Linux-Advocacy Digest #421, Volume #31 Fri, 12 Jan 01 17:13:06 EST
Contents:
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time. (The Ghost In The Machine)
Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source ("Brian Craft")
Re: KDE Hell (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] (Shane Phelps)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows 2000 ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: KDE Hell (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (WesTralia)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: kernel problems (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (.)
Re: kernel problems (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (.)
Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source (David Steinberg)
Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Microsoft Email Lists (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Re: KDE Hell (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:46:11 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:11:11 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:54:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:47:58 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What part of 'turn on computer' do you find so difficult?
>>
>>Looking at it, but only if it is running Linsux.
>>
>>Web pages look absolutely awful.
>
> HTML is a markup language, not a replacement for msword.
True, but the web pages on Netscape look pretty bad if one hasn't
set one's fonts properly. This is neither a condemnation of Netscape
(maybe constructive criticism :-) ), nor a reason not to use Linux.
(A reason not to use Netscape, perhaps, but that's about it.)
As a side note: I do kind of wish that there is a <PAGE> tag
in there, and maybe a few other things. Of course, this can be
easily added in to a browser such as Mnemonic, if that's still a
project out there, or put in for special purposes, say, a
word processor that inputs and outputs a modified HTML.
(One limitation: no graphics in HTML. HTML can be extended, of
course, or maybe GIMP used as a plugin of some sort. That might
be kinda neat, :-) although it's probably already done (kwrite?).)
>
>>
>>>[deletia]
>>>
>>> As far as text files go: it is nice to have information
>>> exposed to you rather than hidden from you. In this
>>> respect, Linux hardware configuration is superior.
>>
>>Sure it is. That is why you have to spend so much time doing it.
>
> I spend less time futzing with Linux than I do with Windows.
>
> Unix users are not somehow perversely any less lazy than
> the rest of the planet.
>
>>
>>
>>> At least with Linux, you know whether or not Linux has
>>> recognized a device completely and what it is.
>>
>>As well as how badly it is going to function, if indeed it functions
>>at all.
>
> Short a few fps on some 3D games, pretty much like they
> do under WinDOS.
>
> Mind you, the problem you're whining about is just as much
> of an issue for NT5 as it is for Linux.
>
>--
>
> Ease of use should be associated with things like "human engineering"
> and "use the right tool for the right job". And of course,
> "reliability", since stopping to fix a problem or starting over due
> to lost work are the very antithesis of "ease of use".
>
> Bobby Bryant - COLA
> |||
> / | \
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:16h:43m actually running Linux.
The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:48:42 +0000
Oopsie!
I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
rebooted. Oh dear, we have a hung system. It won't boot, it won't continue,
it's totally stuck. All I could do was drop out of what looked like X and
nothing worked.
This from the system is supposed to be GREAT!
Reinstall!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:58:42 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:48:42 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Oopsie!
>
>I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
>controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
>rebooted. Oh dear, we have a hung system. It won't boot, it won't continue,
>it's totally stuck. All I could do was drop out of what looked like X and
>nothing worked.
>
>This from the system is supposed to be GREAT!
>
>Reinstall!
Sounds like my KDE upgrade CDROM from Mandrake.
Just pop the CD in and select "LiveUpdate" from DrakConf, or at least
the instructions claim..
What they forget to mention is that your system will be rendered
useless after the upgrade.
Linux GREAT?
No, I think Linux stinks.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: "Brian Craft" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:02:44 GMT
I just came from the first showing of the Antitrust movie,
http://www.antitrustthemovie.com , and give it a 2 thumbs up for support
for the Open Source Community. It very clearly shows what Microsoft has
and is doing and in the end, Open Source prevails!
A must see for all fellow Open Source geeks!!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:03:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:05:25 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[snip]
>15,000 Unix workstation : 20 Unix Helpdesk people --
>response time < 60 seconds
>
> 1,500 Windows desktops : 50 Windows Helpdesk people --
>response time > 2 hours
>
>
>Do the math, if you can....MORON!
Just out of curiosity, where are these figures from?
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:18h:13m actually running Linux.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 08:05:37 +1100
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> "Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > [ snip ]
> >
> > > > Would I build my web server with a free Unix that's the world
> > > > speed champ, or would I shell out an exorbitant fee for a windows
> > > > pc webserver that can't quite match it in performance?
> > >
> > > Ummm... again, you don't stop to think before writing do you? Sure,
> linux
> > > itself was free to download --- but are you forgetting the hardware?
