Linux-Advocacy Digest #67, Volume #32 Fri, 9 Feb 01 02:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: NTFS Limitations (.)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ("Conrad Rutherford")
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (J Sloan)
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: The Wintrolls ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (J Sloan)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin (J Sloan)
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison (J Sloan)
Perfectly ME ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (J Sloan)
User Interfaces in the world of Linux... ("Mark Johnson")
Re: The Wintrolls (J Sloan)
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Jesper Krogh)
Re: The Wintrolls (J Sloan)
Re: The Wintrolls (J Sloan)
Re: Perfectly ME (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: SGI XFS Installation Update (J Sloan)
Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust... (J Sloan)
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses (Osugi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:11:50 +1300
> > This all is plain shit, naturally. Really no need to do it that way.
> > But they did (now THAT does surprise us, really).
>
> Lets see you do that with Linux.
>
> What about all the different types of clocks on various mother boards?
> Chipsets? Even RAM types and all the various controllers, etc. Some of
> them, even though written to spec, still speak slightly different.
> I know this is the case because when Linux boots up you can see it
> trying to detect which version of this you have, and which manufacturer
> of that you have, etc. Why is it any different when Windows does it
> than when Linux does it?
Because Linux doesn't keep old 'ghost' devices around ready to conflict
with the 'newly discovered' ones? Because Linux doesn't say "you must
restart before you can use your 300 new pieces of hardware"?
Linux is SMARTER and LESS INTRUSIVE about the process.
------------------------------
From: "Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: 8 Feb 2001 23:12:39 -0600
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Now...once again...do you even KNOW what the fuck ".NET" is, and if
> so, then, explain it to us.
.NET represents an environment, a programming infrastructure that supports
the next generation of the Internet as a platform.
So aaron you stupid fucking cunt - do you know what this next generation of
the internet is? do you know what is meant by "environmenet" - do you have a
clue what is meant by an infrastructure for programming? Do you know
anything other than how to be a complete luser?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Date: 9 Feb 2001 05:33:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Conrad Rutherford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Now...once again...do you even KNOW what the fuck ".NET" is, and if
>> so, then, explain it to us.
> .NET represents an environment, a programming infrastructure that supports
> the next generation of the Internet as a platform.
> So aaron you stupid fucking cunt - do you know what this next generation of
> the internet is? do you know what is meant by "environmenet" - do you have a
> clue what is meant by an infrastructure for programming? Do you know
> anything other than how to be a complete luser?
I know all about .NET. Again, its a bad idea, poorly implemented, and
utterly useless.
It *will* fail. It will fail mostly due to microsoft's absolute refusal
to support any operating systems other than its own.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 06:40:08 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
>
> I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
>
> And what do I find on my printer...
>
> Several sheets of ASCII!!!
>
> Such a simple thing, print a picture.
>
Such a simple thing, setting up a printer.
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 5.3 and SuSE 7.0
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:38:50 GMT
Conrad Rutherford wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Now...once again...do you even KNOW what the fuck ".NET" is, and if
> > so, then, explain it to us.
>
> .NET represents an environment, a programming infrastructure that supports
> the next generation of the Internet as a platform.
>
>From what I've heard, it sounds like .net is merely an
attempt to take the sort of open, working tools and
protocols which are available today in the Unix world,
and twist them into a proprietary, windows-centric
model which can then be used to build a mechanism
for extracting regular payments from windows users.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:47:53 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> Well, first we have tpc.org. We see Windows blowing away all Unixes.
We see that if you add up enough windows pcs, you can
get a number that's as good as a single Unix server.
We see from specweb 99 that microsoft bogs down trying to keep
up with Unix web servers. It was so embarrasing that they had
to install an emergency web cache in order to get some benchmark
results in the that were same ballpark as the Unix results.
Last I checked, AIX was in the lead with a 12 way box.
Linux was second with an 8 way box.
> Secondly, we have hackwindows2000.com or whatever it was called where
> no one was every successfully able to take down the Win2K box MS put
> up (despite tens of millions of packets per day).
