Linux-Advocacy Digest #38, Volume #32 Wed, 7 Feb 01 17:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Unknown Poster")
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Font deuglification (Larry R)
What .NET is... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("ono")
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("ono")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: XUL (Mig)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (G3)
Re: I don't understand (Matthias Warkus)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell ("Unknown Poster")
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (Josh McKee)
Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!! (Mark)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Unknown Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 15:02:56 -0500
"> >>
> >> This doesn't make sense. If you keep up with service packs implies
> >> that what you had prior to the service pack was not fine.
> >>
By your logic, since you patch Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, etc., then they are
not 'fine' either.
> >
> >Gee, why do you patch HP-UX, or AIX, or the AS/400 OS, or
> >any other? Because none of them are *perfect*, and they all have
> >problems. I see more Linux/Unix problems being posted than I do
> >Win2K these days.
>
> But you said that the OS is fine, as long as you keep up with the
> service packs. Installing service packs implies that the OS was not
> fine before the service pack. Which is contradictory to what you
> wrote.
>
Again, following your 'logic', your assumed God-Like Unix OS's aren't
'fine' either.
> >> >I run a WAN with 30 NT Servers, several of which have
> >> >1000 or more users hitting them routinely. We're not talking
file/print
> >> >services here, either; I have Exchange, Oracle and MS-SQL servers.
> >> >The *only* times they have been taken down for the last 3 years is to
> >> >load Service Packs or Patches, or because of hardware problems.
> >>
> >> If they were running fine, then why bother installing the service
> >> packs or patches?
>>
> >For the same reason you patch any OS; Security Holes and potential
> >problems.
>
> "Potential problems" implies that there is a problem with the OS.
> Which is contradictory to what you wrote.
>
No, every OS has 'potential problems'.
> >I've patched Oracle a few times, MS-SQL, Exchange, NT.
>
> Why did you patch MS-SQL, Exchange and NT? According to you, they are
> stable.
>
They are stable. I simply apply the Service Packs to ward off
the *possibility* of having a problem that is solvable with the
application of a Service Pack. There were the notable problems
with Service Pack 6, but Microsoft rather quickly recalled that
SP and issued SP6a.
> >I also forgot to mention our lovely problems with Citrix that require
> >routine patches and updates.
>
> I'm not interested in Citrix problems.
>
> >Not to mention our 5 Netware servers that get patched routinely.
>
> I'm not interested in Netware problems.
>
> >Oh yeah, and the 6 HP-UX boxes running Peoplesoft
> >and a custom billing application. The Unixheads have had them down for
> >patches more in the last year than our NT boxes.
>
> What was being patched? The OS or the applications? What do you mean
> when you say "down"? Do you mean the OS failed? Do you mean that the
> application failed?
>
Peoplesoft I think has been patched 2 or 3 times. the CRM application
is down frequently. The Unix Servers themselves are down an average
of 2-3 times a month not directly related to the applications we are running
for 'patching and maintainance' according to our Hosting Service;
usually during *our* business hours, since we're a 6am EST to 10PM EST
operation, thanks to the hours that our Billing and Customer Service works,
not to mention frequent outages during month-end for Accounting; the major
users of Peoplesoft.
> >I've had the NT Boxes down exactly once for Service Packs. Exchange I
have
> >had down twice--SP 3 and SP4.
>
> Service packs (note the plural) would denote more than "exactly once".
> If you're installing a service pack, you have to reboot. Since you
> installed services PACKS <<<---not the "S", you would have had to
> reboot at least once for each service pack.
Well, we installed 1 NT service pack on each of 30 machines in the last
year. That's 30 instances of a Service Pack, and the last time I checked
30>1, so it's Service Packs.
>
> >MS-SQL has only been down a handful of times.
>
> When did MS-SQL become an OS?
>
> >The Oracle Boxes have had only their MMS software patched--about 10
times.
>
> When did Oracle become an OS?
>
They are not Operating Systems, but they are *reasons* I had to bring down
NT. I could have also listed ArcServe, our FaxServer software, or the
Laboratory
Information Management System, or our monthly power testing.
My point is that I never reboot an NT server to fix a problem; and the
servers
themselves do not experience problems.
> >> >The 5000 NT 4.0 workstations and laptops we are using have been as
> >> >stable, with the exception of pushing Service Packs,or hardware
problems.
