Linux-Advocacy Digest #535, Volume #31 Wed, 17 Jan 01 17:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Some things are easier in Linux (Mig)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards (Gary)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (.)
Re: The Server Saga (Aaron Ginn)
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Aaron Ginn)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Tom Morris)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Aaron Ginn)
Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance] ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Bas van der Meer)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here... (Pete Goodwin)
"Linux is no Windows killer" (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The Server Saga (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel (Pete Goodwin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Some things are easier in Linux
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:50:31 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > Get real Erik... there are loads of possible problems here. Some
> > hardware related...Card<->signal-carrier.. Networking settings can be a
> > mess.
> > Chipeset problems can arise.... think VIA chipset etc. 45mins is
> > reasonable when one thinks with at least two reboots and with upgrading
> the
> > chipset at least another one.
>
> Huh? All they had to do was unplug the PC from the net hub, replace the
> cable with a local cable and plug it into the modem. There's no reason to
> have to install a new network card. I've never met a cable company that
> supported more than one NIC in their installation, and in many cable
> companies terms of service, they will cancel your service if you do.
I think i got it.... i was thinkin about another type without hubs but
where the cables went directly into a card on the PC. Yore right from your
perspective - an its OS independant that way if i understand that system
correct and you just use youre average Ethernet card. Is that the way this
is done in the US -an for howlong has it been done so?
> > > > As soon as he left, I unplugged the modem from the Windows PC and
> > > > plugged it into the Linux PC. In Linux I simply ran dhcpcd and
> > > > named, et voila, it was connected. Less that a minute and no
> > > > reboots.
> > >
> > > About the same thing.
> >
> > What are you talking about?
>
> Are you that incapable of following a discussion that you forget all about
> the previous paragraph so quickly?
>
> "About the same thing" means "What you describe is about the same thing as
> installing it on Windows".
No its not.. youll have to do a reboot after fiddling wiht networking...
does not take 1 min
> > > Was that 30 minutes of your 45 minutes?
> >
> > This was obviously on the Linux box
>
> Nothing was obvious. He said He spent 45 minutes getting it to route
> through the Linux box. In order to get it to route, Linux would have to
> be set up to do so, thus it would seem to me that this figure includes
> setting up Linux.
Can tell since i never tryed this at home
> > Well.. there are rarely problems after the install - even with NT. If
> > the users dont poke around and dont touch the hardware things keep
> > working.
> But
> > since this it is so easy with Linux - tryed this putting boxes on the
> > network... with linuxconf it takes sekonds - he will certainly be back
> > online in a few minuttes.
>
> Not used a cable service provider before, have you? Usually, the ISP side
> doesn't know what the TV side is doing. They disconnect cables and do
> maintenance without thinking about how it might effect internet users.
> Hell, when I had a cable modem it was down more than it was up (completely
> network related).
Nope cant say i have.. i can get it but prefer ADSL (that i dont use at the
moment)
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: You and Microsoft...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:57:28 +0000
Kevin Ford wrote:
> I wonder if this particular system has had a nightly reboot shoved into it
> by these developers.
That would have reset the clock on the web server indicating when it
started. It was dated some three months prior to when it eventually crashed!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Gary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux IDE RAID Cards
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:45:19 -0500
Chris Lopeman wrote:
>
> Thank you for the link. But I am really looking for
> actually experience with these products not the
> manufacture's propaganda.
I work in a test/development lab for IDE RAID controllers,
and your statement may have some merit when it is regarding
marketing types, but hardware people like myself have
individually more experience in the area than most of the
population at large combined. Granted it may be narrow in
scope,
but that would be no different than any user.
Discounting information BECAUSE it's from the manufacturer
is unfair, short sighted, and not even a little bit self
serving... IMO that is.
So, here I am as a qualified user to answer your question
> Can anyone recommend a good raid IDE controller for Linux.
You really don't want to hear the possible solutions,
apparently
you think an anonymous post is somehow more credible which
by the
way can also be a manufacturer "Shill" responding, no?
At any rate,
My opinion on IDE RAID is that it's a good economical safety
net
that can save your bacon if your drive goes belly up
regardless
WHO makes it.
Some things it (at least ours) doesn't do:
1. Eliminate the need for backup.
Viruses, and file deletions happen on BOTH drives, so backup
is
still needed, like it or not.
2. Absolve the user of common sense deployment. Having a UPS
is a good example of a sensible deployment plan.
3. Give you 25 meters of cable length. IDE is NOT SCSI,
never
was, and likely will not be either.
4. Make a perfect fit to every possible installation
scenario.
