Linux-Advocacy Digest #35, Volume #33 Fri, 23 Mar 01 14:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban ("Jon Johanson")
Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban ("Jon Johanson")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Bob Hauck)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Chad Everett)
Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure (Chad Everett)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better (Jay
Maynard)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (Peter Hayes)
Re: SuSE 7.1 Vs. 7.0 (Peter Hayes)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: What is user friendly? (John Fereira)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
Date: 23 Mar 2001 11:10:06 -0600
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >
> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Jan Johanson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > hahahaha - silly penguinistas - I TOLD you it was a lie... but you
> > choose to
> > > > believe your own fud machines... hehe
> > > >
> > > > http://www.wirednews.com/news/politics/0%2C1283%2C42502%2C00.html
> > >
> > > Did you actually read the article you posted?
> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >
> > > Andy Mueller-Maguhn, a leader of Berlin's Chaos Computer Club and also
> > Europe's
> > > representative on the board of the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names
> > and
> > > Numbers (ICANN), said he believed the German government was probably
in
> > > damage-control mode. In other words: He thinks the report in Der
Spiegel
> > is
> > > probably accurate.
> >
> > Gee, the Chaos Club? A linux lovers/ms-haters hang out. Uhhuh...real
> > objective...
>
> I would say that:
> Europe's representative on the board of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned
> Names and Numbers (ICANN)
>
> Has some clout.
>
Clout? How is that clout? hahaahahah you are easily impressed...
------------------------------
From: "Jon Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Germany Denies Microsoft Ban
Date: 23 Mar 2001 11:13:03 -0600
"Aaron Ginn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Try to get JJ into a longer post. So we can do a literary analysis and
> > discover who/what Jan is. With all the one-liners its going to take a
> > while.
>
> I'm starting to suspect that JJ is actually Drestin. I don't have any
> proof of this yet; it's just a feeling I have right now. Some of his
> responses are very characteristic of Drestin: smugness, annoying
> laughter, flippant one-liners.
>
> Unfortunately, until Google gets its act together and puts the usenet
> archives back up, it will be difficult to prove since Drestin hasn't
> posted here in quite a while.
Wow - you know you've hit a nerve whenever someone thinks you are someone
else they hate so much (I would assume). sheesh...
then again, when two people are right, they're comments/stories/experiences
tend to be very similar....
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:29:53 +0200
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <998l4l$aqa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:998kbb$t59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >> So a MS run site requires no administration? It just fixes itself with
> >> *free* MS updates.
> >
> > You can set it up to do just so, yes.
>
> This is one of the funniest statements to date. You weren't being serious
> were you? :-)
I'm totally serious, yes.
There is an update agent, (you can probably download it, I know that ME &
Whistler has it) that you can activate which will query & install & do
everything you need.
I rather have more control of what is happening, though, so I don't use it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux @ $19.95 per month
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 19:31:05 +0200
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <sNAt6.2610$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:996h8i$e1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Stop flame baiting.
> >>
> >> The $19.95 is for a service, that if you chose to do yourself you could
do
> >> it for free.
> >>
> >> E.g. RH model. You can service your own car Or pay someone to do it for
you.
> >
> > However, if you're a corporation and want some legitimate service, you
must
> > now pay. On the other hand, if you want to keep your systems up to date,
> > you must hire a person to monitor the daily patches and keep the systems
> > up to date, thus costing you. Either way, it's still a costly
proposition.
>
> With over 100 security patches from Microsoft last year how many people
does
> a company need to make sure their systems have the latest patches? It's no
> wonder there are so many exploits against Microsoft systems. The admins
can't
> keep up. IIS was the worst offender.
>
> You made such a big deal about the ssh problems and yet there isn't a
single
> recorded exploit of ssh.
Download all the patches.
dir /b *.exe > patches.bat
patches.bat
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 17:49:04 GMT
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001 03:43:51 GMT, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Like set-top boxes,
>
> Well, MS hasn't really ventured into this space. The closest they
> have is WebTV which was an acquisition.
Ah, that explains their multi-million dollar investment in AT&T and the
subsequent announcement that AT&T were going to use WinCE in some fraction
of their set-top boxes (which fraction kept getting reduced as time went on,
BTW). It also explains the dust-up with TCI over Java in set-top boxes.
