Linux-Advocacy Digest #678, Volume #32 Tue, 6 Mar 01 19:13:05 EST
Contents:
Do Windows developers settle? (Donn Miller)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Robert Todd)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market (Giuliano Colla)
Re: KDE or GNOME? (Craig Kelley)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Steve Mading)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Bloody Viking)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Linux on it's way back to (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American (Bloody Viking)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Steve Mading)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Giuliano Colla)
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... ("Edward Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Do Windows developers settle?
Date: 6 Mar 2001 17:15:56 -0600
Kinda wondering, do most Windows developers actually enjoy developing for
Windows? I always find myself in a situation that every job I apply for
involves at least some Windows programming. And while I try to stay clear of
Windows as much as I possibly can, I realize at some point that I have to
take a job that involves strictly Windows NT programming, or a 50/50 split of
Solaris/Windows or maybe Linux/Windows.
I've spoken to a few Windows developers in my area. They all say they don't
like Windows, and that they prefer unix whenever possible. They are
basically settling, because they took the only C/C++ developer jobs they
could find in my area, which was Windows-only, with a little bit of Solaris
and Linux.
Myself, I probably would concede and just do what I have to do. I don't like
MS or Doze, and I've made myself perfectly clear many times. A lot of people
in here will point to some search engine, and say "look, search engine foo
says there are 3 million Linux jobs in the US". Well, that doesn't tell the
whole story, because I've seen jobs showing up in a job database as being
"Linux", but it was really a Windows job. Also, a lot of nix jobs,
unfortunately, are in the big city, where I really don't want to relocate.
Close to home, I could find plenty of C++ jobs, but, (*gag!*), most are on
the Doze platform.
So, I would just resign myself to the fact that, if I absolutely had to, I
would do Doze programming. One thing's for sure, though: I won't be doing
any Windows programming when I come home from work. The way I look at it is,
C++ programming is C++ programming no matter which platform you perform it
on, and that doing Win32 programming isn't going to kill me. I think there's
a world of difference between advocating something, and using it on the job.
I have this theory that Win programmers don't really enjoy Win programming,
and that they'd be much happier developing on Linux, Solaris, or *BSD. You
may be in hell at work, but coming home, it's pure heaven!
So, I think most Windows programmers really do settle, and then wait 'til
they come home to use the platform they truly like (which is Linux, FreeBSD,
or Solaris, or even Darwin). Hey, why spoil your rotten mood that you
obtained while driving to work in the heavy traffic?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Robert Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2001 17:23:48 -0600
. wrote:
> If someone isn't aware of how to get Linux for free, is it really Linux's
> fault that these people shell out for a boxed set? It doesn't make Linux
> any less free just because some people don't understand how the free part
> works.
Agreed. I only buy the box set (I did with Mandrake 6.1 and 7.2 and will
possibly do the same with 8.0 when it comes out) because I am not on a
superfast connect to the Internet.
--
.---------------------------------------------------.
| This Was Sent To You From The Desk Of Robert Todd |
| Sysop, Panther's Lair BBS |
| Web: http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~irexbeta/ |
| BBS: telnet://bbs.linux-dude.com |
`---------------------------------------------------'
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:27:56 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> chrisv wrote:
>
> > "Masha Ku'Inanna" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Othertimes, people'd come in wanting to buy Red-hat linux, and I'd point
> >>'em to the book-section. (Linux Bible series). They'd ask "Why not get the
> >>full version?.." I'd tell em "Why? This is still a full installation, for
> >>half of the retail box, and you get this thick 'manual' with it.."
> >>
> >>The expressions are always priceless..
> >
> > What's their expression like when they find out your store has, like,
> > ZERO Linux apps for sale, while there's THOUSANDS of Windows apps on
> > the shelves?
>
> Weird. Do you always value your things based on how much money you can
> spend on them?
>
A German phylosopher (maybe Nietsche, but I could be wrong) said once
that if something has a price, it has no value.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE or GNOME?