For example, with our RaidCase II you lose your slave drive
on
your primary controller. IDE isn't particularly rich in
ports, and
it's a BIG pill to swallow. If you need hot swap however
(which also
gives you the ability to backup while the machine is hot)
you have
to make a decision and possibly get a new system board with
4 IDE ports
to accommodate this Achilles heel.
We know that native software support is a big issue for
Linux users,
message received.
We are currently working on LINUX (in alpha) and Macintosh
(in Beta)
support software. Will it perform to your needs? I don't
know. At
first blush it (the LINUX APP) won't be as fully featured as
our
Win32 applet, but your options are so few now, there's
little risk
considering the cost versus the benefit.
Some things you CAN have (at least with our products) using
IDE RAID
1. Hot Swap.
2. Background rebuild
3. Native O/S support
4. Remote monitoring
5 External warning enabled (for relays and lights/sirens)
6. No device drivers
Do you think we'll have a hard time finding people to sign
up
to test our BETA LINUX app? I hope not :-)
Regards,
Gary
ARCO Computer Products
RAID Test LAB
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 17 Jan 2001 20:59:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My predictions for Whistler include a study by MS that shows that Whistler
> is 4 times more reliable than W2K and Microsoft will say that W2K sucks and
> all problems are solved by upgrading to Whistler.
My predictions for whistler are this:
It will be as unstable and crash prone as its latest beta, and the extremely
restrictive licensing scheme will force both personal and professional users
to seek free and open alternatives.
I know damn well that I'm not going to order one fucking whistler CD per
workstation for OUR IT department. Thats insane. They can stay with W2K
*forever* (or until the licensing changes to something far less draconian),
or they can choose something free.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Date: 17 Jan 2001 13:38:16 -0700
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Then why waste everybody's time with this?
>
> You consider the problems I found a waste of time? No wonder Linux is
> stuck on the desktop sidelines!
Have you submitted a reproducable bug report to Mandrake? If not,
then you _are_ wasting everyone's time. No one in COLA is going to
fix Mandrake's distro if there is a serious problem, which I doubt.
Your sole purpose here is to inflame and troll.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: 17 Jan 2001 13:34:07 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > is that we really don't care whether or not Linux supports all their
> > shiny new hardware with X,Y, and Z features or that their favorite
> > application 'foo' is not available for Linux. It's not that we're not
> > willing to help people that ask for it, but we also don't care when a
> > Windows user comes in here and says "Linux sux because it doesn't do
> > blah, blah, blah" or "Linux blows because there isn't a port of
> > 'insert random Windows application here'".
>
> I think your logic is flawed. If you didn't care, you wouldn't answer.
> This very post is a categorical denial of caring, which of course indicates
> that you do in fact care.
That's cute! So if I deny what you just said, or if I even respond to
you, that's further proof that I care. I think you're the one
displaying flawed logic.
The truth is that I honestly couldn't care less what OS you, or any of
the countless other Winvocates that troll here, use. If Windows works
better for you, fine. But if any of you think that we honestly care
that Linux doesn't do what you need, you're sadly mistaken.
Pete Goodwin is constantly complaining about the lack of either an
IDE, a Windows-like GUI, or 3-D sound in Linux. I wouldn't use any of
these even if they did exist in some form or another. So why should
I care that Pete complains about their non-existance. If Pete needs
these things, he should stick with Windows. His needs are irrelevant
to me, particularly when it seems as if he never seeks help for his
problems, or he does ridiculous things like installing 'everything' on
a potential server.
The androgynous Wintroll that currently calls itself 'flatfish' is
always complaining about the same things: offline newsreading, SB-Live
support, Netscape, etc. None of these things is of interest to me.
It's (flatfish's) sole purpose is to point out a few areas where Linux
is inferior to Windows. Since I don't need any of the above, I
largely ignore his gripes.
I _am_ willing to help those that really want to be helped. That
doesn't cover any of the Winvocates in COLA, though.
> If you truly didn't care, you wouldn't care enough to post a denial
> unsolicited.
No. The fact is that this message doesn't seem to get through to most
Winvocates even when it is solicited. I just thought I'd re-emphasize
it.
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:01:26 GMT
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:46:02 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>And when Microsoft insist that you register your product in order to run
>it, what then? And if the only way to get it registered is on the net, and
>you aren't on the net, what then? Post off a card and wait for Microsoft to
>send it back?
At that point I will switch to a Mac, or possibly to Linux if it has
advanced far enough to suit my needs.
I will NEVER, I repeat NEVER, agree to the above scenario and I
suspect that if MS thinks they can get away with stunts like that, the
company will be out of business in short order.
