Linux-Advocacy Digest #316, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 04:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Why Hatred? (Ed Allen)
Re: linux reaches the big screen (Form@C)
How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Why Advocacy? (Form@C)
Re: Windows 2000 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux vs Microsoft (Jacques Guy)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awful ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 07:39:26 GMT
I rest my case.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
> >
> > You have to understand that "UNIX Engineers" like Mr. Kulkis would be
out of
> > a job if people believed that Windows 2000 was an improvement over
Windows
> > NT 4.
>
> Windows 2000: Tallest Midget at the Circus.
>
>
>
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:HBd56.55058$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "JM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On Wed, 03 Jan 2001 23:55:57 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > > > ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >> news:92vara$i8r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > >> > news:kWy46.53665$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >> > > Yes there is a list of commands, but they don't have much to
do
> > > with
> > > > >> > > administering the machine. Where do I find the command that
> > would
> > > > >> > > add or remove an ip addresses for example. There is one, but
> > where
> > > > >> > > do I find it and it's documentation?
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > ipconfig
> > > >
> > > > >> Let me try again. Where do I find this command and it's
> > documentation,
> > > > >> unless you meant to imply that the correct way to find out about
this
> > > > >> hidden functionality is to ask on usenet? Where are the on-line
> > > > >> manual pages for this new stuff?
> > > >
> > > > >Send $5,000 to Redmond, and they'll sell you some books that tell
> > > > >the name of some books that can be obtained for $10,000 which
> > > > >contain the answer.
> > > >
> > > > And then it would just say "Type ipconfig and press enter. Click
over
> > > > there for a nice wizard which will guide you through the typing
> > > > process."
> > >
> > > Don't be quite so cynical even if it comes naturally from prior
> > > experience with MS products. Win2k really does have some of
> > > the long-missing command line functionality filled in but for some
> > > reason nobody knows anything about it.
> > >
> > > Les Mikesell
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
> 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: "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Linux because it destroys hard disks.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 07:39:55 GMT
Don't worry Aaron, I couldn't give a rat's ass which platform you post
under.
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > "Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:BQp56.151406$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > You have to understand that "UNIX Engineers" like Mr. Kulkis would be
out
> > of
> > > a job if people believed that Windows 2000 was an improvement over
Windows
> > > NT 4.
> >
> > Actually, Mr. Kulkis probably never even *seen* a Unix.
> > All his posting were made from a win98 machine.
>
> Actually, I'm posting from a Unix machine.
> I changed the string in the headers to obfuscate what platform I'm
actually using.
>
> Security through disinformation.
>
>
> --
> 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: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Microsoft is 20-years BEHIND other OS vendors
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 07:51:43 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2001 18:11:23 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Tell me please, how do I get KDE2 on windows?
>
> Why in the world would you want to?
> Inconsistent and buggy.
Keep your shortcomings out of this , Claire...
>
>
> >Linux "hit the net" from day one (for linux anyway) it was M$ who was
ignoring
> >the net in 1991.
>
> And Linux has only recently been able to automate the connection
> process so the user doesn't have to screw with ppp-options files, chat
> scripts and so for. MS was a little slow out of the gate, but
> surpassed Linux in the ease of use step in one leap. Linux is STILL
> trying to catch up in that regard.
> Offline news and a decent web browser are 2 area's where Linux falls
> flat on it's face.
>
> >Hm, I use linux daily, I sometimes have to use windows at a clients, I
know
> >which I prefer, and the for what. The only thing windows does better for
me is
> >some games.
>
> To each his own and that is what choice is about.
Then why do you hasten to criticize choices that are contrary to your own?
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 08:01:02 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Form@C in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 10:18:55 GMT;
>>The POSIX standard cannot usefully be applied here as user-orientated
>>dedicated desktop machines weren't around when it was written. The
>>capability for user-interactive software was very limited on serially-
>>interfaced text-based terminals connected to much larger multi-user
>>machines as the system (from the user's point of view) was simply too slow.
>
>No, they were slower than PCs. The problem with this argument is that
>it rests on the assumption that everything used previously was
>worthless, and what is used now is perfect. Do users *want* their
>desktops to change? Of course not, they never do. They change anyway.