> Ooooh,
> > > you didn't quite notice that the price of the OS was almost
> insignificant
> > > compared to the price of the hardware? Anyone who can afford that
> hardware
> > > isn't going to blink for the price of the OS, especially with the
> savings
> > > down the road in TCO.
> > >
> >
> > Alright - I'll bite. I continually see assertions about the lower TCO
> > of NT x compared to unix, but I'm yet to see a credible study.
>
> You admit your bias and lack of trust below - what good would it do to
> present you ANY study. You'll simply not trust it and that'll be that. why
> bother...
>
The point is that nobody has ever presented a study, apart from MS's
farcical TCO "comparison" of running costs of SPARC/Solaris sites vs
Compaq/NT. This was then presented in the *linux* myths page.
Too bloody right it's farcical!!!!!
All vendors are going to present reports which are favourable to them.
It's a fact of comercial life. You have to take them with a grain of
salt.
I repeat, I'm yet to see a credible study of NT vs unix TCO (not that
TCO is the holy grail anyway).
Now - where's that *credible* TCO report?
> <snip>
> > BTW, I don't especially trust any vendor's TCO fgures. Sun's are dubious
> > ... but MS's are farcical!
>
> > and as a parting shot - the NT box should have had *much* better disk
> > performance, but a kernel-mode webserver strikes me as a benchmark
> > special. Read that as you may.
>
> According to linux evangilists, we're told that NT is SOOOOOOO slow and
> unreliable, not only should NT have been 100% slower but it should have
> crashed at least 20 times during testing and never even completed a single
> pass due to memory leaks in the screen savers and the inability to stay up
> and running for more than an hour or two (according to the likes of MiG and
> stickybear and others in COLA)
Straw man.!!!!!
...and you changed the subject. The NT box had a much better disk layout
so should have given better performance all else being equal.
Why do you think DBAs like lots of small disks and put log files on
separate devices?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:16:16 -0600
Actually, it shows how difficult it *IS* to find backdoors.
It took them 6 months to find this backdoor, with thousands of people
looking at the source code. Now, install a backdoor into open source code
that only has few dozen people looking at it, and how long will it take for
someone to find it? Years, if at all.
"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:93m071$fip$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.interbase2000.org/
>
> InterBase was released as open source at the end of July 2000. A complete
> backdoor was discovered when examining the source. This backdoor has
existed
> in the commercial versions of the code since 1994 and appears to have been
> known about for some time and used by at least one Borland/Inprise
engineer.
>
> There's also a discussion on Slashdot :
> http://slashdot.org/articles/01/01/11/1318207.shtml
>
> Regards,
> Adam
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:18:36 -0600
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
interchangeable.
>
> What about Word98?
Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different formats.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:14:30 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Charlie Ebert
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:54:08 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article <93ll29$jki$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kyle Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Oh yes, because you can have 32 processors, of which only FOUR are actually
>>> working. Doesn't this sound like, oh, let's just say, a WASTE?
>>
>>What the hell are you talking about? There are plenty of linux SMP systems
>>wherein many more than four processors are in use, all the time.
>>
>>You have no idea what youre talking about.
>>
>
>Of course he doesn't. Look at the source.
>
>It's like the nitwit never read the news.
>
>There are stories of groups now racing to see who
>can build the largest Linux supercomputer on the
>face of the planet as we speak.
>
>It is a very intense war between research groups.
>
>You have the NWS and every major university and
>defense contractor all in there building super
>computers with Linux.
>
>Some of the nodes use massive SMP boxes.
>
>And the stories are about.
>
>Windows will never be able to catch up to Linux
>in the super computer department. They are
>decades behind.
Part of it is software cost, of course, unless they get
a large Enterprise license -- and even then, I'm not
sure Windows can catch up here.
Also, universities, at least when I was in one in 1980-83,
are very comfortable with Unix. I doubt that's changed
too much, although they probably have NT labs, now.
>
>Charlie
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:18h:19m actually running Linux.
Are you still here?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Knock off the FreeBSD vs Linux bullshit.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:22:26 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I had a "Windows just f&^%&king sucks" day, that day. There are times
> you want to do something, either as a developer or as a user, under
> Windows (and NT/2K) where it makes perfect sence that you should want,
> and be able to, do something and after wasting hours you conclude it can
> not be done. Then you waste a trouble ticket to find out you were right.
What exactly was it that "could not be done"?
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:08:46 -0600
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
>
> I don't ---- but neither does anyone else! What good is there to have a 100%
> secret backdoor? If no one knows it's there, it's not useful eh?