MS has been after the set-top box market for years, you just haven't been
paying attention.
Basically, nobody in the embedded space really wants WinCE or NT. They have
no functional advantage over established systems like VxWorks, QNX, uC,
pSOS, etc. They don't seem to offer any financial advantage either
(especially compared to Linux and eCOS), while they do offer bloat, poor
realtime performance, and a bizarre API. A few companies have been
convinced to use them by MS supplying financial incentives and free
technical help. Those companes get written up in big full-color ads in
the rags to make those not paying attention think MS is taking over the
embedded market because somebody used their OS to pump gas, feed cows, or
build a high-end copier. Hey, it was an expensive ad, they must be doing
well with it, right?
> I don't know about this, but Embedded NT and 2K seem to be doing
> well.
There is no "Embedded 2K" product. Embedded NT is based on NT4. If you're
going to be a salesman, at least know your product line.
> Windows CE 3.0 seems to be a big seller as MS hasn't abandonned it, and
> they are still developing for it, so there must be some people buying it.
Mostly people who got paid to buy it. Wind River sure isn't going broke
because of it.
> PocketPC is a hot seller and is starting to give Palm a run for their
> money.
It is easy to grow when you start small. But actually, Palm's own licensees
(esp Handspring) are giving Palm a bigger "run for their money" than Pocket
PC. It is the same old thing from MS...they get it sort of right after the
third iteration.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:04:48 GMT
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >For "My Cat Fluffy" web sites, maybe. But there are now more NT/2K/SQL
>> >hosting sites than ever, and MS still holds a majority market share
>> >in the web server market in the Fortune 500 and major eBusiness
>> >companies. In fact, Apache holds a very minor share in Fortune 500.
>> >It's MS/IIS with about 57% last I saw and Netscape/IPlanet with
>> >40-something% and Apache with >10% market share.
>> >
>>
>> My cat fluffy could come up with better fantasy figures. For the
>> truth you need to get with reality. Chad Meyers is lying. Here
>> is the truth for you:
>>
>> Server February 2001 Percent Change
>> -------------------------------------------
>> Apache 16871744 59.99 1.24
>> Microsoft-IIS 5522069 19.63 -1.76
>> Netscape-Enterprise 1751123 6.23 -0.05
>> WebLogic 1039605 3.70 0.06
>> Zeus 801215 2.85 0.34
>> Rapidsite 380217 1.35 0.00
>> thttpd 367724 1.31 0.07
>> tigershark 166465 0.59 0.04
>> AOLserver 153296 0.55 0.09
>> WebSitePro 114655 0.41 0.00
>
>Netcraft counts each domain name as a seperate server.
>So a hosting provider could potentially have thousands of
>domains running on a few servers, each one counting as a
>"server" which is inaccurate.
>
>Also, Netcraft doesn't differeniate between the popularity
>or hit-rate of the server.
>
>If you correlate this data with other data from other
>metric sites that measure eBusiness or top hits, you see
>that Apache is nowhere to be found and IIS/Netscape rule
>the day.
>
Pray tell...please give us those other metric sites and
tell us the specifics on how the data is correlated.
>This means that Apache is the king of low-volume
>unpopular sites, what I like to call "My Cat Fluffy"
>sites.
>
>If you saw a break down of the percentage of
>large corporations using Apache and using IIS, you'd
>see almost 100% of the people using IIS are large
>companies and eBusiness/eCommerce sites.
>
Please! Show us those breakdowns. Are they secret?
>
>If you need a web site to post pictures of your
>cat Fluffy, Apache is the choice.
>
There must be an awful lot of eBusiness sites and "top
companies" posting pictures of cats named Fluffy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: US Navy carrier to adopt Win2k infrastructure
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:06:05 GMT
On 23 Mar 2001 11:02:06 -0600, Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>> >
>> > "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > You must not have any Windows experience. BSOD is the "Blue Screen Of
>> > Death."
>> > > A constant reminder ho bad MS really is.
>> >
>> > Given that Windows is all I do, and NT 4 is where I began and W2K is my
>> > daily life I'd say I've had WAY more than you and I've never seen a BSOD
>> > except those cute ads in the magazines.
>>
>> lol, there is no way you can be serious. One needn't even continue reading
>your
>> posts.