I remember that, it was a joke - it kept crashing, and microsoft
kept blaming it on "thunderstorms in the area".
> Thirdly, we have Win2K with a built in IPSec and QoS implementation.
> Linux may have an IPsec implementation, but does it have a QoS
> implementation?
Yawn, Linux and the BSDs have all had that for years.
> Fourthly, Windows 2000 has set several data transfer speed records.
> There was a big bally-who last fall where MS sent several gigabytes
> over fiber in a matter of seconds, IIRC. A casual search should turn
> it up.
Oh, I don't think there was anything unusual about what
happened there, ms rented some big pipes, right? Which
proves that if you have enough money, you can rent some
really big pipes which can carry a whole bunch of traffic.
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:48:54 GMT
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > I never understood why you should have to deal with the obscure and
> > arbitrary devices names that *bsd uses in this process. It is much
easier
> > to pick the descriptive choices that you see with the Linux 'make
xconfig'
> > step.
>
> The FreeBSD kernel config file is very well documented with comments.
> For example, it's pretty obvious what mse0 is:
>
> # mse: Logitech and ATI InPort bus mouse ports
> device mse0 at isa? port 0x23c irq 5
Sorry, but that's a long way from pushing the button for the one you want
with a nearby help button to help you decide. I've never forgiven
the freebsd procedure for the time I tried to add some memory to
a production server and bring it back up quickly. I already had the
new kernel built with the right MAXMEM, but when I tried to boot
up it decided that the basically undocumented BOUNCE_BUFFERS
were shifted to an unusable place and refused to run. I don't
need surprises like that.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:54:05 GMT
Donn Miller wrote:
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >
> > And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
> >
> > I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
> >
> > And what do I find on my printer...
> >
> > Several sheets of ASCII!!!
> >
> > Such a simple thing, print a picture.
>
> You have to install Appsfilter6, if you want to print postscript to a
> non-postscript printer. And then, make sure your printer is called
> correctly in the call to lpr. For example, if Appsfilter configures
> your printer as "auto1", then all some app has to do is pipe the
> postscript file to "| lpr -Pauto1". So, do you have a PostScript
> printer? PS is this wonderful standard most Unix apps like to use for
> printing.
Actually, Linux distros all ship with something called
ghostscript, which converts postscript to something
the non postscript printers can understand.
In Red Hat, for instance, there is a utility called "printtool"
(like in Solaris) and it makes setting up a printer a 3 minute
job: Fire up printtool, check the right check boxes, fill in
the fields on the dialog box, and click "test" to test the
printer. I'm sure mandrake must have something at least
as simple.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:58:15 GMT
Bloody Viking wrote:
> J J Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : Red Hat is by far the most popular distro, for many reasons.
>
> A minority of people are still Slackware fans.
Hey, I like Slack - don't get me wrong.
But for the business people, I have go with Red Hat, due
to commercial apps and vendor support etc.
I'd hate to see Slackware ever go away.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 9 Feb 2001 16:33:08 +1100
sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
>So? Does this mean Linux the OS has failed? No, It means that there is a
>lot of compitition out there and there will be winners and loosers.
Didn't you notice Pete posting how DOS had failed to deliver on the hype
when Digital Research abandoned DR-DOS?
Bernie
--
None climbs so high as who knows not whither he is going
Oliver Cromwell
British Lord Protector from 1653
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Small Business Server 2000 versus Linux comparison
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:59:59 GMT
Adam Warner wrote:
> Hi Ghost In The Machine,
>
> > HTTP/1.1 200 OK
> > Server: Microsoft-IIS/5.0
> > Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 23:47:14 GMT
> > Content-Type: text/html
> > Accept-Ranges: bytes
> > Last-Modified: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:23:05 GMT
> > ETag: "067246b5f7ec01:87b"
> > Content-Length: 28746
>
> Could you please explain how you achieved that? I am obviously not able to
> telnet into Microsoft's site to check out last-modified headers. Is there a
> browser or application that can give this level of detail from the web
> server?