It is an impossibility for a backdoor to be 100% secret. The programmer
who coded the backdoor knows about the backdoor. Depending upon what that
backdoor allows to the software and depending upon the particular software
the backdoor could be worth a lot of money to others.
> Just like
> the Interbase thingy, it wasn't a security threat UNTIL the open source
> folks published the backdoor.
It was a security threat the day in went out the door as closed source.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:28:22 -0600
"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:UOo76.450$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:yBm76.402$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ztf76.2261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:7Y076.13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > (Mind you, it seems that Matt is one of these strange people that
> > > believes
> > > > > that writing and debugging device drivers should be easy and
> > > > straightforward.
> > > > > Shows what a know-nothing kid *he* is, and what a fool you are for
> > > rising
> > > > to
> > > > > his bait. :^)
> > > >
> > > > Not to mention that he claims to NOT be writing a device driver, but
> > still
> > > > somehow manages to have his code run in kernel-mode AND claims this
> > should
> > > > not crash the system if the code is faulty. ;)
> > >
> > > You gotta admit, a world so forgiving that your OS stays up after your
> > > home-brew device drivers and Explorer extension objects crap out,
would
> be
> > a
> > > wonderful place to live.
> >
> > The OS stays up just fine if explorer extensions fail. They're just
> > userland DLL's.
>
> I sometimes manage to screw things up badly enough to require shutting
down
> and bringing back up Explorer. Sometimes the system remains unstable
enough
> to require a reboot. Especially if the DLL in question is still locked and
> can't be unregistered. Rebooting is actually the quickest and most sure
> solution I've found.
All you have to do is ctrl-alt-del in NT/2000 and choose logoff, then log
back in.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 15:29:30 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:ztf76.2261$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:7Y076.13$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > (Mind you, it seems that Matt is one of these strange people that
> > > believes
> > > > > that writing and debugging device drivers should be easy and
> > > > straightforward.
> > > > > Shows what a know-nothing kid *he* is, and what a fool you are for
> > > rising
> > > > to
> > > > > his bait. :^)
> > > >
> > > > Not to mention that he claims to NOT be writing a device driver, but
> > still
> > > > somehow manages to have his code run in kernel-mode AND claims this
> > should
> > > > not crash the system if the code is faulty. ;)
> > >
> > > You gotta admit, a world so forgiving that your OS stays up after your
> > > home-brew device drivers and Explorer extension objects crap out,
would be
> > a
> > > wonderful place to live.
> >
> > The OS stays up just fine if explorer extensions fail. They're just
> > userland DLL's.
>
> You ignorant DORK.
>
> There is no such thing as "just a DLL". ALL DLL's are part of a larger
> executable. The only reason the code is in a DLL is to conserve
> disk space by keeping "high use" library code in a seperate file, rather
> than linking the same code, over and over into nearly every executable.
And your point is what?
Explorer is a userland application, explorer extensions are dll's loaded by
explorer, thus they too are userland dll's.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:24:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JM
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 10 Jan 2001 00:03:41 +0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:18:23 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Jan 2001 03:07:22 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>By the way, it was MY error, not linux's fault, as is every problem i've even
>>>had. MY FAULT, NOT LINUX. Is that clear enough for you, wintroll? I usually
>>>don't bother with assholes like you. But, don't come to MY forum and tell ME
>
>>Sorry to see they have gotten to you. The Penguinista's that is. They
>
>What the fuck's a "Penguinista"? Surely you can do better than that...
Look up "Peronista" in Argentinian history. I think he thinks
that we think that Linus is a benevolent dictator. Or something. :-)
You think? :-)
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky ... TRY TO TAKE
OVER THE WORLD!"
EAC code #191 2d:18h:30m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one....erm, maybe two.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: 12 Jan 2001 21:27:21 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oopsie!
> I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
> controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
> rebooted. Oh dear, we have a hung system. It won't boot, it won't continue,
> it's totally stuck. All I could do was drop out of what looked like X and
> nothing worked.
You set up XFree incorrectly, because youre a moron.
Please use windows instead.
Thanks in advance,
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: kernel problems
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:28:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 23:38:31 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Don't have to build anything with Win2k, it works right out of the
>> box, unlike Linsux..
>>
>> I prefer spending my time running applications, not building an
>> operating system which has NO applications of any use to run.
>>
>> What a joke Linsux is...
>>
>
>Clearly a lie. You obviously prefer to spend most of your time bashing
>Linux. How many hours a day to you spend on that? When do you find time to
>do anything useful?
It's clear that both operating systems can have problems on some hardware.
This is not a fault, but it can lead to confusion when installing
either Win2K, WinMe, or (various distributions built around) Linux.
