have to write a large paper for Computer Science class.
> I have written whatI know and what I have found in the internet
> that i know is true. would you add to the list.
>
> It is simply the differences between the four major O/S's.
> It doesnt have to be in sentences or anything I will do that later,
> but at least so I can understand it, that would be great. thanks.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Tina Wyndham
>
> ----
>
> microsoft :
>
> 1.has foot in nearly every door of all organizations on planet earth
>
> 2.good portion of Microsoft computer operators,
> presently unfazed to extremely cautious regarding source code theft from
> MicroSoft HQ.
>
> 3.has proven the best marketing for building a better faster product is
> global beta testing
> for close source software.
>
> 4.Security problems are common due to collaboration errors and
> fundmental testing
> phases,
>
> 5.fixes or patches are readily available and are not usually immediately
> issued, nor
> explained.
>
> 6.Has one of the monetarily wealthiest men at the helm.
>
> 7.Has made quite a few billioniares
>
> 8.Has made more then a few millionaires.
>
> 9.Follows what it can't develop in real time, offeres to purchase stake.
>
> 10.Creates mass use for dependecy.
>
> 11.Uses different operating systems to deliver software via the internet
> because they run
> faster and are more dependable.
>
> 12.Created a large workforce and product(s) to work on.
>
> 13.requires no knowledge of computers
> 14.has fanatics praising its side
>
> ( add to list below here please)
>
> Linux(s):
>
> 1.was developed by guy who didn't like licensed software.
> 2.making solid progress in the name of computing
> 3.Cannot be stolen, source can be purchased if not downloaded for free.
> 4. runs well for months at a time.
>
> 5. Security problems are common due to collaboration errors and
> fundmental testing
> phases,
>
> 6.fixes or patches readily available and usually immediately issued and
> explained.
>
> 7.has fanatics praising its side
> can emulate operating systems
>
> 8.Created a large workforce and product(s) to work on.
> requires knowledge of computers
>
> 9.Runs microsoft ftp servers.
>
> ( add to list below here please)
>
> BSD(s)
>
> 1. variants have collaborated.
>
> 2. Quietly making solid progress in the name of computing
>
> 3. Security problems are few due to collaboration errors and fundmental
> testing phases,
>
> 4. fixes or patches readily available and usually immediately issued and
> explained.
>
> 5. has fanatics praising its side
> can run binaries of other operating systems
>
> 6. Created respectable workforce and product(s) to work on.
>
> 7.requires advanced knowledge of computers
> Runs microsoft ftp servers.
>
> apple : ( i dont't know anything about them.) yet.
>
> --
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 01:57:27 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> >
> > "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.
>
> Then i guess most liberals are reactionaries, too.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> And this applies to the behavior of liberals and the programs and
> laws they push how exactly?
It applies to liberals, conservatives, and others, as long as they
follow dogma rather than sifting the evidence for themselves.
And the sifting needs to be done with intelligence, because anyone
can find patterns that aren't there.
Chris
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:13:13 -0500
From: glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
>
> >> They don't want to spend their lives trouble-shooting computers, because
> >> for them computers are actually a means to an end, a tool. Not an end in
> >> themselves.
> >
> >They dont have to. You're missing quite alot here.
>
> I don't think so. You seem to think that those who are not interested in
> becoming computer experts are somehow lazy or stupid. I'm pointing out
> that this simply isn't true, and that being disinterested in computers
> does not make someone lazy or stupid.
5 years ago the opposite made you a geek, now it's "OK" to own a
computer AND use it just b/c everyone else is doing it. It's funny that
now those same people use a computer but don't call someone that was
doing it for 5 years a geek anymore.
>
> >> GOing from website to website, trying to cobble together the right stuff
> >> is just fine if you like tinkering with computers, but if you just want
> >> to use your computer, it's a waste of time.
> >
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