> >>
> >> Again I ask: If they were so stable, then why bother with the service
> >> packs?
> >
It's called 'Routine Maintenance'. Isn't that something Unixheads do?
> >For the same reason you patch any OS; Security Holes and potential
> >problems.
>
> You see, I have a problem when you write "potential problem". That
> implies that there are problems that are present until the service
> pack is installed. But what about the "potential problems" that aren't
> fixed by any service pack?
>
There are always 'potential problems' with any OS. There are no
problem-free Operating Systems. I need to clarify that I am including
Security Holes as 'problems'.
> >
> >If there weren't poor programming practices, we wouldn't have need of the
> >memory protection. Personally, I use Win 9x to play games on, and Win2K
to
> >do any real work. I usually write my adventures in Word on one of the 98
boxes
> >here that has MS-Office on it. I don't have problems when running
Microsoft
> >products on it. If a problem does develop on the 9x boxes, I just nuke
and reload.
> >Nothing is lost because I partition the drives with a data side to hold
data.
>
> A good practice on your part. But why would you need to nuke and
> reload? I can't recall the last time I had to re-install Solaris. In
> fact, I don't believe that I ever have re-installed Solaris.
I've never had to reinstall NT Server. I nuke and reload Win9x because
I don't have time to troubleshoot some crappy 3rd party game (the only
time I've ever crashed Win 9x, BTW) at home. I don't care about it enough.
My
wife plays exactly 3 games; Solitare, Freecell, and some logic puzzle game,
I think it's called 'Sherlock'. I play Baldurs Gate or MechWarrior, and the
occasional
mindless time waster called 'Flight Simulator'--which has never crashed my
9x boxes.
> >
> >Sure you do. We had an MMS software database upgrade that killed one
> >of our Unix Servers.
>
> Exactly what do you mean when you say "killed"?
>
The Unix server went into what the consultants called a 'kernel panic' after
the upgraded
application was installed and was ran for the first time.
> >Everything worked fine on the test server, but when we
> >put it into production, we were sunk. As it turned out, the Unixheads had
> >loaded a recent patch to both servers, but loaded it to the Test server
*after* we
> >had performed the upgrade. In testing, everything was fine. We then
upgraded the
> >Production server and everything went south on us. The vendor hadn't
tested
> >the software with the most recent HP-UX patches. In fact, they were 3
patch
> >levels behind--a fact they neglected to inform us of.
>
> This doesn't make sense. You apparently didn't perform the test with
> the same configuration. Who's fault is that?
We had no idea the configuration wasn't the same. Both of those
application groups are outsourced entities, and our internal IT staff has no
level
of rights or access (other than user) to any of the Unix Servers. .
They are outsourced at a third party vendor. I am not at liberty to disclose
their name because we are in litigation. We have eliminated the MMS Vendor
and taken control of it internally.
> >It was down for a week, and cost a few hundred K
> >in idle time across the country. We opted to move to a different MMS
> >vendor at that point, and just completed the implementation last year.
>
> Sounds like it was more a proceedural issue and not a technical issue.
Nope, bad third party application. Gee, that sounds like the Unix
Party Line FUD about Microsoft.
My point is simply this: Bad third party applications causing
reliability issues with an OS are universal problems, and not just
limited to Microsoft.
We've investigated pulling our Unix applications in house,
and running them ourselves. We have interviewed potential
candidates for a Unix Admin position at our HQ.They all ask
for more salary than the IT Director makes *with* his annual
bonus. Not only that, but there wouldn't be enough work to keep
a Unix Admin busy for 40 hours a week.
We can hire 2 experienced NT Admins and a desktop
technician for that price. As a result, we're searching for solutions
that can run on NT, so we can eliminate our dependence
on Unix and run everything in house. We've solved our MMS problem,
and are close on our Financial solution. We just need a CRM
application.
Jason W.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:04:48 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 7 Feb 2001 09:18:15
>"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95pkra$a16$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Daza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> : Telnet anyone? Remote cmd.exe?
>>
>> That would only be relevant if Windows had more of its core
>> functionality available in a CLI version like UNIX does.
>
>No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does.
>We aren't talking abut what you can do with this, we are talking if you can
>do this.
Once again, you are mistaken. It is not "we", but *I*, that is at
issue. Steve correctly interpreted my comments; you did not.