Date: 06 Mar 2001 16:27:55 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
> On 06 Mar 2001 08:47:12 -0700, Craig Kelley wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi) writes:
>
> >> It doesn't have real privacy
> >
> >Who are you trying to protect code from? If people use the published
> >methods only then it should be fine.
>
> What if they inherit a class, and they choose a name that clashes with
> the name of a "private" data member in the base class ?
It overrides it, just like in other languages. You must explicitly
call the super class from within the subclass to utilize the
functionallity of the super's version. Each package also has it's own
namespace, so you'd have to explicitly overwrite your parent's
variable, and you'd only do that if you meant to do that. The @ISA
array is only searched after the child's namespace has been
exhausted.
> >> its syntax is even worse than that of C++ (a remarkable achievment
> >> indeed!),
> >
> >(see above)
>
> I was referring to the "lines noise".
>
> On one hand, the language doesn't know the difference between a string and
> an int. On the other hand, you have to use different line noise characters
> for arrays, scalars, hashes and functions.
Agreed. It is a bit arbitrary to split them out, and it can be ugly:
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/109.html
But:
http://archive.develooper.com/perl6-language%40perl.org/msg02479.html
Although the original perl6 developer's list is not archived and had
very select membership so we'll probably never know the full reasons
why it was abandoned. I don't mind them so much myself -- perl only
has 4 data types ($scalar, @array, %hashes and LITERALS) so it's not
such a bad idea.
> >But in the real world, that's just fine. It's only computers that
> >care about the difference between the number 123 and the string
> >"123".
>
> I don't care about this. I'm more concerned about the difference between
> 123 and "123hello". Perl doesn't know the difference.
You may be interested in this RFC for Perl 6:
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/89.html
> > C, C++, and Java all do implicit conversions between doubles,
> >floats and ints and such, depending on the situation.
>
> which is much less dangerous, since safe conversions are used (C and C++
> just promote).
In your opinion, of course. :) The developers of anal-strict-typing
languages would disagree with you, which is probably why they aren't
very popular.
> > You have to
> >know your language -- and that will always be a quark. If you need to
> >be pedantic at a certain point in your program then you can always use
> >the OO objects for types in perl or run it through the regular
> >expression test: unless (/^\d+$/) {croak "bad number"}
>
> Yes, but then the supposed advantage that you can do more in less
> lines of code sort of fizzes out. Also, you're still only checking
> at runtime, there's no way to do so at compile time. For large
> projects, it's not good to have a lot of potential runtime errors.
Runtime checking of unknown inputs is always needed regardless the
language. Perl probably shouldn't be used for very large projects
anyway, unless you make heavy use of the OO tools it has.
> The real "advantage" of perl is that it's easy to write sloppt code
> that has a low amount of error checking.
That's not the real advantage, but rather a corillary of it's real
advantage: "There's more than one way to do it." (Larry Wall)
If you want to write sloppy code, then Perl will let you. If you
don't want to write sloppy cody then you can tell Perl to not let
you.
> >> I didn't realise this. I heard about it, but I didn't hear about any
> >> work being done. This would do a lot to deal with my performance
> >> concerns (because I prefer C++ to C as a "fast" language)
> >
> >Shouldn't everyone? :)
> >
> >There's no reason to use C anymore unless you need to deal with legacy
> >stuff.
>
> Tell that to the theologists and the language luddites.
No time for that pointless debate. The sooner we can rid ourselves of
C and the current ANSI-C++, the better. I like the forward-thinking
ideas of the C++ crew (for lack of a better term); they want to add
garbage collection to the next revision.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 6 Mar 2001 23:27:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On 6 Mar 2001, Steve Mading wrote:
:> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>: No. They only have the right to distribute it with strings
:>: attached. The software must be redistributed under their license. If
:>: the software is library software, the GPL requires work that so much
:>: as links dynamically to it to be released under the GPL (or so RMS
:>: says. Whether such a draconian condition is enforceable remains to
:>: be seen)
:> You are deliberately not mentioning the existence of the LGPL, which does
:> NOT have that requirement. Sure, a library released under GPL would
:> have that requirement, but this doesn't matter given that libraries
:> are typically released under LGPL not GPL.
