Linux-Advocacy Digest #324, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!! (Mig)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (David Dorward)
Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!! (Mig)
Re: KDE vs GNOME (installations) (matt newell)
Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!! (J Sloan)
Re: KDE vs GNOME (installations) (J Sloan)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (Craig Kelley)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ? (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (*)
Re: RPM Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows fails again (Michael Vester)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!!
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 00:02:49 +0100
J Sloan wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:03:49 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Real Player plays all standard formats.
> >
> > Yea, but you still can't view clips of Linux's big shot at the silver
> > screen under Linux.
> >
> > I find it hysterical!
>
> I think the silly guffaws can be silenced fairly easily:
>
> Wine, vmware or win4lin can facilitate the running
> of legacy windows apps in such cases. Of couse
> the real solution is native Linux players for all the
> popular formats, but until then, such workarounds
> are indeed possible...
Tryed do download QT and install it under wine without succes. IE and
Windows MEdia player work pretty well under Wine and are amazingly fast..
try it - its good for testing websites if youre into that
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 23:08:02 +0000
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:57:41 +0000, David Dorward wrote:
> >Mozilla is BETA (or Alpha, I'm not sure). That means it isn't finished,
> >but what has been done is available for you to try if you so want.
>
> Yeah, like every browser available for Linux. That's the problem.
Netscape isn't beta, nor is Konqueror
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!!
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2001 00:04:45 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> J Sloan wrote:
>
> > I think the silly guffaws can be silenced fairly easily:
>
> Oh I dunno...
>
> > Wine, vmware or win4lin can facilitate the running
> > of legacy windows apps in such cases. Of couse
> > the real solution is native Linux players for all the
> > popular formats, but until then, such workarounds
> > are indeed possible...
>
> Running an emulator isn't cricket old boy.
W ine I s N ot E mulator
It translates winxx calls into Unix calls and works pretty well with the
apps i have tryed.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME (installations)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2001 15:19:50 -0800
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Alright, this will probably start up a war that we've already done to
> death a million times, but I just wanted to bring up an aspect that I
> think needs addressing.
>
> Go to the HelixCode website and see how many steps are involved in
> downloading the latest version of Gnome to your desktop. I counted 4:
> bring up a terminal, su, do a command using lynx, follow the directions.
> It was very straightforward. All 4 steps are on the website for you to
> see, with everything spelled out for you.
>
> KDE is still tar-balling or rpming everything for KDE2, and involves a
> separate download for the appropriate version of QT.
>
> Which method is better? I'd be inclined to say HelixCode's method,
> because it worked very nicely for me, and I'm doing a ton of updating to
> a Red Hat 6.1 install, but it occured to me that if I were the sort of
> complete newbie that needed easy installation, I might as well just grab
> the latest commercial distribution and go from there. So, is this issue
> moot?
>
> On the other hand, I'm one of those Linux users who likes a clean
> installer, and I didn't want to have to fork out for a Mandrake 7.2
> which was probably going to be obsolete (or close to it) at this stage
> of the game anyway, what with the new kernel and XFree4 and everything.
> So buying a new commercial release doesn't do it for me, so I'm stuck in
> this inevitable comparison between the two.
>
> I'd say this is a critical issue on which desktop will succeed (if not
> necessarily which is better), because if a newbie comes to you and asks
> whether to go with KDE or GNOME, and you tell that newbie to give them
> both a try because they're both free (and isn't the Linux world better
> for it etc.), and that newbie goes home and sees these two different
> installation methods, what newbie isn't going to be tempted to take the
> path of least resistance, and go with GNOME?
>
Helix Gnome just put a bandaid over the gaping hole in most distributions
ability to upgrade easily and effortlessly. Debian pretty much has this
figured out with apt and with the next round of distros, I doubt this will be
a problem. The average newbie that you are talking about probably won't
upgrade anything unless a dialog pops up and tells him he needs to.
> For what it's worth, yes, I'm going to do the KDE2 install too, even if
> it's going to be a learning experience. I'm finding myself using
> KSoftware all the time, even with the GNOME desktop.
You really should, although you might wait a week or two, KDE 2.1 will be out
and it has many new features and is *rock solid stable* unlike the 2.0 release.
> Just a thought. Oh yeah, new GNOME and 2.4 kernel? No problems yet!
> Yeah!! And writing this with Mozilla! Woo-hoo! In XFree4!! And
> postgresql is running in the background! Yippee! Ain't free software great?
