Linux-Advocacy Digest #984, Volume #30 Wed, 20 Dec 00 01:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source (Gary Hallock)
Re: What's in a name? (Terry Porter)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (Terry Porter)
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? (mlw)
Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED.... (Michael Vester)
Re: What's in a name? ("Adam Ruth")
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("David Casey")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:13:38 -0500
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun Microsystems and the end of Open Source
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> AFAIK, none of MS major products was finished in time, all of them slipped
> past their deadlines.
> Win2K was no exception in this matter.
> Linux used to follow "release early & often" paradigm, the 2.4 kernel is a
> big exception.
> Linus should put his foot down and say, that is enough, nothing gets in
> anymore, now we fix the bugs, and then we release, the rest can *wait* for
> 2.5 or 2.6 kernel.
>
He already did. Only bugs are being fixed now, no new function. The current
2.4 kernel is in very good shape.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: What's in a name?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Dec 2000 04:16:31 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 14:42:01 -0500, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unix is a better operating system than windows simply because back in
>the days of its inception, there were no worries about graphics,
>windowing systems, or ease of use. So, the main emphasis was on the
>quality of its internals, not user interfaces or graphics. This allowed
>unix to grow and mature as the great operating system that it is today.
>With Windows (including NT), the main issues were marketing, and the
>attributes that make on OS marketable with the masses, such as graphics
>performance and user friendly interfaces. Unix had no such crosses to
>bear, so the emphasis on quality became the most important issue.
>
>So, to this day, unix is better than Windows. The end. Wasn't that a
>great story? Oh wait, Steve will disagree because his new and exotic
>Sound Blaster isn't supported.
"Steve/Heather/Keys88/Claire_lynn/Amy/Swango/Swangoremovemee/flatfish++++"
You mean ?
Have I left many names out ?
Plus, dont forget his $99 Cannon printer that offers photorealistic A1, CYMK
wax coated photographic, near life, 3D realism under Windows, but only a
crappy 360*360 inkjet A4 print under Linux ;-)
>
>
>-----= 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! =-----
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 15 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 20 Dec 2000 04:22:18 GMT
On Wed, 20 Dec 2000 03:08:40 GMT, Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ain't it the truth..............
>
"Steve/Heather/Keys88/Claire_lynn/Amy/Swango/Swangoremovemee/flatfish++++"
Forte Agent 1.8/32.548, AT&T Worldnet
Your back!
And as a male persona this time, gee it reminds me of you in 1997, except
you're not pretending to be a Linux newbie these days.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 3 days 15 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Who LOVES Linux again?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:34:46 -0500
> >Ah, these past few weeks have reminded me of just spaced out these Linux zealots
>are, but how dedicated they are to their frugal ways.
How can one consider frugal a bad thing? It is better than wasteful.
> >
> >Linux is...
> >They keep saying "Linux is more stable", it's faster, it's free. And they will
>swear up and down (and sooner kill themselves than admit otherwise) that Linux is
>free, faster and more reliable.
Because we know it to be true.
> >
> >Our reminder to keep us grouned.
> > a.. Linux is NOT more stable.
> >I love when Linux zealots claim that "Linux is sooo much more stable than anything
>Microsoft ever came out with". This used to be true. Linux had good stability, it
>was a true-32 bit OS from it's boot loader to "telinit 0". But come on, this claim
>is getting old.
Some truths never go out of style.
> >
> > 1.. When you ask most Linux users which Windows they are complaining about, they
>>are talking about Windows NT 4, or Windows 98. Both of which have been succeeeded
>by >future revisions of Windows.
OK, some, things have not changed. MS is still playing the "This service
pack for sure" game.
> > 2.. Bad programming is still bad programming. Netscape 6 for Linux still causes
>>unresponsive X sessions, "core" crap-out's under GNOME, and infrequently, but
>>noticeably, completely unresonsive Linux sessions in general. It does the same
>thing >to Microsoft Windows.