>This being multi user login
No, "this" is being a multi-user system. You can get multiple "logins"
by tricking up a web page; whether you are confused on the difference is
not the issue, though.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry R)
Subject: Re: Font deuglification
Date: 7 Feb 2001 19:47:19 GMT
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<3a80dca2$0$12704@reader4>:
>In article <95qbib$fi1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Edward Rosten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>> : Anyone who complains about X looking bad after uglification
>> probably has
>> : a bad moniter. It's really not that bad without antialiasing.
>> Now all I
>> : need is the cmr fonts under X.
>>
>> I agree. Microsoft did a very good job of designing those
>> fonts. If you're running at a decent resolution (1024*768 or
>> higher), and the font size is big enough to see, I find them
>> easier to read without anti-aliasing. They're crisper,
>> cleaner.
>>
>> I turn anti-aliasing off when I'm using Windows.
Can I ask how you do this. AFIK there is no such thing in NT4. I did a
search for antialias on the M$ KB, and got no hits for NT. Tried "anti
alias" "antialias" "anti-alias" and still nothing.
>>
>> --
>> David Steinberg -o) Computer
>> Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v
>
>Agree here too. I run my system at 1280x1024, with Adobe New
>Century Schoolbook as the default font. It looks clear and crisp
>without anti-aliasing. AA is really only necessary if you can't
>run higher resolutions, but if you do you really need it.
>At work we run NT4.0 on our workstations at 1024x768 and the
>default font is really ugly and blocky, so this is not
>exclusively an X problem.
>
>Mart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: What .NET is...
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 20:07:01 GMT
It's late.
Okay, seriously, I saw a book in the store about C# programming. Yeah
yeah, C# != .NET, but still the two kind of go hand-in-hand, right? The
advent of one brings on the other, right? Also, I turned down a job
recently where the company was getting into .NET technology, but hadn't
had much to do just yet.
My question is, has anybody besides the folks at Wrox (company that
published the book, you know, the line of books with all the
funny-looking guys on the covers) had occasion to work with any of this
stuff yet? Diddling or tinkering or actual workplace implementation of
betas or what-not?
I'm genuinely curious. I don't have a Java bias or anything.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how come you have to reboot when you change DNS servers in Windows?
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 18:20:05 +0000
Nigel wrote:
>
> > The reason is not quite as difficult as you might imagine. The 9x TCP/IP
> > stack initializes at boot, and once initialized it can't be changed.
> >
>
> Another example of MS's shiite design standards.
>
>
> >
> > Because Linux was designed differently from 9x.
> >
>
> Because linux was designed to work, win95 was designed to be crap enough to
> force users to keep 'upgrading' in the hope of getting something less crap.
>
win95 was designed to make obscene profits. By which reckoning, it is
"working as designed"
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:45:14 +0100
> > So why run Linux?
>
> Why are you running Windows? I'm running it because I've yet to see
> Netscape or KNode take out my desktop. Sure I've found other problems, but
> in general usage, none so far.
I've yet too see IE take out my desktop!
------------------------------
From: "ono" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 21:51:05 +0100
> > 3. Linux is FREE for God sakes and it STILL cannot get any sizeable
> > market share.
> It's hard to count the Linux market share. I have four machines that I
> bought with windows at home, which I promptly removed and replaced with
> other O.S.'s -- 3 copies of linux and 1 copy of solaris. No one has
> recorded the fact that I decommissioned 2 windows NT systems and 2
> windows 98 system. No one has recorded the fact that I am running 3
> copies of linux. Market share is a question of who's counting and who is
> being counted.
check out http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/January/os.html
linux 0% , windows 91% (and linux hardly beats Win 3.x :-).)
Maybe the rest of linux users is busy compiling kernels or the yet have to
figure out how to get onto the internet.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:00:44 GMT
in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Karel Jansens at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/7/01 6:02 AM:
> Define "consumer".
90% of the PC market.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:09:10 +0000
In article <95righ$i2l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "MH"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Interesting - I wonder if microsoft is getting desperate, sending in
>> the reserves here... the quality of the trolls has been plummeting
>> lately.
>
> Question: What would the Linus Fan boys do without these so called
> 'trolls' Swap shell scripts? Talk about forks vs. Threads? That's all
> fine and good, but funny, I don't see any of that in here. All I ever
> see is "MS this, and MS that". Linux Advocacy at its finest. Without
> your 'trolls' your religion would have no traction. Get used to it.