Telnet to port 80 and type, for instance:
HEAD / HTTP/1.0
and 2 carriage returns.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Perfectly ME
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:48:51 GMT
http://www.btinternet.com/~cerrig/opinions.htm
The site mentioned above is a "pro" WinME site. What is very
interesting is that all the messages have the same tone: they start of
with how great ME is, and then they start to chat about the
difficulties/problems/crashes etc.
I also had a look at alt.windows-me (where I found the link) an it
further became interesting to me that while the Linux users battle with
mostly techie stuff, the Windows users battle with just getting the
basics to work. I figure the system must be so unstable, they can't
even get to the point of using any servers or other nice apps.
BTW - About crashes - My WM crashed last night (the session was about
one month old). It took less then 5 seconds to carry on with work
again, after ctrl+alt+backspace. I think it was Netscape that did
something funny, as it was just after trying to access a site. After
the recovery I tried the site again, but only Netscape would bomb out
then. Any way, the point is that IF something goes wrong in Linux, at
least recovery is not at all that difficult or time consuming, taking
into account Windows would have to restart the PC, do a scandisk etc.
and if you are lucky you might have a system back in about 2 or 3
minutes.
Have a nice day.
Cheers.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:04:56 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> And here I was thinking Linux was such a wonderful system.
>
> I asked The Gimp to print a picture for me.
>
> And what do I find on my printer...
>
> Several sheets of ASCII!!!
>
> Such a simple thing, print a picture.
>
So, let me guess, we wanted to see what would
happen when we have the printer misconfigured?
Where do you want to go today?
Ya gotta love this guy's adventures....
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Mark Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:52:42 GMT
I'm sure I'm just a knucklehead but I don't get the way focus is handled in
linux GUIs. For example, PAN for one, when you setup the properties
focus defaults to the OK button instead of to the first edit box on the
dialog. I've noticed this in many GUIs in linux. However just as common is
that you get no focus what so ever and you have to explicitly click your
mouse on the field that you want to edit (posting a new article in PAN is
another example - you can't even tab to put focus - grrrr). This is just a
pain to go back and forth from the mouse. GUI navigation in linux, in general,
just doens't feel very intuitive.
Another weird thing is sometime when you click in an edit box and move
your mouse of of the way to type, nothing happens. I noticed that you
have adjust your mouse with just the right proximity to the edit box in
order to type in it. Netscape is real bad about this.
I can't tell if this is the way the windowing environment works or if
this is just, dare i say, programmer negligence. Don't get me wrong I
really appreciate all the hard work that these programmers have done and
for free! But everything seems so willy-nilly, i guess this is just the
"wild-west" of the linux frontier.
I wish I knew how/had time to program this stuff myself...
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:09:38 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > So, why not stick with RPM 3?
> > >
> > > Because I needed RPM 4 to install XFree86 4.0.2 to try and fix my video
> card
> > > problem.
> >
> > Eh?
> >
> > So, download xfree 4.0.2 from xfree.org - what on
> > earth does that have to do with your version of rpm?
>
> Have you actually TRIED to build XFree from source? That's a nightmare.
> their whole imake process is a pain to figure out.
hmm, isn't it something like:
xmkmf -a
make
<wait a while>
make install
???
> SRPMS are not that common.
For every RPM, there is a corresponding SRPM.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:03:04 GMT
I had a link a while back (damn if I can find it now) about a 512 CPU
cluster at IBM. Maybe some person here know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, the point is this: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/ and
http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=super+computer )
su·per·com·put·er [spr km pytr ] (plural su·per·com·put·ers) noun
high-speed computer: a state-of-the-art computer with the highest
processing speeds technologically possible at a given time, used for
solving complex scientific and engineering problems
Per definition (from MSN) I would say we deal with a supercomputer
here...
Cheers
In article <p_vd6.349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Those aren't Cray supercomputers. They're clusters of above
average,
> but
> > > basically normal systems.
> >
> > I ran your post through babelfish, and the result was -
> >
> > "If it doesn't run on Windows, it ain't worth squat."