In an office where people share disk space, as is promoted by Microsoft,
an application failure kills anyone connected to that machines disk, or
disrupts office work unexpectedly. Even on the very rare occasion when
Linux my lock up (An I have not seen on in over two years) I have never
seen programs like Samba fail.
In the office I work at, in just 5 months, I am the ONLY person that has
not had to reinstall Windows. This includes Win2k. I am still running
the same Linux install which I did when I got there. 5 months is not a
long time for Linux, but for Windows it seems like a life time.
> >And these "uptime" claims. Please. These are being posted by people running their
>Linux kernel, and a super-stripped down C shell. Really, if I was running the
>Windows command console, writing documents with "edit.com" and posting them using
>some MSDOS based usenet posting software, I'd never have to reboot either (except
>when I turn my PC off).
We had an Oracle box running RedHat 6.1 on a dual pentium. It was under
a constant load 5 days a week. It never crashed, not once. It would
still have a six month uptime, except in Boston the big-dig killed out
power on a Sunday and we had to shut it down.
Our Windows server, on the other hand, is always crashing. Same vendor,
same hardware.
> > 1.. Real computing involves running programs. LOTS of programs, loading them
>into and out from memory repeadly, over the course of a day, or two or three. It
>involves running multipul applications at once, and loading and unloading them as
>previously mentioned. Maybe, even running a video game here and there occasionaly.
>Doing all this, your invaraibly going to hit something that isn't coded perfectly,
>and is going to cause SOMETHING to go somewhere.
Yes, in a good operating system, like Linux, the program will core dump.
The OS will shake it off. Windows to lock, crash, or BSOD.
> > a.. Linux is NOT Free
> >Linux lovers keep saying "it's stable AND free, have Microsoft beat that!" Well,
>it's not more stable, so let's go into why Linux isnt' free.
> > 1.. Linux is typicaly available for download. The most common formats are binary
>extractions of the CDROM's used to distrubute the copies of Linux. They are stored
>in their uncompressed entirety as an "image" file. This file is usually 600
>megabytes, or more. And may not involve just one IMAGE. It can involve two, three,
>or four (Connectiva). That requires broadband connections, because it would take
>weeks on a common modem. Broadband is a commodity, period.
> > 2.. The "Image Files" require a CD writing device. That is a commodity, not a
>typical component. Most people DON'T own a CD writing device.
> > 3.. Distributions are distributed in CD Packs. Which are sold for PROFIT. Need
>I go on?
Linux is completely free. One need not pay for it. The notion that
obtaining something that is "free" is without cost or effort is
ridiculous. If I were giving away $20 bills in Boston Common, it would
still cost you some time and effort to get your ass into Boston. Don't
be silly.
> > 4.. Distributions are not "updated". They are being replaced. RedHat Linux 6.1
>has been suceeded by RedHat Linux 6.2, and now 7.0. The only difference between the
>products is updated componetns inside the distribution that fix idiotic security and
>stability problems. If you cannot accomidate line items "1", or "2" above, your only
>choice for updating your distro is to buy another one. If you bought a fully
>commercial package, you may be entitled to free upgrades.
It is a free country, you can pay for Linux if you want.
> >Item "4" above shoots a hole in the claim that "Linux can be updated for free,
>Windows can't, you have to buy another one when 'big billy' says so." Fine, so
>instead of Microsoft controlling product udpates, you have to rely on often
>anonymous, 3rd parties to maintain and fix your OS components, and then you have to
>pay the distro maker more money to obtain the latest release.
I don't know a single vendor that doesn't allow you to download updates
to packages.
> >
> > a.. Linux isn't much faster
> >A vast majority of Linux's speed comes from processor optimizations at the kernel,
>and program level. Your software is hard-wired for your platform, delivering speed.
>Great. Except that Windows functions on all Intel i386 compliant platforms without
>kernel changes or software re-codes. Which means that Linux's only speed advantage
>lies in it's platform dependent, processor optimizations.
