Linux-Advocacy Digest #964, Volume #31 Sun, 4 Feb 01 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: A salutary lesson about open source (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:48 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 30 Jan 2001 14:03:34
>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I read a Gartner quote about the recent conclusion of the Sun-vs-Microsoft
>> Java case. They said (something like) "Sun is upset with Microsoft for
>> making a better JVM than they do. The message from Sun is: if want to do
>> Java you have to do it on Unix".
>>
>> Wow, I thought. Has this "analyst" even heard of Java before today? And
>> then I spotted he was from Gartner. Still, kudos for putting a pro-
>> Microsoft spin on *that* story, I'd have thought it was impossible.
>
>They provide object market analysis. They call it as they see it.
This isn't objective market analysis. You confabulate this rhetoric
with Gartner's actual statistical numbers. Obviously, this has nothing
to do with statistics, but is pure polemic, showing the obvious bias of
the analyst, as well as his ignorance.
>In fact, their summary of the Sun-vs-Microsoft, if that is in fact what
>they said, is pretty factual. Except Sun says, if you want to do Java, you
>have to do it our way, on our terms, and the way which makes us most
>profitable.
It is there property, in case you weren't aware. So far, they've shown
no inclination whatsoever to use that predatorally.
>It's funny how you guys have this grand conspiracy that everyone is
>in MS' pocket somehow. It's great that you now attack Gartner. It
>just gets better. No scientific or anlysis firm is sacred, if they've
>ever posted a pro-Microsoft article, then somehow they must be servants
>of Bill Gates.
Again, you confuse statistics with polemic. Perhaps Gartner simply
provides market analysis, rather than any critical intellectual
analysis, hm?
>If they've ever posted an anti-Linux story, they must
>be servants of Bill Gates. It never once crosses your mind that there
>are lots of things to praise about Windows, and lots of things to
>criticize with Linux.
Such a knee-jerk, carpet-bombing-style response is about what we expect
from Chad "pathetically dishonest sack of shit" Myers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:50 GMT
Said Adam Warner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 11:24:56
+1200;
>> (Note that the page is headed "Microsoft Virtual Machine for Internet
>> Explorer 5.5 (Build 3802, released 1/25/01)). And as I say it wasn't
>> available for download for Windows 2000 yesterday.
>
>Correction about security.
>
>Even though this page:
>http://www.microsoft.com/java/download/40fixes.htm
>
>Sets out the list of fixes there may be no new vulnerabilities since the
>3319 hotfix. This release was made to conform with Microsoft's settlement
>with Sun. And I can't find any information about what Microsoft changed in
>the new virtual machine release.
Why the hell would they have to patch their software to "conform" unless
they were violating the law, not just licensing agreements? I don't
recall any requirement along these lines being reported as part of the
settlement. What's up with that?
Forgive my confusion, please. I'd really just like to know if anyone
has more information.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:52 GMT
Said Nick Condon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 31 Jan 2001 10:20:22 GMT;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Les Mikesell) wrote:
>>"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> I read a Gartner quote about the recent conclusion of the
>>> Sun-vs-Microsoft Java case. They said (something like) "Sun is upset
>>> with Microsoft for making a better JVM than they do. The message from
>>> Sun is: if want to do Java you have to do it on Unix".
>>>
>>> Wow, I thought. Has this "analyst" even heard of Java before today?
>>> And then I spotted he was from Gartner. Still, kudos for putting a
>>> pro- Microsoft spin on *that* story, I'd have thought it was
>>> impossible.
>>
>>Yes, any unbiased source would have to conclude that Microsoft is so
>>afraid of letting their captive users have a language that actually
>>interoperates correctly across platforms that they were willing
>>to pay $20 million and screw their customers out of any updates
>>to keep it from happening.
>
>I have a copy of "Just Java 1.0" written just after Microsoft got their
>license, and the last article is titled "What will Microsoft do?". Peter
>van der Linden writes that a multiplatform language strikes at the heart of
>Microsoft's monopoly, and is just too big a threat for them to ignore. He
>also points out that Microsoft have a habit of knifing their business
>partners in the back, and concludes that they probably have a spoiler in
>mind like trying to pollute it.
>
>Exactly what happened.
It was, in fact, painfully obvious to many observant people. Not just
in retrospect, either.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:54 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:59:41
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> : Why can't you guys take constructive criticism and recognize
>> : the glaring weaknesses in your OS, fix them, move on and
>> : become better people?
>>
>> Ad Hominem fallacy: the above rant has nothing to do whatsoever
>> with the point I brought up - that the Mindcraft study was funded
>> *BY* one of the parties it was judging, and thus it does you no
>> good to defend it by saying, "But all other studies are funded by
>> others too."
>
>So basically, you're attempting to [...]
>
>It's pretty sad when your only argument is [...]