: Not necessarily true, Mr Mading. First, there are a number of GPLed
: Java classes out there. In Java, *everything* is a library. How does
: RMS's interpretation of library foolishness square with this? Second,
: there is at least one significant library under the GPL and not the
: LGPL.
Were you planning on mentioning what it is?
: Third, RMS himself has been arguing recently that libraries
: should be under the GPL and not the LGPL -- and has renamed the LGPL
: from the "Library GPL" to the "Lesser GPL" in accordance with this
: change of mind.
Screw him. The GPL thing he started is bigger than he is now. People
won't be obligated to use his newer versions except on software he
writes. RMS deserves credit for starting the movement, and getting
everyone thinking about what's wrong with a field where science is
impossible because nobody's sharing their work. But he needs to
recognize that not everyone is as radical as he is on the issue.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: 6 Mar 2001 23:31:02 GMT
Aaron Kulkis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: On the other hand, if a better fuel source comes along, the automotive
: industry would switch technology so fast it would make your head spin.
The fun question is what that fuel will be. Sure, homesteaders run homes on
solar and wind, and other greenie stuff. That's great and I encourage it as it
saves fossil fuel.
Now, for transportation, the ideal fuel is cheap of course, but also easy to
get to market and store without loss. Liquid hydrocarbons is exactly that
fuel as of now. None of the alternative energy _sources_ come close. I doubt
the government would go for nuke-battery self-recharging electric cars. And
the consumers wouldn't want it either, and certainly not the insurance
companies! Unfortunately, coating a car with solar panels will not provide
enough power to make a car self-recharge. Darn.
For energy _storage media_ like hydrogen (takes more energy than you get,
hence "storage media") you need a _source_ to have it. Breeders like crazy? I
say yes, but we all know about the politics of nuke plants. Nukes is the long
term solution, to power homes and factories, electric rail, etc. Hydrogen has
the annoying problem of being awful cold, second to liquid helium.
The situation with car companies and petrol is sort of like Microsoft and
Moore's Law. Car companies will suffer big time when oil supplies peak, and so
will Microsoft suffer when computing power peaks.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 6 Mar 2001 23:32:14 GMT
On 6 Mar 2001 21:20:58 GMT, Steve Mading wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: On 5 Mar 2001 06:13:10 GMT, Andres Soolo wrote:
>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>>>The communism analogy is false in every respect. Under GPL, I may release
>:>>>software for others to use. That is my choice and freedom. By releasing the
>:>>>code as GPL I am not limiting my ownership or control.
>:>> However, RMS says explicitly that he doesn't want to coexist with
>:>> proprietary software, in other words, the ideal FSF world is one
>:>> where programmers have no chioce but to release software for free.
>:>In other words, everyone with a piece of software would have the right
>:>to distribute it, no matter what.
>
>: No. They only have the right to distribute it with strings attached.
>: The software must be redistributed under their license. If the software
>: is library software, the GPL requires work that so much as links
>: dynamically to it to be released under the GPL (or so RMS says. Whether such a
>: draconian condition is enforceable remains to be seen)
>
>You are deliberately not mentioning the existence of the LGPL, which does
I'm not mentioning it, because I do not have a problem with it. It is a
superior license that is less likely to stab you in the back than the
GPL. The problem is that if you use the GPL license for an application,
then refactor code into a library, well it's still GPL code. For this
reason, I would *never* release code under the GPL (though I release and
will continue to release code under the LGPL)
>NOT have that requirement. Sure, a library released under GPL would
>have that requirement, but this doesn't matter given that libraries
>are typically released under LGPL not GPL.
I'm arguing two things here:
(1) Releasing any software, library or not, under the GPL is insanity. Use
the LGPL instead. The last thing I want is the license I released
software under coming to stab me in the back.
(2) True, very few are silly enough to release libraries under the GPL.