No, it has to do with the methodologies used to implement the low level
operations of the operating system. These speeds can be further improved
with compile time processor assumptions, but these are usually minimal.
> >
> >XFree86 is Linux's only other X server (alternative is a commercial, unpopular
>product). Does XFree86 comes with hardware optimization for video graphics
>accelerators? Yes and No. It doesn't fully support any of the 3D technology in
>today's 3D accelerators, nothing quite even CLOSE to what Apple & Microsoft can do
>with 'em.
If you want the speed, you can buy the accelerated X server. It is
usually cheaper than the video card. This is no different than the
accelerated Windows drivers that are sold.
The core drivers in XFree are pretty-OK. I don't use my computer for
games, so I neither care nor notice.
> >
> >As for other operations, like general interface, XFree86 is a sugglish nightmare.
>Really, using dedicated CPU time to create, and update the display is a sluggish and
>outdated practice that went the way of the dodo when hardware accelerated procedures
>were implemented. So there goes the GUI "speed" advantage.
No one argues that X is the fastest interface, but it is not nearly as
slow as you would like people to believe. It is not observably slower
than Windows or Win2k on similar hardware, performing similar functions.
> >
> >Summary: Linux is for cheap computer programmers, who have no idea what computing
>should be like for people who don't have the time to interface with their computers
>in C.
This is that stupid anti-intellectual movement in the US where being
smart is a bad thing. You must be a poster boy.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Name one thing Microsoft INVENTED....
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:43:30 -0700
Consumer acceptance of flakey computer software.
Michael Vester
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
------------------------------
From: "Adam Ruth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's in a name?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:51:10 -0700
Yes, silly you. The kernel is called Linux, the rest is called GNU. The
kernel is named after Linus.
"Spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Has it ever occurred to anyone that the Linux
> > operating system is named after its kernel, while
> > Windows is named after its GUI?
>
> Silly me. I thought Linux was named after/by Linus.
>
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:57:36 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The Linux users need a reality check to see how much they are missing
> since they last used Windows circa 3.0
>
This is very true, I see people bashing Windows for problems it's had dating
back to Windows for Workgroups 3.11 now THAT'S sad; being so angry at a
computing platform for nearly six years now. Although it's more often that
I find Linux zealot's complaining that "Windows is the platform of satan"
because it "crashes so much".
Of course they are refering to Windows 95 and 98's hideous stability
problems, not Windows NT (after SP3) Windows 2000 or Windows Me. They don't
realize that OS's change.
Which is the only reason I still use Linux, too see if SOMETHING has
changed. 5 Years and counting, the result? No.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 04:57:23 GMT
In article <91ntj8$ku5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) wrote:
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Bracy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:EhF%5.16475$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Troubleshooting a problem on a Linux system is, IMHO, generally
> >> much easier and swifter than troubleshooting a problem in Windows.
>
> > That depends on the problem, now doesn't it?
>
> > For instance, I've tried everything anyone can think of to get XFree86 4.0.1
> > to recognize my tseng et6000 based Hercules Dynamite 128/Video card, and so
> > far no luck. The solution seems to be to install CVS, retrieve the most
> > recent XFree86 source files, then figure out the arcane building method used
> > by XFree86 to build the driver I need (a patch was made in September which
> > may have fixed the problem, but there hasn't been a binary release since
> > July).
>
> You're lucky. I couldnt get the latest GForce driver to work on my
> RIVA TNT at all.
>
> Your problem isnt with linux, its with XFree; which is something that is
> developed and supported entirely outside the scope of all linux distributions.
>
> Use 3.3.6. That will work.