>A lot of people have just had the trivial migration from WinDOS to
>WinNT. Because all they ever generally use is the Win32 middleware,
>that shouldn't even be considered a change. Yet it is; the damn thing
>works different!
Sorry to intrude but this LIE that Microsoft wants perpetuated must be
stamped out whenever it is repeated.
Unix has not been a text only system for longer than WinDOS has.
Unix had a networked GUI before Windows 1.0:
http://intro-to-linux.b-squared.net/slide18.html
http://www.metrics.com/WinFAQ/winver.htm#windows30
A networked system allows the executing programs to be on different
computers than the one with the display and keyboard. That is
functionality only available in "Enterprise Editions" of Windows
but has been part of every Unix desktop system, only a few servers
still come without X and even those can display graphical output
on the monitoring desktop which is often in another time zone.
So Unix had the X Windows system released in 1984 and Windows 1.0
was "on store shelves" in 1985.
Most reasonable people believe that Windows 3.0(May 1990) was the
first version good enough to be widely accepted by the public.
I think it was because Microsoft refused to sell DOS without the
Windows bundle and that they had convinced developers that rewriting
their software for Windows would mean getting more money from
customers who only had the DOS version and needed upgrades.
When very few DOS apps were being kept current "Windows was a hit".
>
>I can't make any concrete predictions about just how quickly and
>thoroughly the industry will embrace desktop Linux. But it sure seems
>poised to me.
Joe Sixpack has never heard of Linux let alone seen a functioning
system in action.
But his kids have. They know that it has more power than 98 or ME
and fewer games, which is why they still use 98.
September of 2001 will see a 64 bit chip from AMD called Clawhammer.
No Microsoft software utilizing 64 bits exists. They have a version
which will boot on Itanium but I remember when Chicago(Win95) was
"all 32 bit" which proved not to be any more than 16 bit DOS with
Win32 extensions so I expect 64 bit Windows to be another failed
promise.
Linux truly uses all 64 bits of the CPU, Alpha, UltraSPARC, and
IBM z900 are available today. Others exist but I don't know their
designations.
My point is that Quake III runs on the Clawhammer emulator show
1.25 to 2.0 times the frame rate of an equal clock speed Intel
CPU.
Young gamers will pressure Daddy Joe to make Clawhammer systems
the highest demanded Christmas present of the year.
At that point a few people will realize that since Windows does
not support the chip these computers must be running something else.
Linux has never given back any area it has seen widespread adoption
in. Next year X-box will be known as X-Bob and be recognized as
the most expensive Microsoft failure ever.
How is that for specific ?
>
>>Once again, under the terms of the thought experiment, M$ couldn't be
>>regarded as anti-competitive because they would have released their Win32
>>data. This would move them onto a similar footing to other OSs, forcing
>>Win32 to stand on its own - which appears to be the whole point of the
>>experiment.
>
>I'm not a fan of thought experiments. But if I accept your (revised)
>terms, then it is my belief, and I suggest that this opinion is strongly
>supported by data, that Microsoft is not capable of competing
>successfully, regardless of whether they release Win32. Hell, they may
>very well do just that, eventually. In order to forestall any
>alternative middleware from encroaching on their .NET monopoly.
>
Microsoft has seen what the WINE team can do while having to reverse
engineer the undocumented behaviors of Win32.
They know that they could not maintain their lock on Win32
applications without secret advantages for their own apps.
In other words they *know* they cannot compete on a level field.
>>
>>While I do not condone M$'s dealings in the past, these are now history and
>>we now *have* a readily acceptable "standard" (here we go again!) for end-
>>user's desktop machines. It may well be monopolistic and ant-competitive
>>but AFAICS it's well and truly here!
>>
Past criminal behavior and the continuation of it in the face of
agreements to stop is why they were convicted of Sherman Act
violations.
Both Intel and Cisco have been investigated for antitrust violations
but they worked with the investigating agencies and modified or
documented their actions to comply with the law.
Microsoft refusing to give up their anticompetitive activities in
spite of multiple opportunities spanning multiple years is why they
were finally convicted and why only breakup can be trusted to end
their illegal actions.
--
"Whether you think their witnesses are credible or non-credible;
they've admitted monopoly power, they've admitted raising prices to hurt
consumers, they've admitted depriving consumers of choice...