>
>It's really ignorant to claim that [...]
>
>For claiming that Microsoft tries to censor or distort facts,
>the Slashdot community seems to be the king of censoring and
>distorting.
And you're the king of being a pathetically dishonest sack of shit,
Chad.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:56 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 02 Feb 2001 02:11:19
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95cmpo$rj6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : "Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> : news:95781i$rus$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> :>
>> :> Ad Hominem fallacy: the above rant has nothing to do whatsoever
>> :> with the point I brought up - that the Mindcraft study was funded
>> :> *BY* one of the parties it was judging, and thus it does you no
>> :> good to defend it by saying, "But all other studies are funded by
>> :> others too."
>>
>> : So basically, you're attempting to take on the entire scientific
>> : community and the basis for every reasearch study going on in the
>> : western world, just because you can't accept that Linux just doesn't
>> : perform as well as other OSen?
>>
>> No, liar. Read my post.
>
>Um, I did. You're basically saying that simply because Party A funds
>Party B's research, that somehow the results are ALWAYS going to be
>tainted, when this obviously isn't the case as it goes on every day
>in our world and the results are purely objective and reviewed and
>approved by other objective researchers.
You mistake 'tainted' for 'flawed'. Given your inability to reason
which you've demonstrated so well, this is not surprising in the least
bit. Nor does it mean you are not, in fact, a pathetically dishonest
piece of shit.
>Basically, you're full of shit and you don't know what you're talking
>about, you have no argument and you're grasping at straws and it's
>really sad.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: A salutary lesson about open source
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:33:58 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 01:53:14
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> : You said it wasn't, I showed you were wrong,
>>
>> When? I remember no such post, especially seeing as how
>> I just brought this point up now (That Dell is not
>> representative of the rest of the fortune 500).
>
>I showed that it was representative. Granted, it makes a larger
>portion of its revenue from the web than most, it still, like
>most of the Fortune 500 toppers, generate a significant portion
>of its revenue from the web.
What's this made-up fact? From what delusion do you draw the clearly
erroneous conclusion that most of the Fortune 500 generate a
"significant portion of its revenue from the web"?
>I listed several companies from just the top 100 that are
>similar to Dell in their web prescence.
And what mathematical or statistical relationship links "prescence"
(sic) to "revenue"?
>It's funny how you Penguinistas will stop at nothing, leave no
>fact unbent just to cover for your poorly performing OS.
Its funny how easily and quickly you lie, claiming that Linux is a
poorly performing OS. Obvious fabrications like that are merely a
breeding ground for Linux advocates, Chad.
>I don't
>understand what's so hard to say that "Yeah, it has some issues,
>but we're working on it, and we're moving fast and it won't be
>long before it'll be better than anything else". Saying it's
>better now only makes you look ignorant and naive.
But somehow I doubt that you're merely pretending to be a pathetically
dishonest sack of shit merely to drum up interest in Linux....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:00 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 03 Feb
2001 02:15:31 -0000;
>On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 02:05:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Jim Richardson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 28 Jan 2001
>>> T. Max Devlin, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> [...]
>>>>>Reno (via the various fed three letter agencies at the time) fired incendiary
>>>>>rounds into a wooden structure, used CS gas with a flammable propellant,
>>>>>refused to allow fireengines access to the church, and in general, lied and
>>>>>missrepresented the situation from day one.
>>>>
>>>>Yea, right.
>>>
>>>Truth is truth, whether it makes you uncomfortable or not is irrelevent. The
>>>feds lied about a drug lab (they later admitted it was a lie) about child abuse
>>>(which is not even in the federal jurisdiction in the first place.) and about
>>>the actions they took. There wasn't a single day of the siege that went by,
>>>without the feds lieing about something.
>>
>>I get real skeptical when I hear stuff like that.
>>
>>There wasn't a single day of the siege that went by that the Branch
>>Davidians shouldn't have turned themselves in and had their day in
>>court. Instead, they committed suicide. And that makes the government
>>the bad guy?
>
> Yup.
>
> IT'S THEIR JOB TO BE IN CONTROL.
They were. From all I've seen, its most likely the religious nuts
torched their own compound.
> They let things get out of control, therefore they failed.
They waited patiently for WEEKS!!! While the religious nuts held their
own children hostage!
> The cops that beat up King are guilty of the same sort of
> professional malpractice. Innocents DIED because of their
> machismo and incompetence.
Or because of religious zealotry? Which seems more likely, and which
seems more media hype? Ever heard of a guy called Occam?
> They blundered strategically and tactically. This should
> be apparent even if you view Koresh as the anti-christ.
I view him as just yet another nut/flake. And a potentially dangerous
one, considering he would not surrender to lawful government demands and
was stockpiling weaponry.
> The "untouchables" raided what was essentially a monastery
> and most Americans didn't even blink.