Agreed. I'm still running 3.3.6 as 4.0.1 doesn't have suppport for S3 Savage
4 chipsets yet. I have no problems. Besides, if you don't like Mandrake,
there ARE other distros you can try. Thats the *POINT* of having so many
distros. Sounds to me like you don't like Mandrake setting everything up for
you. Fine. Try Debian or Slackware. Now, I need to get this straight. Yr
bitching cuz Drake set yr hardware up differently that want you wanted,
correct? I'm not sure, that just seems to be the underlying principle of his
arguement. I may be wrong, if so, I apologize. But, to be fair, Windows
doesn't always set up yr hardware correctly either. I had to try 6 times to
get 98 SE to set up my video card properly, installing, detecting the card,
uninstalling the driver it decided to install even tho I told it to install a
different one, etc. Now, to the point of Windows/Linux difficulty, I TOTALLY
agree with the author. The real difference that I personally have noticed is
that Windows problems happen more often to me, for unexplained reasons,
whereas in Linux, which is pretty much all I use anymore, I know exactly (in
most cases) what is wrong and how to fix it, and I never see that problem
again. Of course, I maybe lucky, and I am a "Certified Linux Professional"
which is a big stupid title to mean I can do tech support and minor sys admin
duties, which I took a class on, so in some aspects I may have a slight
advantage over, say someone learning on their own from scratch. So, I don't
want to argue with anyone. you may be right in your situation. I'm just
giving my two cents.
C Pungent
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:13:16 GMT
All this hardware works because they all have the fortune of being based
around America's top 10% hardware.
1. Soundblaster Live: PCI sound system from the SB64 base of sound
processors
2. Creative Annihaltor: nVidia GeForce2 GTS; the best, most popular video
graphics chipset in North America
3. Microsoft Intellimouse: It's a mouse. With token support for USB (which
was desgined around supporting MICE and Keyboards) in the Linux kernel, this
works.
4.Xirlink USB camera: Uses the same TWAIN dynamics that digicam's and
scanners used since the Casio QV-10, why it works over USB? Luck.
5.HP LaserJet 2100M: I'll bet you this thing doesn't work outside of 75DPI
printing. This printer features legacy firmware so it can accomidate a lack
of software commands.
6. Adaptec 2940UW: Nothing says generic SCSI adaptor like Adaptec's 2000
series SCSI adaptors.
7.3com 3c905 NIC: Another generic NIC card.
8.USB-ZIP250: Linux's USB layer was engeneered with mice, keyboards and
iomega's USB devices in mind. No DUH that this works.
9.Jaz 1G: It's a tape drive, it's from iomega. But it's still a tape drive.
So you see, your stock collection of top hardware, and hardware based around
other top 10% hardware makes your system the ideal runner for a Linux
distro.
"A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:43:00 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : You can argue till you are blue in the face about the evil hardware
> : manufacturers withholding specs but it still boils down to the same
> : thing.
> :
> : Linux sucks at supporting modern hardware.
>
> Obviously why on my PC, such "archaic" hardware as:
>
> SoundBlaster Live!
> Creative Annihilator 2 (GeForce 2 GTS based card)
> Micro$oft USB Intellimouse
> IBM (really Xirlink) USB Camera
> HP LaserJet 2100M
> Adaptec 2940UW
> Asus CUSL2 (i815e based) motherboard
> 3com 3c905 NIC
> USB Zip 250
> Jaz 1G
>
> all work without a hitch, right? Yeah, all of that stuff is ancient,
right?
>
> --
> Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
> jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
> Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:24:52 GMT
"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > AFAIK, none of MS major products was finished in time, all of them
slipped
> > past their deadlines.
> > Win2K was no exception in this matter.
> > Linux used to follow "release early & often" paradigm, the 2.4 kernel is
a
> > big exception.
> > Linus should put his foot down and say, that is enough, nothing gets in
> > anymore, now we fix the bugs, and then we release, the rest can *wait*
for
> > 2.5 or 2.6 kernel.
> >
>
> He already did. Only bugs are being fixed now, no new function. The
current
> 2.4 kernel is in very good shape.
>
But not yet certified for release.
Note: Isn't it interesting now that the shoe's on the other foot, how all
the penguinistas now think that it's good programming practice to release
products late or not at all. What a bunch of hypocrites.