-DAVID BOIES, US Department of Justice
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.portable,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: linux reaches the big screen
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 08:01:37 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
<snip>
>I'll be sure and sit far away from the balcony though :)
>
It might be a good idea to wear protective clothing too! Especially if the
"penguinists" recognise you and are armed with little silver and gold
frisbees!
:-)
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: 7 Jan 2001 08:06:20 GMT
I'm reafdy to go on a homicidal rampage out of frustration with
this f*cking Mozilla POS. The stupid POS wants me to download the plugin
even though it's already downloaded. I tried hacking the install
to make the plugin install and for some reason I keep getting
those annoying popups harrassing me and telling me to download the f*cking
plugin which I already downloaeded.
It's no wonder MSIE is winning when these f*cking clowns can't release a
browser that makes it at least possible to download and install f*cking
plugins. And not only that but it harasses the user asking them to download
15MB files that they've already downloadewd.
I need the JRE plugin, I've already downlaoded it. Can someone
suggest how to install these f*cking jre..xpi files before
I buy an AK47 from the local supermarket ?
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:16:53 +0000
Nigel Feltham wrote:
> Is it true that win9x and winNT4 clients also have problems connecting to
> win2k
> servers due the the SMB changes?
That rings a bell though I can't recall any of the details.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 10:09:42 +0200
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:xPT56.56281$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:938o2v$q9j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > > Can you show me the virus for NT that can damage other people's file
> on
> > > > NTFS?
> > >
> > > Sure, just use one of the many applications that require Everyone
> > > (Full Access) to a directory, save your file there, and you're done.
> > > You could make this even easier by using Omnipage Pro, which requires
> > > Administrator access to even run.
> >
> > This goes to every permission FS in the world, you know.
> > If you give Everyone full access to a directory, Everyone will be able
to
> do
> > whatever they want with the files in that directory.
>
> It doesn't happen with the typical unix FS configuration that you
> see in /tmp or the mail spool. If you set the 'sticky' bit on the
> directory, you can allow anyone to create files (with file permissions
> being independent of the directory) but only the owner of the file is
> allowed to delete it.
Let me see, how hard would it be on NT?
On NTFS partition, create a directory, remove inheritable permissions, clean
the permissions list and do the following steps.
Give Everyone the following permissions:
-Create Files / Write Data
-Create Folders / Append Data
-List Folder / Read Data
Apply this to:
This folder only
Give CREATOR OWNER:
-Full Control.
Apply this to:
Subdirectores and files only.
> > I've asked a question which you've no answered.
> > What virus can damage other people files on NTFS (implied within this
> > statement is that the other people's files are protected by premissions)
?
>
> The ones that send outlook attachments to those other people. Or have
> you missed the news stories about all the companies where this has
> happened?
Not on any of my computers.
And even if they would attack, they would:
A> wouldn't be able to attack the system itself.
B> wouldn't be able to touch other user's files.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why Advocacy?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Form@C)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 08:33:05 GMT
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <938jio$onn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Form@C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Come on, be real. Linux is a *server* OS. It is extremely good as a
>> server OS. Let it *be* a server OS. It was never, ever, designed as a
>> platform on which to run ordinary user applications (just ask Linus -
>> it wasn't even
>I don't think there are any `ordinary user applications'. Everything
>computers do (besides serving hackers' needs) is just applications and
>it would not be proper to make distinctions based on such bogus criteria
>as whether they run on something called `network servers', or fridge
>servers, or typewriter servers.
>
Certainly within the home and small business sector "user applications" are
installed and run on the desktop machines, although their data may be
stored on a server. Some packages, particularly in the CAD field, cannot
easily be run on a server in any case (the program segments may be stored
on it though so that they are run *from* the server rather than *on* it)
because they often require direct hardware access to operate. Games,
although not applicable to businesses, also fall into this catagory. For
this reason I would regard these as "user applications".
I generally wouldn't feel happy running, say, DHCP, file or mail server
applications for an office on one of the users desktop machines. They are
too liable to get switched off for a start! I would definitely class these
as "server applications".
An interesting point is that some smaller businesses (and maybe some larger
ones too, I don't know) have a separate mains supply to their desktop
machines which is switched off every night to conserve power (some users
tend to leave them on...). Servers are left running partly because out-of-
hours access to these may be required via dial-in. They are more likely to
be running unix (or a variation) too and really require a proper shutdown
sequence.