> >
> >
> > FYI, Linux has all but taken over a market where Microsoft doesn't
even
> have a
> > toehold.
>
> Why are you people so incapable of sticking to a topic?
>
> The topic, is someone stating that Linux is running on Cray
supercomputers
> based on a link. The real fact is that it's not a Cray
supercomputer, it's
> a Cray cluster of average computers. Yet in your hurry to slam
everything,
> you don't bother to understand what you're commenting on.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Who was saying Crays don't run Linux?
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:04:56 GMT
I had a link a while back (damn if I can find it now) about a 512 CPU
cluster at IBM. Maybe some person here know what I'm talking about.
Anyway, the point is this: ( http://dictionary.msn.com/ and
http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=super+computer )
su·per·com·put·er [spr km pytr ] (plural su·per·com·put·ers) noun
high-speed computer: a state-of-the-art computer with the highest
processing speeds technologically possible at a given time, used for
solving complex scientific and engineering problems
Per definition (from MSN) I would say we deal with a supercomputer
here...
Cheers
In article <p_vd6.349$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > Those aren't Cray supercomputers. They're clusters of above
average,
> but
> > > basically normal systems.
> >
> > I ran your post through babelfish, and the result was -
> >
> > "If it doesn't run on Windows, it ain't worth squat."
> >
> >
> > FYI, Linux has all but taken over a market where Microsoft doesn't
even
> have a
> > toehold.
>
> Why are you people so incapable of sticking to a topic?
>
> The topic, is someone stating that Linux is running on Cray
supercomputers
> based on a link. The real fact is that it's not a Cray
supercomputer, it's
> a Cray cluster of average computers. Yet in your hurry to slam
everything,
> you don't bother to understand what you're commenting on.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jesper Krogh)
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:11:21 +0100
On Fri, 09 Feb 2001 05:54:05 GMT, J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Donn Miller wrote:
> In Red Hat, for instance, there is a utility called "printtool"
> (like in Solaris) and it makes setting up a printer a 3 minute
> job: Fire up printtool, check the right check boxes, fill in
> the fields on the dialog box, and click "test" to test the
> printer. I'm sure mandrake must have something at least
> as simple.
No, Mandrake is much more simple. Install the cups packages and fire up
http://localhost:631/
Kit a few checkboxes and your printer is shared to the network too.
--
/Jesper Krogh
Student at DTU Denmark.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:19:57 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> I doubt this process gives you even a fraction of the configurability of the
> FreeBSD model. FreeBSD also offers menu driven options for a generic
> kernel.
I have built kernels in FreeBSD, and I've build a lot more in Linux.
IIRC for FreBSD you edit a big config file, then make the kernel
Linux has the following methods of configuring the kernel:
1. a script, invoked by "make config", which asks yes/no/module
questions for each option, of which there are several hundred.
Hitting the return key selects the default.
2. a nice looking curses-based colored menu driven configuration
program which is invoked by "make menuconfig".
3. an X windows (tk-based) program that, interestingly, features
mouse-selectable menus for each general area of kernel
configuration. It is invoked by "make xconfig".
After using the configuration tool of choice, one types e.g.
make dep bzlilo modules modules_install
and go about doing whatever other business is at hand
for the next 10 minutes or so. When ready to try the new
kernel (make sure lilo has been made aware of it), type
init 6
and watch the new kernel come to life after the reboot.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:22:30 GMT
chrisv wrote:
> Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >---- How to build a Linux kernel ----
> >cd /usr/src/linux
> >make menuconfig
> > --> Use menus to select your kernel (including the processor type).
> >make bzImage
> >---- End ----
>
> Too bad that doesn't work.
Actually, there's no reason that wouldn't work, as long
as the kernel is non-modular and lilo, being configured
to look for /vmlinuz, is run before rebooting.
> >MUCH more involved? Hmmmm.
>
> Yes.
Sounds like you haven't built any kernels.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Perfectly ME
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 07:27:15 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
snip
>
> I figure the system must be so unstable, they can't
> even get to the point of using any servers or other nice apps.