> Gary
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 20 Dec 2000 05:35:59 GMT
On 20 Dec 2000 02:37:21 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>On 19 Dec 2000 18:58:06 GMT,
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>typical user wants to be able to go to their vendor for support. They don't
>>want to have to go to this website, that website, etc, especially when the
>>websites in question don't offer any kind of formal support.
>
>If you want that kind of support you'll have to pay for it, no matter
>what OS you use.
Of course.
>>Users expect basic things like the GUI to work, and they expect the vendor
>>to be able to support it when it doesn't. It's the distributors job to provide
>>an integrated system that works to the users, and to provide them with an
>>alternative solution (for example, downloads and instructions to fix the
>>problems) in the unlikely event that it doesn't. If the distributor is not
>>able to provide the information the user needs to get hardware that the
>>distributor claims is supported, then clearly that would be a failure
>>of the distributor.
>
>Does Microsoft provide this kind of support for their Windows
>versions, or will they send you off to a hardware vendor when some
>hardware doesn't work with their OS??
Their OEM licenses make this quite explicit -- support is the responsibility
of the OEM. The point is that someone is willing to take responsibility for
the system working (the OEM).
Microsoft are not primarily a support vendor, and their business model
is not "give away software and sell support". Their business model is based
on licensing.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "David Casey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:39:50 -0500
"dvick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "taking a turn at the government teat"???
> Isn't that just an insulting way of saying the government pays for the
> armed forces? Where else do you expect the military to get funding
> but from the government? Bakes sales? Charging money for HMMWV
> rides?
We could always charge Europe for each time we save their butts.
Dave
They owe me for Kosovo. :-)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 23:48:28 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91pam0$5ip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:91oej9$sn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> What he didnt tell you is that it says clearly in the mandrake
installer
> >> that XFree 4.0.1 IS NOT SUPPORTED, AND THAT YOURE ON YOUR OWN IF YOU
> > DECIDE
> >> TO USE IT.
>
> > That's not true, and I didn't "decide" to use it. Mandrakes install
> > installed it all by itself without a single question about if I wanted
it
> > installed or not.
>
> Thats odd. I installed mandrake 7.2 on this machine (im using it right
now)
> from ISOs I downloaded from their ftp site this evening. During the "X
> config" portion of the install, I clearly had a choice between 4.0.1 and
> 3.3.6. The installer told me all about how 4.0.1 was better for 2D
> application (my video card apparantly does not have a driver for 4.0.1
> included in the mandrake install), but that it was experimental, and to
> use at my own risk.
Do a server install. It doesn't ask you which, or even IF you want X
installed.
------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 05:48:52 GMT
Microsoft has succeeded Windows 98 with Windows 98 SE and Windows Me.
Windows Me does not have this problem.
"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:91mbtg$3qt$04$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > > > The USB layer under Linux doesn't support full soft-enumeration
of
> > the
> > > > > > devices under the BUS in perputiaty. WHICH IS THE POINT OF USB!
> > > > >
> > > > > What the heck are you trying to say?!
> > > >
> > > > TRANSLATION: You plug it in, and poof, it works, PERIOD.
> > >
> > > That doesn't happen in Windows, either.
> >
> > Really? I plug a USB device in, Windows detects it, asks me to wait
while
> > it gather info about the device, install drivers if it has ones, ask for
> > drivers if it doesn't.
> > And that is *all*.
> > Next time that I'll plug the device, the driver will be loaded
> > automatically and I'll be able to use device I plugged in immediately.
> >
> > How is it working on Linux? I never used USB on Linux.
> >
> >
> >
> Exactly like on Windows, that means NOT AT ALL.
> Just try to install on Windows98 some of those shitty USB to Ethernet
> (Network????) Connectors, and you will know what i mean
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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?
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 00:53:17 -0500
Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> 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
Communist programs, each of them....
> 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/
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