"Essentially a monastery"? I believe I have heard relatively reliable
reports that Mr. Koresh thought himself to be Jesus, and was screwing
girls in the compound as young as 13 years of age. Sounds like another
nut/flake.
Despite that, I agree that what happened in Waco was outrageously
tragic. I am simply not willing to jump to conclusions which are
contrary to reason. That Koresh was a religious zealot who caused the
death of all his followers is a reasonable explanation of everything
that happened, and no amount of second-guessing is going to refute the
fact that had he been a harmless law-abiding Christian he would have
surrendered to the authorities. Or at least allowed his followers,
perhaps some of the children, to flee the compound rather than die of
smoke inhalation.
I'm sure David Koresh might have believed the ATF SWAT teams would have
mowed them down as they ran from the buildings, but I'm not convinced of
that in the slightest, myself.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:02 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 03 Feb 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>On Sat, 03 Feb 2001 02:05:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>I'd like to throw in my 2 cents worth if you don't mind.
Thanks, Charlie. Glad to have you.
>When it came to King, King resisted arrest and was beaten up
>for doing it. It was put on video and the citizens finally
>got to see police in action up close. You'd never see this
>on cops but it happens all the time and still happens to
>this day.
>
>When it comes to Koresh, don't we have better things to do
>with our Federal money and time than chace religious kooks?
>Religious kooks with guns or not, who cares....
>
>Did they break any law? I still never heard.
That's the problem, really. What happened was that they were suspected
of breaking the law, by stockpiling weapons. But when Mr. Koresh was
approached to serve him with a warrant, providing him an opportunity to
have his day in court, he turned the whole thing into a hostage
situation, with children held at the compound. Escalation should have
been avoided, I will agree, but I think it is a mistake to hold
professional law enforcement officials acting dutifully responsible for
the malfeasance of the suspected criminals. Rodney King's attackers
were not acting dutifully nor responsibly, but emotionally. Not that
Mr. King was innocent as Mr. Koresh might have been, had he not
initiated the siege.
To question the Los Angeles police who beat Rodney King is
double-checking. To assume that Koresh wasn't responsible for the
results of his actions, even those performed by the ATF, is
second-guessing.
>They made alot of claims but seemingly they had no evidence.
>Why were they even there?
>
>We have organized crime and drug running all over the
>country and here they were in Waco Texas fucking
>with some religious weirdo who wasn't doing anything wrong.
Unfortunately, the law enforcement agents rarely get to choose their
ground. I'm quite sure everybody would have been more than happy to
call off the siege and go home, if that "religious weirdo" had only
realized that barricading yourself in with innocent children is not the
best way to deal with the federal government.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:03 GMT
Said John Travis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 03 Feb 2001 07:12:34
[...]
>:Nobody would have died if they didn't show up.
>
>No one would have died if they had done what they were supposed to do either.
>Koresh would go into town on a set schedule. He would also jog away from the
>compound on a set schedule pretty much every day. So, the ATF SHOULD HAVE done
>the proper thing, and arrested him (he was the only one directly named in the
>warrants) when he was out jogging or in town playing guitar at one of the bars.
>But back to the media thing. The ATF "tipped off" the media, to the impending
>event (ever wonder how they showed up at the same exact time?). The problem was
>somehow this got back to the compound, duh. And common sense tells you, that a
>group who basically believes that their leader is _the_ savior, doesn't want a
>bunch of guys comming in guns drawn to take cart him off to jail. Common sense
>also says that considering the ATF knew about all the guns (hence the warrants
>and the point of the issue) they would have been able to put two and two
>together and figured out they had fucked themeselves from the very begining. So
>the media shows up, the ATF shows up, and Koresh and his people are waiting.
>Blah blah the FBI is called in to clean up the mess, and get stuck in a no win
>situation. It was too bad about the children involved. This isn't to start a
>flame war, and I won't bother to respond to anything regarding it. This *is*
>what happened. A series of stupid decisions led to an unfortunate event. Never
>underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups (especially when the
>media is involved).
Very well said, John.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:05 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 29 Jan
2001 21:59:30 -0000;
>On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:26:47 GMT, res072bx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Just what in hell does this have to do with Linux??????? It belongs
>>elsewhere!!!!!
>
> Depending on what you snipped, it could be a nice example
> of how FUD distorts public opinion even in non-computing
> areas.
>
>>I would recommend that these people should use "vent your spleen dot com"
>>and go from there.
>> Please keep this NG for Linux.
>>
>><SNIP (because it's crap anyway) SNIP>
I think so too, Jedi, and for that reason I'm now cross-posting into
adm.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:06 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:06:26
GMT;
>"Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:955e25$s5k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Has the Christian Coalition taken a stand on Gnome vs. KDE or something?
>
>No, but I'm sure they will, eventually.