>
>I have never seen a BSOD on any NT or W2K machine I've used. Period. Been
>doing this for 6 years and not a one. I have seen some on other peoples
>machine and have read about them but... not first hand. I have seen linux
>freeze and crash often though...
>
>
You have to turn the machine on in order to see a BSOD.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:15:27 -0500
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 21 Mar 2001
>> On Thu, 22 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Show me a more
>>> moderate opinion than the one I have, and I'll adopt it.
>> You've been shown significantly more moderate positions than you have.
> I'm afraid you're in error. If this were the case, I'd have adopted
> them. QED
Not QED at all. The problem is that you've redefined your extremist
(and illogical) point of view as "moderate." The reality is that you
aren't in touch with reality.
>> For the most famous one, you might even want to look at ESB. Your
>> obvious and stated hatred for anything not-GPL demonstrates no
>> moderation at all.
> Spoken like a true extremist.
I'm reporting facts -- and I'm an extremist for it? If I really thought
you were anything other than a fool, I'd take the time to go through
and find your messages where you've demonstrated exactly what I just
said above. Of course, you'd still lie and shift around it.
>>> I am trying to use the term "free software" to communicate; obviously
>>> the fact that my definition differs from what the FSF less strictly
>>> uses, but it isn't a political issue with me so much as a rational one.
>> Rationality is not one of your strong suits; at least you've never
>> managed to demonstrate it on Usenet.
> I'm far better at being reasonable than I am at being rational, that
> much is true.
You've not managed reasonability, either, so this claim of yours is a
null value statement.
>> Communication is probably your
>> weakest skill: you've managed to confuse even the most basic of
>> matters.
> As if I would for a moment believe you had a valid ability to critique
> the communication skills of anyone you disagree with. Sorry, I won't
> credit you with that much integrity until there is some reason to
> believe you possess it.
I possess it. I just tire of arguing with someone who is a committed liar
and a fool.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE 2.1 oopsie!
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 08:28:44 -0000
In article <99dq34$7bd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> He probably did
> "rpm -i *.rpm --force --nodeps"
>
> Lets see if he blaims it on SUSE's implementation of "rpm" ;-)
I did _not_ do --force --nodeps. I saw what that did on Mandrake. How to
totally wreck KDE.
Whatever I did worked, otherwise KDE would be in far more serious trouble
that the odd flakiness that I'm seeing.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, was Why open source software is better
Date: 23 Mar 2001 18:14:27 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 23 Mar 2001 14:59:13 GMT, Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Copyright in the United States is supposed to exist for the sake of users;
>benefits for publishers and even for authors are not given for the sake of
>those parties, but only as an inducement to change their behavior. As the
>Supreme Court said in Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal: "The sole interest of the
>United States and the primary object in conferring the [copyright] monopoly
>lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
>authors.
>That doesn't sound like property to me.
It passes the duck test (if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck,
it's a duck): it can be bought and sold like property, and is considered an
asset with a monetary value like property, so it's property. I'll guarantee
you that any attempt to revoke or significantly limit the term or scope of
copyrights in the US would be fought in court as an unconstitutional taking
of property by the government withough due compensation, and that argument
would be quite likely to succeed.
The purpose of creating property does not bear even a little bit on the fact
that it is property.
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:15:44 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 19 Mar 2001 21:10:42 -0700, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Rex Ballard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > Microsoft openly admits that they have back-doors, which they claim to
> > > use for
> > > tracking software piracy.
> >
> > LIAR - prove it.
>
> Isn't that the whole point of SMS?
>
> > >Given how difficult it is to purchase a
> > > computer system
> > > without Microsoft software, it's quite likely that Microsoft may have
> > > other practical
> > > uses for it's "back doors".
> >
> > Difficult? I can and have done it 100s of times. Your statement makes no
> > logical sense.
>
> A desktop perhaps; but try buying a laptop (specifically, a Sony Vaio
> or something just as thin). Heck It's hard to buy a laptop that
> doesn't come with some verion of MS Office on it, let alone Windows.
>
> > > We know that Microsoft puts critical serial numbers in Word documents
> > > shipped across
> > > the internet.
> >
> > bullshit
>
> Actually, they did (that's how they tracked some virus to NNTP
> postings).