>
snip
>
It is. My wife has ME installed on her PC (she likes M$-OSes because they
look so shiny) and I can't get her to work with Linux because I hate
graphical logins and she is afraid of the bash. Now she has two crashes a
day, about 500 MB for the OS only which causes a frustrated lady in front
of the monitor - Thank you Bill !
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 5.3 and SuSE 7.0
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS executives at LinuxWorld Expo
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:24:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
imekon@$$$REMOVE$$$.freeuk.com (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
> R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> <95i0sr$p64$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >Microsoft's assertion that Linux is not a technical thread is
> >actually absurd. Eventually, Linux will reach the mainstream
> >and executive desktops. When it does, Microsoft will be unable
> >to pretend that it has originated technology that was forged in
> >the cauldron of Open Source.
>
> They've had a long time to get there...
> and they haven't quite made it yet.
> Instead they (KDE) appear to be copying Windows.
> What innovation Linux?
Actually, KDE is an emulation of CDE, the console used in UNIX
systems. A user interface which Microsoft copied in Windows 95, NT4,
and 98.
The extending menu system used in Windows 2000 and
Windows ME are actually implementations of the AfterStep
and Gnome look and feel.
Microsoft gives you one choice. Linux gives you 3 major desktop managers, 5
window managers and nearly 100 themes to choose from. With the various
combinations, there are over 2000 possible configurations. Mostly these are
combinations of themes, borders, backgrounds, and button configurations.
Normally, users are given a relatively standard interface which is intended
to be relatively easy to learn. The "Standard" KDE and GNOME interfaces are
pretty plain and primative. Power users familiar with one of the older
interfaces or seeking a more responsive interface might explore 30-40
different options before settling on a favorite.
Personally, I like the "Ganymede" look and feel. It's one of the gnome
configurations that gives me more desktops, faster response times, and is
generally a bit faster. I also like the KDE interface with the BeOS style
decorations.
> --
> Pete Goodwin
> ---
> On that unstable much loved system known as Windows 98 SE.
>
>
--
Rex Ballard - Sr I/T Systems Architect
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 80 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 9%/month! (recalibrated 01/14/00)
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SGI XFS Installation Update
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:30:25 GMT
Stuart Krivis wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:43:54 GMT, Adam Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I am pleased to let you know that I have now successfully installed Linux on
> >a boot partition using the SGI XFS pre-release iso.
>
> I was pleased with XFS. It is RH 7 that I don't like. :-)
Interesting - I like Red Hat 7.
(well, at least after I upgraded to Helix gnome, kde2, and kernel 2.4)
To each his own.
jjs
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Oh dear...another 1 (nearly) bites the dust...
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:31:56 GMT
Jeepster wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>
> Alas poor suse...
Suse will be fine.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Osugi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 06:38:23 GMT
In article <3a836c6e$0$11937$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Conrad Rutherford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I love the lies - this is really hilarious.
>
> There are SOOOO many items in this post that make it perfectly
> obvious that the writer is either lying or so completely
> idiotic that I refuse to believe
> he could spell linux let alone run it.
Take that thought a step further: maybe it was sarcasm or parody.
> This "Pfaffenberger" is a total fucking moron.
Personally I doubt that total fucking morons can write
that well. On the other hand, a total fucking moron
might qoute the entire loooong post and just add a few
lines of commentary at the beginning.
> I laugh at him and would in his face.
I laughed too, but not at him. If I laughed in your face,
would you become violent? The tone of your post makes me
think you might.
> Linux: it's fanatics lies outweigh any hope of acceptance.
Microsoft (and to be fair, many other companies as well)
are famous for their lies. FUD is just another business
tactic with them. As far as I know, Linus has never been
guilty of spreading FUD. Can you say the same about BG?
(what do you mean by outweigh?)
BTW your post has done nothing to improve the image
of windows users.
--
Osugi Sakae
I will not be filed, numbered, briefed or debriefed.
I am not a number, I am a free man. -The Prisoner
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.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
******************************