> Troll.
Look at some of the more serious newsgroups. I think most of usd are here
for fun.
-ed
--
Did you know that the reason that windows steam up in cold|Edward Rosten
weather is because of all the fish in the atmosphere? |u98ejr
- The Hackenthorpe Book of lies |@
|eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:08:42 GMT
in article 95s0di$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Simon Palko at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/7/01 12:25 PM:
> Err... why not just install and use IIS? It's phenomenally easy (although
> not as easy as PWS) to set up for a simple, local webpage. Every Win2k CD
> has it sitting there, you just need to go into the Windows Components
> section of the Add/Remove Programs CP and add it. Fun fun fun!
O_O I thought IIS was a commercial product.
I'll have to check and see if my cd has it (it is one of the MSDN disks...)
-g3
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: XUL
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 22:10:26 +0100
2 + 2 wrote:
> Redmond's worst nightmare? Mozilla takes on Microsoft.Net
> http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2682331,00.html
>
> "But Mozilla and MozDev say XUL could possibly step up the potency and
> popularity of applications on the Web. Part of XUL's appeal is that it
> lets developers code their Web application interfaces using a
> comparatively simple and cross-platform Web language, rather than computer
> languages tailored to specific operating systems.
>
> "With Mozilla technology, it's increasingly possible for people to create
> applications without being C++ or C programmers," said Mitchell Baker, the
> Mozilla.org representative whose title is chief lizard wrangler, after
> Mozilla's reptilian mascot. "Now the barrier to designing a (user
> interface) is much lower. It's the same set of knowledge required to lay
> out a Web page. And so that brings the ability to design and modify user
> interfaces to a much broader range of people."
>
> Anyone have more on this?
http://www.xulplanet.com/
Perhaps more interesting stuff is at http://www.scottandrew.com/index.php
that also has loads of good links f.ex. about Dyn. HTML and browser
independence.
--
Cheers
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:15:54 GMT
in article wBgg6.274$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Unknown Poster at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/7/01 1:38 PM:
> I don't know about him, but to me 'consumer' means John Q. Public
> who goes into Best Buy, or Comp USA, or any other store and
> purchases a computer that (s)he is able to take home, unbox,
> plug in, and start using.
>
> *nix isn't even close.
>
> Windows 2K/9x is closer, but you still need to look at
> a manual once in a while, and tweak a setting or three.
>
> MacOS *is* a consumer OS. That much they got right.
> The sad thing is the lack of consumer software, due to
> the small market share for the Mac.
Lack of software for consumers? How so?
I have no problems finding software for anything my parents (who still get
annoyed when I move an icon without asking) want to do. 0_0
If your talking about going into Staples and not seeing Mac software that's
one thing but there's catalogs FULL of Mac software and PLENTY of Consumer
software.
Besides the fact that half of what major chains stock is "Joe Bob's Share
ware calendar".
For every 5 crappy pc apps to do something the mac has one good app. That's
not a horrble trade off IMHO.
-g3
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
From: G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:17:57 GMT
in article dTgg6.275$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Unknown Poster at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/7/01 1:57 PM:
>> Unix is the UNIVERSAL desktop at ***ALL*** automotive manufacturing design
>> facilities...both at the automakers themselves, AND the *entire* supply
> chain.
>
>
> Bunk..my wife is a CAD operator for a firm that supplies the
> clips that hold disk brake pads in place for 90% of the
> cars manufactured by GM. They're on Windows NT 4.0
> (soon to upgrade to Win2K), running AutoCad. I also know
> the IT managers for 2 other companies in the same town who
> supply stamped metal products to the Automotive industry--
> both direct to factory, and aftermarket. They use NT 4.0 running
> AutoCad as well.
>
> So, it's not the *entire* supply chain. Some of the major manufacturers,
> perhaps, but not the *entire*.
>
> It's splitting hairs, I know but he's making the claim of 'entire'.
I can't believe he's making the claim that UNIX has a STANDARD.
-g3
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: I don't understand
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 17:36:35 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the 7 Feb 2001 14:26:55 +0100...
...and Bruce Scott TOK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <95r35u$gk7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >It seems to be a standard measure among winvocates and some linvocates to
> >quote the number of things you can do at once to prove the OS is good.