What new GNOME? They are working towards 1.4 and then 2.0 neither or which
have been released. Anything new is just bugfix releases unless you are
downloading from CVS.
The 2.4 kernel is good...but I'm waiting for the low latency patches to be
integrated and the bean counters and a few more small MM improvements and
ReiserFS to be integrated and ... XFree86 4.0x is very good. Soon they will
have the FullScreen extension working for DRI which will include Page
Flipping! This will be the final step in beating windows with 3d performance
on non TL hardware. I believe that PI is starting to add TL paths to MESA and
DRI right now so it won't be long until we start seeing really good *OPEN
SOURCE* drivers for the only other TL line available(Radion).
Mozilla is nothing to get excited about. I won't use it again until 1.0 is
released. Konquorer is much faster, more stable, and lighter on resourses.
Konquorer also displays most pages better and intergrate nicely with my
desktop.
Matt Newell
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!!
Date: 07 Jan 2001 16:26:56 -0700
Jacques Guy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [snip]
>
> Listen, flatfish, why don't you go wank somewhere else.
> You've already contributed enough seminal ideas here.
> As in: "As we walked into the seminar room, we found
> ourselves wading knee-deep in seminal ideas. A lot
> of intellectual wanking had been going on there."
> (In your case, strike out "intellectual")
It's the same sblive-hatin' Linux-bashin' Steve/tek/Whatever that's
been here for years. He/she/it doesn't troll very well, it's fairly
easy to pick up on their "style" (I say 'their' for schitzophrenic
reasons).
Just ignore it.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Typical Linsux..They can't even view their own movie!!!
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 23:29:24 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Running an emulator isn't cricket old boy.
>
Hey, whatever works!
jjs
--
Happily Running kernel 2.4.0-low_latency on Red Hat 7.0
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE vs GNOME (installations)
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 23:31:43 GMT
matt newell wrote:
> The 2.4 kernel is good...but I'm waiting for the low latency patches to be
> integrated and the bean counters and a few more small MM improvements and
> ReiserFS to be integrated and.
I'm happily running 2.4.0+low latency patches -
It makes me even more of a q3a stud than before..
;)
jjs
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: 07 Jan 2001 16:33:43 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> 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 ?
Make sure you're running as the user that owns the mozilla directory.
If you aren't it will fail. Then, just click on the button (there is
a link from mozilla.org) and it all installs automatically. Ditto for
the PSM and themes and such.
There is an open bug report to "fix" the multi-user problem.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: 7 Jan 2001 23:35:54 GMT
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 23:08:02 +0000, David Dorward wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 11:57:41 +0000, David Dorward wrote:
>> >Mozilla is BETA (or Alpha, I'm not sure). That means it isn't finished,
>> >but what has been done is available for you to try if you so want.
>>
>> Yeah, like every browser available for Linux. That's the problem.
>
>Netscape isn't beta, nor is Konqueror
Netscape is unusable for what I'm doing (the problem is that the stupid
thing just refuses to reload stylesheets.)
Konqueror is very promising but still has a bunch of bugs.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 23:37:29 GMT
On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 23:08:02 +0000, David Dorward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Netscape isn't beta, nor is Konqueror
You'd never know it.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How the f*ck do I install .xpi plugins ?
Date: 07 Jan 2001 16:36:30 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yatima) writes:
> >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.
>
> I hear ya. Mozilla is a PITA to get going. I'm still SOL when it comes
> to secure browsing (yes I went to te iplanet site and tried to get the
> PSM module but got a emtpy popup window instead).
I've been running PSM for quite some time now. Currently, I'm running
the nightly download from jan 3rd, 2001 -- works great.
> >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.
>
> Right now my primary browser is Konqueror which is actually quite good.
> It's quick, java applets work, as do the flash and relaplayer plugins.
> The only downside is that there are still some javascript issues (but I
> rarely run into them).
Konqueror loads very fast as well (Mozilla take a while).
> >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 ?
>
> I just copied my javaplugin.so from my netscape 4.76 plugins directory
> over to the plugins directory for mozilla. I originally got the plugin
> as part of the Blackdown java 1.3 sdk. The actual plugin seems to be
> about 127K so if you want I can email it to you.
There is a link on mozilla.org that will install the latest Java for
you.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 23:42:34 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy * <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "." wrote:
>
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Alright then.