However, there are exceptions (readline, gdbm). What's worse is
that RMS encourages this sort of insanity.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Linux on it's way back to
Date: 6 Mar 2001 23:37:45 GMT
On Tue, 06 Mar 2001 20:18:22 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Bloody Viking
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>If Microsoft develops the next "killer app" (parse that any way you
>like :-) ), Linux may run into major problems. Even now, things like
>DeCSS have been thrown into a gray legal area, which means Linux may
>have problems playing DVDs --
No, it doesn't. It means that Linux needs to play by the same rules as
everyone else.
>computing in homes and possibly home offices. The Napster situation
>casts a pall over the entire Internet (the Internet being a *marvelous*
The Napster situation merely casts doubt over the entire warez
scene, nothing new here.
>method for downloading copyrighted Webpages, among other things).
Downloading copyrighted webpages is another thing entirely. It's easy
to justify as fair use.
>I suspect this will be dealt with in some fashion. Mind you, Microsoft's
>track record has been less than stellar. Consider "BOB". I suspect
>Microsoft would just as soon forget about "BOB". WinMe is warmed-over
>Win98, which itself is warmed-over Win95+IE, which is a jazzed-up
>Win3.11 with a new (and visually pretty, but functionally ugly) GUI
>slapped on -- I'd just as soon shoot the horizontal scrollbar in the
>COMMDLG FileOpen dialog, for example; that's just stupid.
Win 95 does add real functionality to 3.1. It's not just Win 3.1 with
a pretty face tacked on. In fact that's part of the problem -- the
fact that it's burdened by so many layers of compatibility. There's
only so much stuff you can tack onto DOS (which was quite good BTW --
it was simple and it did a certain job well) before it gets ugly.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Why Open Source better be careful - The Microsoft Un-American
Date: 6 Mar 2001 23:38:46 GMT
Interconnect ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: The fuel of the future will be Fusion power.
Fusion is the wildcard in the energy debate. It would sure be nice, but we
aren't even close yet. It could end up a long term project of a downsized tar
sand civilisation in either Canada or Venezuela. (or both with remaining
trade) Or it could be found to be impossible for some reason we don't know
yet. If the latter, we had better start building a LOT of breeders.
The oil peak will surely be a large setback for civilisation. Whether it ends
it or not is a topic of debate for another newsgroup. The oil peak is like the
Y2K scare. If we act wisely, we will end up with it being a non-event. If we
don't, it will be disruptive. The Y2K scaremongers got everyone to fix code,
preventing a disaster.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 6 Mar 2001 23:30:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ian Pulsford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: : The best part about not using the GPL is that I might make some money
: : from sales of software and I can then release the code after I have
: : recouped my expenses and paid for lunch. Another thing that bothers GPL
: : folk - that money can be made from the sale of software.
: Liar.
I realize on re-reading this that I need to be more clear. Selling
software is okay by the GPL. Its selling LICENSES to software that's
verbotten. In other words, go ahead and actually sell the SOFTWARE,
so long as you really mean you are actually selling it and not merely
a license to use it. (Technically you don't own most of the commercial
software on your hard drive - you merely own a license to use it. This
distinction is what lets companies tell you a list of things you can't
do with the software you have installed.)
------------------------------
From: Giuliano Colla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:43:05 GMT
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 06 Mar 2001 04:03:29 GMT
> <lkZo6.24005$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chad Myers
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote
> >> on Sun, 04 Mar 2001 23:57:26 GMT
> >> <GDAo6.15430$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> >"Alan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> On Sun, 04 Mar 2001 16:02:08 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Nowhere in the cites you provided does it say that one can distribute
> >> >> >the copies one has made of the media.
> >> >> >
> >> >> ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
> >> >> material is distributed, without profit, for research and educational
> >> >> purposes only. ***
> >> >
> >> >Ok, for research and educational purposes, but not recreational
> >> >or entertainment purposes.
> >> >
> >> >Like I said, you still can't burn a copy of a CD for a friend legally.
> >> >The police aren't going to bust your door down, but technically
> >> >it's still illegal.
> >>
> >> Technically, nothing; it's illegal, period. It's clear that what
> >> Napster users are doing is NOT for research and educational purposes
> >> (except for news reporters checking on the service, perhaps, as they're
> >> presumably researching a story; as of 3/5, Napster is still breaking
> >> the law).