>> <I'm not replying to flames on this post. Don't bother.>
>Hmm, do you ordinarily reply to flames? :-)
>
I guess not, but I think I was getting a little carried away on that
particular post! :-)
--
Mick
Olde Nascom Computers - http://www.mixtel.co.uk
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:42:35 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> Kulkis is actually the only entry that I have in my killfile. I can
> tolerate Chad Myers and Drestin Black because they at least don't have
> to resort to 3rd grade toilet language when responding to someone that
> disagrees with them. In the 6 or so months that Aaron has posted
> here, I have yet to see a post that actually contributed positively to
> any thread.
I wish KNode had a killfile.
My Windows news reader claims a killfile but it doesn't actually work. Ho
hum.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 08:00:02 +0000
From: Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux vs Microsoft
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip -- Lovely crud though, have you considered
getting into politics?]
> Admit no operating system is perfect and there is an element of
> jealously for Microsoft since they are the defacto for most living human
> beings on planet Earth.
Bit of a whore, then, with Billy Boy as her pimp? And rather
shagged out, with most of those 6 billion human beings poking
her, no? And a bit overpriced, and underperforming, sagging
tits and BSOD varicose veins, at two hundred bucks a shag.
And you have to upgrade the bed, and the bidet, before you
lay her. Oh, yes, and install a crane to lift all her lard and
blubber.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 08:52:28 GMT
"Kyle Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:XlU56.4969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Why do you Linux zealots insist making analogies toward motor vehicles.
>
> I can honestly say in your car related comparison I HAVE NO F***ING IDEA
> WHAT YOU SAID.
>
> If I wanted to read about the latest in car's, I'd by a damn car magazine.
The flatfish character brought out the first car analogy. Something about an
Impala...He was simply responding in kind. Please lose your caps-lock key.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 7 Jan 2001 18:55:37 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I have an IBM PS/2 Model 85, with 128M of memory, a couple of SCSI disks,
>an ethernet card, and an SVGA card. Disk and graphics card are original
>IBM, ethernet is a 3COM, IIRC.
Oh, one more wish --- I would really love Win98 to actually use all my 128M
of memory, rather than something weird like 65M or so, as it does now :)
Bernie
--
Biography should be written by an acute enemy
A.J. Balfour
British Prime Minister 1902-1905
Observer, 30 January 1927
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 08:57:14 GMT
"Form@C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <5zC56.14692$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Colin R. Day wrote:
> >
> >> > Oh, and on the subject of GUIs, why do the pop-ups on most Linux GUI
> >> > software assume that the user's screen resolution is at least
> >> > 1024x768 (and sometimes even greater than that)? Don't Linux/unix
> >> > users ever use the standard, basic 640x480 graphics mode? Are the
> >> > applications too dim to ask
> >>
> >> And what is standard about 640x480? Or is just standard because
> >> Microsoft says it's standard?
> >
>
> There is *no* "standard" screen resolution. 640x480 just happened to be
the
> maximum graphics resolution mode for the early VGA (not SVGA - that came
> later) cards. It was made that size to fit nicely onto 12 inch colour
> monitors. It was *far* better than the CGA and EGA cards which were
> available up to that time. With time it has become the accepted minimum
> graphics resolution which the user is likely to use.
>
> >I thought the 640x480 screensize was fading as more and more PC's
> >support 1024x768 nowadays.
> >
>
> Fading but not gone nor forgotten! Many notebook & laptop screens
currently
> in use won't go higher than 640x480 (newer ones may be better, but I
> daren't even look at the prices!). PDA screens won't even reach *that*
yet!
>
> >Still, bring back the 1280x1024 screen... though I'm not sure my desk
> >would support the weight... or my bank balance the cost if it was an LCD
> >version 8).
> >
>
> It's a sad and expensive world isn't it? I daren't upgrade to a 17"
monitor
> yet (like you, desk not strong enough!). IMHO that is the smallest size
> needed to use 1280x1024 (that's the combination I'm currently using at
> work).
19" works much better for that resolution. You can actually find some
resonably priced 19" .25 dot-pitch monitors now. But, as you said, you need
one hell of a desk to support them.
>
> LCDs ** d r e a m ,,,, **
Me too.
--
Tom Wilson
Sunbelt Software Solutions
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