> >>
> >> Hi fidelity audio systems then:
> >>
> >> Windows is like a kenwood system; it looks great, its full of useless bells
> >> and whistles, and its sound is just a hair above mediocre.
>
> > what a pointless analogy. if all you're interested in is sound, then
> > appearances shouldn't matter. but computers are not that simple.
>
> Sound systems also are not simple. Ever tune the amplifier plates on a
> McIntosh amp? Its no easy task, but the reward is well worth it.
i think you missed the point.
comparing speakers to a computer is like comparing an apple to an apple tree. no. i
take that back. it's like comparing an apple to a whole fucking orchard.
the analogy sucks. no. it's worse than that. not only does your analogy suck, but
you suck by association.
> >> Linux is like a McIntosh sound system; unless you actually understand what
> >> you're listening to, you wont see what all the hooplah is about. There
> >> are no useless bells and whistles unless you add someone elses peripherals;
> >> which are almost exclusively inferior to what is built into the system
> >> itself.
>
> > so what you are saying is that the linux kernal is brilliant. it's just the
> > interfaces and applications for linux that suck. except of course your analogy
> > fails on the fact that last time i check McIntosh speakers were not free. not
> > even close.
>
> The analogy stands. You are a dolt.
right. you compare linux to uber-expensive professional audio-equiptment and i'm
the dolt. what are you stupid or something. or what?
> > anyway, a computer platform is not merely the theoretical core it is based on.
> > it is a sum of all it's parts.
>
> Exactly, which is why you should be discussing distributions, not the operating
> system itself.
we do. we discuss it all. distros. the kernel. religion. cars..
but it's a two sided affair. you can't discuss a distro without talking about the
operating system it's based on. the distro is only the presentation. and when you
get past that cruel joke, well then there's the actual software.
a sound operating system does not a good platform make. -kK
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: RPM Hell
Date: 7 Jan 2001 23:44:35 GMT
On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 23:04:57 +0000, Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>
>> <snip>
>
>> You can "install from the source", with "optimised" code, with whatever
>> build parameters you choose with RPM.
>>
>> Don't criticise what you don't understand.
>>
>
> I must admit that I haven't had that much experience with the RPM
>system, but plenty with the Debian package manager. I was reliably
>informed(even by RPM users) that the Debian system was superior and more
>friendly.
The one patch limit is neither "superior" nor friendly. THe debian system
is great for end lusers but lousy for packagers.
>them. After that, every time I tried to install a package, the process
>failed about half the time, complaining about missing packages, even though
>there was no way on earth they could depend on the missing binaries. You may
The dependencies are there for a good reason. Dependencies on binaries
usually are deps on some sort of shellscript. FYI I track the latest vim
releases (being involved with its development) and nothing depends on
it.
>well now be thinking "Fool shouldn't have fiddled with his system; he got
>what he deserved".
Not at all. I think you should have taken the dependency messages more
seriously. They're like compiler warnings -- if you ignore them, you
should understand why the messages are there.
>irritated me personally is when some fool has left a tempting bit of
>software out on his/her page in .rpm form only, thinking that's the
>'standard'.
I would have thought that open source software would be released in
source form also.
> Well, feel free to tell me where I went wrong, or point out the pluses
>of the RPM system over a more global standard like tgz.
First, your entire discussion completely ignores the benefits of a good
source packaging format. One of the nice things about RPM is that
you can use src.rpms and you don't need to worry about minor binary
incompatibilities. Another advantage of having a good source package
format is that you can easily move software from an old distribution
to a new distribution, and still enjoy the benefits that package managing
offers. Debian has source package management, but the system is not as
good as RPM. .tgz source packages just get sprayed haphazardly
all over your system, and it's impossible to uninstall them.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows fails again
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 16:57:46 -0700
Uptime : 4:47pm up 33 days, 21:53, 2 users, load average:
1.44, 1.12, 1.03
Suse 6.2 and it has only been installed once. My other pc has
an uptime over 120 days. It is Red Hat 5.1 and it has only
been installed once. With my Windos computer, I "ghosted" a
Windos 95 setup that I liked and burned it to a cdr. It only
takes about 20 minutes to reinstall. Windos 95 needs to be
reinstalled every 2 or 3 months.
Michael Vester
A Credible Linux Advocate
JM wrote:
>
> If anyone was wondering why yesterdays posts came later than usual,
> it's because Windows had to be re-installed AGAIN, thus making me stay
> up till 6am setting it all up again.
>
> Thanks a lot, Microsoft.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