> >Fair enough, *but* why do some people claim thay can play several MP3s at
> >once?
> >
> >Why in hells name would would you want to do that? The din must be awful.
> >
> >Just wondering
>
> Maybe typical nerdiness. But the ability to play several mp3s at once
> is the same as the ability to compile several large codes, run a few of
> them, and read and write news all at once. This many of us do
> regularly.
For me, it's an average day if I have Netscape, a large compilation, a
large CVS update, two instances of Vim, one instance of Emacs and
several byproducts of GNOME running at once. The only real slowness
happens when Sawfish redraws Windows decorations after closing a
Netscape Window, because Netscape gets closed down and Sawfish's Lisp
interpreter swapped in at the same time.
mawa
--
It's sad to live in a world where knowing how to program your VCR
actually lowers your social status...
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:32:09 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm merely asking you to tell us to define what .NET is.
ok i'll bite, please define what .NET is.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: "Unknown Poster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2001 16:38:42 -0500
"G3" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> in article wBgg6.274$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Unknown Poster at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/7/01 1:38 PM:
>
> > I don't know about him, but to me 'consumer' means John Q. Public
> > who goes into Best Buy, or Comp USA, or any other store and
> > purchases a computer that (s)he is able to take home, unbox,
> > plug in, and start using.
> >
> > *nix isn't even close.
> >
> > Windows 2K/9x is closer, but you still need to look at
> > a manual once in a while, and tweak a setting or three.
> >
> > MacOS *is* a consumer OS. That much they got right.
> > The sad thing is the lack of consumer software, due to
> > the small market share for the Mac.
>
> Lack of software for consumers? How so?
Consumers are impulse buyers. Many,if not most, stores do not
stock Mac software. Best Buy does, but Joes Computer Store
down the street doesn't, and I can buy Baldur's Gate there for
about 5 dollars more than at Best Buy--a store 50 miles away.
I'll buy at Joes first. Sure, I can *order* Mac software, but why
do that when I can buy the PC game right now, go home and play it.
I should have said 'Lack of *Visible* software for consumers. Heck,
even the 2 stores that sell IMac's where I live stock exactly zero software
for it, because even though the machines sell, the software doesn't. March 1
is Inventory Tax time in this state--you are charged taxes on inventory you
have in stock. They can sell out the PC stuff, but not the Mac stuff, so
they don't stock it.
>
> I have no problems finding software for anything my parents (who still get
> annoyed when I move an icon without asking) want to do. 0_0
>
> If your talking about going into Staples and not seeing Mac software
that's
> one thing but there's catalogs FULL of Mac software and PLENTY of Consumer
> software.
I agree, but most consumers don't want to wait.
>
> Besides the fact that half of what major chains stock is "Joe Bob's Share
> ware calendar".
That's true too.
Jason..
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Josh McKee)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:40:28 GMT
On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 03:57:54 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Josh McKee at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote on 2/6/01 9:41 PM:
>
>>
>> How did you manage to do anything with Linux. According to another one
>> of your posts, it didn't recognize the keyboard, mouse or CD-ROM
>> drive. Without having recognized these items, it's no wonder you're
>> having such difficulty with it.
>>
>> Josh
>
>At first it didn't. Which was a real pain in the ass. By the time I was
>finished it took 3 and a half days of sitting up nights with the box wide
>open shuffling in and out parts and rebooting to try different devices
>/combinations.
In other words it wasn't the OS at all.
>But then aren't all pc os installations SUPPOSED to be like that?
Not most of the ones that I've done. For the most part, my
installations go well. It is during normal use that I begin finding
problems.
Josh
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: X-windows sucks..sucks...sucks!!!!
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 21:44:35 GMT
On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 16:46:01 +0000, Peter Hayes
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> almost coherently wrote:
>Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Wed, 07 Feb 2001 00:06:40 +0000, Peter Hayes
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >The one thing about X that I don't like is that there seems no way to
>> >change resolution without keeping the desktop at the size of the highest
>> >resolution, unlike Windows.
>
>> Why would you want to?
>
>Why wouldn't you want to, more like.
>
>Dialog boxes and error messages can and do pop up somewhere on your virtual
>desktop but out of sight of your real desktop.
<snippage>
Umm, that's not what I meant. Why would you want to set your
resolution to something lower than the maximum you've allowed in your
X-server? If you can't read the maximum, then change the maximum.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