I am entirely sure the Christian Coalition believes in Windows,
religiously.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:08 GMT
Said Salvador Peralta in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 29 Jan 2001
20:26:12 -0800;
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
>> "Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > Has the Christian Coalition taken a stand on Gnome vs. KDE or something?
>>
>> No, but I'm sure they will, eventually.
>
>They'll come down on your side of it and lay down an edict against KDE
>and Gnome, Kylie. The Christian Coalition, being a conformist,
>AntiThought organization, is as pro redmond as they come. It is no
>coincidence that humanity was cast out from Eden for eating of the tree
>of knowledge.
Very well said, Salvador!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:10 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 1 Feb
2001 14:40:01 +0100;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Solaris isn't based on BSD, its based on System V. SunOS was based on
>> BSD.
>
>To be precise:
>
>Solaris 1.x (SunOS 4.x) based on BSD
>Solaris 2.x (SunOS 5.x) based on SysV
Yes, SunOS 4 was BSD, SunOS 5 was SysV. "Solaris" was a bundle, and the
nomenclature becomes more of an issue:
SunOS was BSD
Solaris was SysV
Not as consistent, and not much more accurate, but its far more
practical, if your intent is to be understood by anyone who isn't
already intimately familiar with the issue. Conventional, if not
standard, practice, you might say.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:11 GMT
Said Paul Colquhoun in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 01 Feb 2001
22:17:42 GMT;
>On Thu, 1 Feb 2001 14:40:01 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>| T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|>
>|> Solaris isn't based on BSD, its based on System V. SunOS was based on
>|> BSD.
>|
>|To be precise:
>|
>|Solaris 1.x (SunOS 4.x) based on BSD
>
>
>Except that it was never called Solaris 1 while it was a current product.
>That name only came in after Sun released Solaris 2.
Well, the name was present, but nobody used it to refer to SunOS. The
'industry' used the change in nomenclature to mirror the shift from BSD
to System V. Handy, in that regard, though it would have been far more
consistent if Sun had come up with a whole new name, rather than
recycling their "desktop system" GUI bundle moniker.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:13 GMT
Said Adie in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:30:09 +0000;
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 19:47:11 -0000, "Joanna Jakus-Pol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>> First and foremost, teach them how to INSTALL linux in both GUI and
>>> text mode.
>>
>>it is not that neccessary
>>you can give tham a piece of paper with short description about intall
>>process which they can read at home
>>it can be a HOWTO and URLs to pages where it is described
>>
>>give them plenty of linux URL - like www.linux.org
>>www.linuxdoc.org
>>dirtibution pages
>>they can read that using their existing OS
>>
>>teach them basic console commands (cp, rm, ln etc.)
>>
>>I agree with tha following :
>>
>>> Teach them about the different X window managers
>>
>>> TEACH THEM ABOUT LILO
>>
>>>Teach them how to use BOTH emacs and vi
>>
>>>both
>>> KDE and Gnome, and also netcfg....
>>>
>>> Show them that they can use other Office products instead of MS Office,
>>> Show them Star Office, Abi-word (suite), K-Office etc
>>
>>and the last :
>>
>>TELL THEM THEY CAN COMPILE THE KERNEL!!!
>>tell them how and that it is important and about main options
>
>Where can read about this in plain language?
How could you read about this in plain language?
;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:15 GMT
Said Adie in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:31:45 +0000;
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 12:21:11 -0600, "Block Iron & Supply Co - CIS"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What do beginning users need to know?
>
>>All beginners need to know that there is more than one way to do something.
>>The last group of people we sent to AutoCAD classes were only shown how to
>>use the mouse to draw and zoom. No keyboard shortcuts or commands, no info
>>on setting up a work area, just zoom with a scroll mouse and point and click
>>to draw. These people now think they have to zoom in and out to draw a door
>>opening.
>
>Most windows folk realise that there is more than one way to skin a cat.
As a professional who observes people of all skill levels use computers,
I'd have to disagree rather strongly. Most Windows folk never even
consider doing anything different than the first way they figured out
works semi-reliably.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.questions,comp.os.linux.admin,comp.os.linux.help,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: I am preparing to teach a Linux class and I am soliciting advice
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 21:34:16 GMT
Said Adie in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 31 Jan 2001 00:34:08 +0000;
>On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:32:50 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>i.e. teach them HOW TO READ a 'man' page....that is, how to extract
>>relevant information out of it.
>
>What is a man page?
Its a text file, like a really basic web page, which is displayed on the
screen when you type "man [x]" at a command prompt, where "x" is any
command you want help on. Each "page", which is usually a number of
printed pages long (and they use this archaic pagination system so it
rarely comes out right if you print it), is supposed to represent a page
from the original documentation, the *man*ual, for the software.
Packages which install themselves correctly on Unix add a directory,
typically */man, which contains subdirectories holding files with the
"manual pages" for their software.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