> >>
> >> Whether one gets caught, of course, is an issue. The same issue
> >> exists for Windows products duplicated in the USA (those duplicated
> >> overseas may have their own issues; China in particular is a problem
> >> as they don't really have copyright law AFAIK).
> >
> >I agree. I'm sorry if I gave you a different impression.
> >
> >I was merely being semantical.
> >
> >If I burned you a copy of a music CD, in the grand scheme of the
> >cosmos, it wouldn't be a big deal.
>
> One would be liable for the cost of the license, enforcement costs,
> and punitive costs, depending on various factors (after all,
> the trial judge and/or jury don't have to convict if the evidence
> is not "beyond a reasonable doubt", for example).
>
> >
> >If I set up a major web site or internet application to allow you
> >and 4 million other friends of mine to download that CD, THAT
> >would be a problem. =)
>
> And if one set up a major web site that served as a broker between
> the MP3 provider (the one who ripped the CD into an MP3)
> and the downloader, that's a real problem -- being more or less solved,
> or at least fought in court, even as we speak.
>
> Since I haven't used Napster, I'm not 100% sure, but my understanding
> is that one logs into Napster and starts uploading ripped [*] file
> titles, adding them to Napster's database; the client also allows one
> to search for various files, which represent songs or tracks.
> If a match is found, and the provider's computer is online, Napster
> somehow acts as a data proxy between the user requesting, and the user
> supplying. This means that all three are breaking copyright in some
> fashion, with Napster squarely in the middle being "enabling technology".
>
> I can't say I know the legal details -- it's not fair use, but beyond that,
> I'm not sure -- but I'm also not sure how it can be stopped short of
> shutting down Napster or having the RIAA or the recording artist signing
> each and every MP3 file ever produced (and burned onto an audio CD) and
> then rooting out bootleg copies (go to concert with digital tape recorder,
> tape, copy data to MP3 on computer, make it available) somehow.
> Good luck on that!
>
> Of course, one can play all sorts of games with the song titles.
> Without including some sort of encrypted data chunk which uniquely
> identifies the song (and requiring the MP3 -- MP4? -- player to
> check that chunk with the RIAA's or artist's public key), it's hard
> to see how Napster, given only the file names and/or song titles,
> can root out all copyrighted songs. Somebody out there will get clever;
> one particularly idiotic workaround would be to generate a totally random
> name for a file, then post a message to Usenet stating that such and
> such a file is available with this random name, representing one
> of Metallica's songs, for example. Or one could maintain a separate
> webpage.
>
> It's also not clear why the player would want to play "check the chunk";
> RIAA would have to root out unauthorized players which don't, too.
> They might require the player log into RIAA and verify its certificate,
> though (the player would be digitally signed by that certificate; it
> would be impossible for a bootleg player to have access to that certificate).
> But even that won't stop bootleggers; the playing of audio does not
> intrinsically require a digital certificate. (I used to be able to
> play a simple sine wave through /dev/dsp, for example. Or one can
> simply do cat stupid > /dev/dsp -- although one might want to turn
> down the volume first. :-) )
>
> So yes, it's illegal according to current copyright law. Is
> it enforceable? Far from clear.
>
In the Middle Age almost no bridge could be crossed without paying a
toll. The toll bridge was the rule, the free one was the exception. Time
went by, and things have changed. Today toll bridges do still exist, but
they're the exception, not the rule. I have the feeling that current
technology will oblige the record industry to reconsider its traditional
ways of getting profits from their activity. Maybe the real distortion
arises from the attempt to extract millions of dollars from a few people
singing a song, just because you can make millions of copies of this
song.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2001 23:43:59 +0000
>> Because I can't install it.
>
> Because you're not allowed to? How is that a problem with Windows!
Beacus in order to install apps on 'doze you have to write to the
registry (in most cases). No sane admin would allow any idiot to do that.
Under *nix, you don't have to do that, since most apps will install as
non admin.
So it is NT's fault for having a buggered system
-Ed
--
| Edward Rosten
| u98ejr@
This argument is a beta version. | ecs.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