>
>Gary
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 2d:19h:37m actually running Linux.
I was asleep at the switch the rest of the time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: 12 Jan 2001 21:29:07 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:48:42 +0000, Pete Goodwin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Oopsie!
>>
>>I just rebuilt my 166MHz server with a 30GByte ATA66 drive and an ATA100
>>controller. I reinstalled Linux Mandrake 7.2, chose some options and
>>rebooted. Oh dear, we have a hung system. It won't boot, it won't continue,
>>it's totally stuck. All I could do was drop out of what looked like X and
>>nothing worked.
>>
>>This from the system is supposed to be GREAT!
>>
>>Reinstall!
> Sounds like my KDE upgrade CDROM from Mandrake.
> Just pop the CD in and select "LiveUpdate" from DrakConf, or at least
> the instructions claim..
> What they forget to mention is that your system will be rendered
> useless after the upgrade.
Again, I did it just to see if you were full of shit.
It worked perfectly for me, first time.
So now there are two alternatives, and here they are:
1. you are lying, youve never actually tried anything that you say you have
2. you are irretrievably stupid, and could easily break DOS 6.22.
Pick one and let me know.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Two Thumbs up for the AntiTrust Movie and Open Source
Date: 12 Jan 2001 21:31:27 GMT
Brian Craft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I just came from the first showing of the Antitrust movie,
: http://www.antitrustthemovie.com , and give it a 2 thumbs up for support
: for the Open Source Community. It very clearly shows what Microsoft has
: and is doing and in the end, Open Source prevails!
Did you notice that they have banner adds up at ./ today?
I wouldn't have thought that "open source geek" was a large enough
demographic at which to target a movie. Nonetheless, I will be seeing it
this evening! :)
--
David Steinberg -o)
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: I am trying Linux out for the first time.
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:31:02 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:46:11 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 03:11:11 -0000
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 02:54:23 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 11 Jan 2001 22:47:58 -0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> What part of 'turn on computer' do you find so difficult?
>>>
>>>Looking at it, but only if it is running Linsux.
>>>
>>>Web pages look absolutely awful.
>>
>> HTML is a markup language, not a replacement for msword.
>
>True, but the web pages on Netscape look pretty bad if one hasn't
>set one's fonts properly. This is neither a condemnation of Netscape
...which isn't rocket science under Linux or WinDOS.
>(maybe constructive criticism :-) ), nor a reason not to use Linux.
>(A reason not to use Netscape, perhaps, but that's about it.)
>
>As a side note: I do kind of wish that there is a <PAGE> tag
>in there, and maybe a few other things. Of course, this can be
[deletia]
If you cant get Netscrape to look halfway decent then you
likely don't possess the ability (or willingness) to select
options from a menu.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Microsoft Email Lists
Date: 12 Jan 2001 14:34:03 -0700
Somebody subscribed me to a bunch of Microsoft listserv lists. I
imagine that it came from posting here...
Anyone else had this 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] ()
Subject: Re: Linux *has* the EDGE!
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 21:33:39 -0000
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:44:16 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Yatima wrote:
>
>> >Going backwards?
>> >
>>
>> How is it backwards? Just because GUI interfaces are more recent it does
>> not *automatically* make them better.
>
>I was being sarcastic. CLI's are from the '70's. That doesn't make them
>worse, just backward in time.
Actually CLI's are from the mid 90's.
The term WinDOS isn't just an attempt to be cute. It's actually
an accurate and recent description of the state of things in the
Microsoft dominated novice computing market.
CLI's are only "from the 70's" if you were bold enough to ignore
Microsoft prior to 1995.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Date: 12 Jan 2001 21:36:10 GMT
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:00:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 13:18:32 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>
>>>When I put exec kwm at the end of .xinitrc file I get kde.
>>
>>No, you get kwm, I would think.
>
>kde/kwm/ who the fuck cares?
My point is that it's unfair to trash the KDE project just because
you don't like their Window manager.
KDE consists of more than the window manager. For example, Roberto's
newsreader, krn which you were singing the praises of in your
other post is also a KDE application.
>I get all of those nice little title bars and such and it looks just
>like kde which looks like a cheap Windows clone.
>
>You can split hairs all you want, it sucks whatever it is called.
I'm not splitting hairs. If you want to bash something, at least be
explicit about what you're bashing.
>So what have YOU done for Linux?
Max hasn't done anything, he doesn't even use it AFAIK.
>write a thesis of convoluted rhetoric in reply to every post.
Sometimes I wonder if he writes in Chinese then puts it through
Babelfish or something.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