>These are the rumours on The Register.
I know, and I "The Grinch will lead the revolt!"
As I have always maintained, the only MS products I use are the
operating systems and Flight Simulator.
That's it.
>> Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
>> version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
>
>I bought Mandrake 7.2 for £5, what $8?
Looks like you been getting what you paid for :)
>> Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
>> Full support is included.
>
>£200 without support.
>> Do you really want to Download 650 meg of data?
>> Take a look at how many people are having trouble burning the CD's in
>> the Mandrake group.
>
>I burnt one with no trouble at all.
>> Of course you can get a $1.99 CD at Cheapbytes, but again, no support
>> and not a full system like the $35.95 version
>
>I've never used Microsoft support, and I've never used Linux support.
I emailed Mandrake support and never got an answer.
I used SuSE support and got quick, correct answers.
I have never used MS support. The thought scares me :)
>> Let me introduce you to Netscape, the premier browser for Linux.
>
>I've been using Netscape from the very beginning.
So have I, and it seems to be getting worse with every new release.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Tom Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:09:32 +0000
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Aaron R. Kulkis at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote on 31/12/00 5:54 am:
[more snips than a scissor company]
> Once the Baby-boomers start dying off, this country is going to go
> hard towards libertarianism. Gen-X is almost pure libertarian.
>
And Gen-Y couldn't give a toss less.
>> Tom Morris >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
>> http://www.big-b.co.uk >
Search, shop, read the news, all at
www.Big-B.co.uk !! Now has Free SMS!
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: 17 Jan 2001 13:47:32 -0700
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The test covers desktop environments, not servers. The average desktop *IS*
> shutdown at night.
I guess my desktop isn't average:
ginn@coronado spm $ uptime
1:46pm up 106 day(s), 11 min(s), 9 users, load average: 0.07, 0.08, 0.07
--
Aaron J. Ginn Phone: 480-814-4463
Motorola SemiCustom Solutions Pager: 877-586-2318
1300 N. Alma School Rd. Fax : 480-814-4463
Chandler, AZ 85226 M/D CH260 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: TCO challenge: [was Linux 2.4 Major Advance]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:18:30 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:944i4h$2vd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Chad Myers wrote:
> >>
> >> > Linux isn't anywhere. It's Linux that has the uphill battle. Windows
> >> > is everywhere and not giving up any market share to anyone.
> >>
> >> I know, we truly want to believe that, Chad - I'm with you,
> >> I really am, but let's face reality:
> >>
> >> * Windows/iis has been steadily losing ground to linux/apache
> >> in the web server market.
>
> > If you're referring to the heavily skewed Netcraft, results,
> > I would point you to:
>
> > http://www.biznix.org/surveys/
>
> > Netcraft counts each virtual host as a server, which is grossly
> > incorrect.
>
> Because it makes windows, which cannot handle the number of virtual
> hosts that linux (or any other UNIX) can, look very bad.
Please check SWH.
------------------------------
From: Bas van der Meer <basm*removethis*@casema.net>
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:23:23 +0100
LShaping wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16139.html
>
> The conclusion is "You need to buy Whistler because Win-9x sucks".
> But I knew that already :o)
Then you're wrong, because the reasoning is faulty: the assumption ("Win-9x
sucks") is correct, but the conclusion ("You need to buy Whistler") is
false. The conclusion does not follow out of the evidence presented, thus
the statement is false.
--
--
Bas van der Meer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 23:33:53 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94514c$ij0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > My predictions for Whistler include a study by MS that shows that
Whistler
> > is 4 times more reliable than W2K and Microsoft will say that W2K sucks
and
> > all problems are solved by upgrading to Whistler.
>
> My predictions for whistler are this:
>
> It will be as unstable and crash prone as its latest beta, and the
extremely
> restrictive licensing scheme will force both personal and professional
users
> to seek free and open alternatives.
>
> I know damn well that I'm not going to order one fucking whistler CD per
> workstation for OUR IT department. Thats insane. They can stay with W2K
> *forever* (or until the licensing changes to something far less
draconian),
> or they can choose something free.
I've to agree about this, I see absolutely no great benefit for Whistler
over W2K that worth the money it cost.
W2K is more then enough to do everything that I need, and aside from
hardware failure (I'm currently going over a *lot* of old hardware, trying
to find out what is worth keeping*, {note, most doesn't} ) it's stable.
[*] I'd a harddisk that when put it, will hang the bloody *BIOS*. Another
that would power off the computer (not shut down, the computer act as if the
power went down) and would refuse to turn itself up unless I removed the HD.
I'd experianced with every HD configuration known to man. And I'm only half
way through.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:44:19 -0000
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 20:50:17 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >It runs, but struggles a bit.
>>
>> It doesn't even do that.
>
>In order to get anything near to Windows it does. Windows ME glides along
>very nicely, but KDE on this machine struggles.
Then don't. You don't need to.
KDE applications will happily run without KDE.
You can even have as spiffy of a desktop too. (without KDE)
It's not even that hard to do. Just select another WM
from the menu in kdm or gdm.
Your constraints are highly artificial for a system like Unix.
OTOH, if you don't like something that NT5 does you're pretty
much stuck.
Again, one need not 'run KDE' to get the benefits of KDE.
--
>
> ...then there's that NSA version of Linux...
This would explain the Mars polar lander problem.
Kyle Jacobs, COLA
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:53:44 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> Pete Goodwin is constantly complaining about the lack of either an
> IDE, a Windows-like GUI, or 3-D sound in Linux. I wouldn't use any of
> these even if they did exist in some form or another. So why should
> I care that Pete complains about their non-existance. If Pete needs
> these things, he should stick with Windows. His needs are irrelevant
> to me, particularly when it seems as if he never seeks help for his
> problems, or he does ridiculous things like installing 'everything' on
> a potential server.
Actually I stopped complaining about IDE or 3D Sound in Linux.
Also, just because _you_ don't need certain features doesn't mean everyone
else doesn't either. Someone complained that I tended to see things from a
personal perspective - now you're doing exactly that!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: "Linux is no Windows killer"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:56:30 +0000
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2675184,00.html
My sentiments exactly.
To quote from the article:
"I am a geek by trade and I couldn't figure out how to perform simple tasks
like setting the clock or resizing the desktop. Will some think I am a
moron for not knowing how? Yes. Do I care? No. "You have to do it from the
command line, why don't you use the command line?" Because I don't like the
command line and neither does 90 percent of the population.
[Setting the clock is easy, even for me: it's the command 'date'. Resizing
the desktop - is this guy serious? - Pete]
"My point is, computers evolve to make our lives easier, to make tasks
quicker and more efficient. If I can't figure it out, how is the non-tech
supposed to? If you really want to make Linux a viable alternative to
Windows, you have to do better than this. Then again, if the Linux brethren
want to keep it to themselves, consider it a job well done. The advocates
of UNIX and Linux are constantly complaining about the Windows platform --
and this is how they compete? Good luck."
Amen.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 21:57:46 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Netscape 1.01N was my third browser.
>
> ..can't wait for Opera to get out of Beta.
Hmm... can't make up my mind about Opera...
I've tried Netscape 6 on Windows - nice skins! Shame about the (i) speed
(ii) occaisonal crash etc.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k vs Linux? Why downgrade to Linux?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:00:51 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I will NEVER, I repeat NEVER, agree to the above scenario and I
> suspect that if MS thinks they can get away with stunts like that, the
> company will be out of business in short order.
It is amazing what people will agree to just to keep the status quo...
> >> Mandrake 7.2 cost $35.95-$120 at Borders Books in NYC depending on
> >> version (PowerPack was the most expensive).
> >
> >I bought Mandrake 7.2 for £5, what $8?
>
> Looks like you been getting what you paid for :)
Yep. Cheap and cheerful!
> >> Win2k Pro upgrade is about $115.00 average price mail order.
> >> Full support is included.
> >
> >£200 without support.
If I want Windows 2000, it will cost me £200 (I think). That's about $300
to you.
> So have I, and it seems to be getting worse with every new release.
But when Netscape 6 is working, it just looks such more _gorgeous_ than
Internet Explorer!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Server Saga
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:02:58 +0000
Aaron Ginn wrote:
> Your sole purpose here is to inflame and troll.
My sole purpose here is to counter Linux advocacy.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Mandrake 7.2 and the banana peel
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 22:06:38 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Then don't. You don't need to.
This is of course, but what I was trying to allude to here, was to get
anything like a desktop similar to say Windows ME, you need something as
heavyweight as KDE.
> KDE applications will happily run without KDE.
True, but...
> You can even have as spiffy of a desktop too. (without KDE)
True, but....
> Your constraints are highly artificial for a system like Unix.
My constrainst are does it compete with the Windows desktop? Is that so
much to ask for?
> OTOH, if you don't like something that NT5 does you're pretty
> much stuck.
"Stuck" with one unified and easily managed desktop as opposed to the
slight mess that appears on Linux as a cobbled together desktop with KDE
apps, GNOME apps et al?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