Melissa, and it was the MAC address I believe.
And don't forget the serial numbers in versions of the PII that Intel later
removed (or said they removed).
The NSA would be failing in their duty (as they see it) if they hadn't
connived with or infiltrated Microsoft for the purpose of installing back
doors. The potential for a window on every networked computer in the world.
A Secret Servicebeing's wet dream.
Perhaps they've done the same with Intel, such that there are 80x86 machine
code instructions that we know nothing about that can be exploited by them.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:15:45 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001 22:10:43 -0500, "Masha Ku' Inanna"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Um...
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Unless you consider most of Eurpoe, and a smidgen of Northern Africa to
> have
> > > practically conquered the "world" would I agree.
> > >
> > > But no.
> >
> > Yes
> >
> > > They over ran a good part of Eurpoe, paraded in Paris, goose-stepped
> almost
> > > to Moscow, and played in the Sahara, babysat Mussolini, and tried to
> wipe
> > > out the whole of Eurpoe's various "non-Aryan" ethnicities.
> > >
> > > But they had far more to conquer if they were to conquer the world.
> >
> > They were very close to conqueroring Europe and Russia, it could easily
> > have gone either way. Had they succeeded, they would have been very
> > powerful and could have had a fair crack at the rest of the world.
> >
> > Had they defeated Russia and the rest of Europe, they would have been in
> > a very, very strong position.
>
> Conquering a capital city does not generally assure that the whole of the
> country will be subdued. How could the German Army have secured and
> maintained a total hold over the whole of the Soviet Union's vast land mass?
>
> It might be possible that they came close to conquering Europe, and had they
> sent the Panzers in at Dunkirk, and not let an entire army escape, it is
> possible that Britain would have most likely been far more agreeable to
> negotiations with Germany.
>
> (letting an army escape ... Dunkirk, and then Iraq... Lessons hardly
> learned..)
>
> Although Germany hurled against the Soviet Union the most powerful army ever
> assembled (some 250+ divisions, comprising three whole Army Groups), her
> supply lines, and manpower resources could never have insured her ability to
> occupy and subdue the whole of the Soviet Union. Even if they conquered
> Moscow that first winter, that would only account for roughly a quarter of
> the area of the Soviet Union.
>
> Then they'd have had to deal with both or either of the Atlantic and or
> Pacific oceans, and vastly stretched supply lines and taxed resources to be
> able to consider mounting an offensive on American soil.
>
> Hardly close to conquering the world. :>
A conquored Soviet Union would supply many millions of slave labourers to
restock Hitler's war machine.
Ironically, an important factor in Germany's failure to conquor the world
was Hitler himself, and some of his irrational military decisions that went
against the advice of his High Command.
This is not to belittle the courage of front line troops and the skill and
dedication of those that cracked the Enigma codes or developed radar for
example, just that Hitler didn't help his "cause" with some of his
strategy.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:15:46 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 18 Mar 2001 16:48:27 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> "Charles Lyttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<...>
> > Schneier makes the point that the NSA doesn't need a key for its
> > specific backdoor. That doesn't mean that backdoors don't exist. The
> > NSAKEY did exist and it was a backdoor deliberately put in by MS.
> > Whether it had anything to do with No Such Agency or not is another
> > matter. According to MS, it was just a spare in case they forgot their
> > original key, according to NSA ""
After four years of Tony Blair we can spot a spin-doctor at 100 paces.
> It's not a back door in any traditional sense. All it does is allow MS to
> replace crypto modules if the primary key becomes lost or corrupted.
How does the primary key become "lost or corrupted"? There must be many
copies of this key. And if that's a valid reason, they'll have to have at
least TWO other sets of keys because if one gets "lost or corrupted" the
other could as well.
> replacing the module doesn't cause you to suddenly be able to decrypt stuff
> that was encrypted with the earlier module, it just changes the algorithm.
>
> It doesn't give you access to run programs or download data or whatever.
Whatever the clandestine purpose of all these keys is, I'd be very
surprised if current and future versions of Windows doesn't have code that
allows the NSA or some other body acting in what it sees as the "interests
of the "Free World" (aka the US)" to disable any computer said body sees
fit to disable.
And .NET is just the vehicle for this sort of activity.
Easy answer - don't use Windows.
Peter
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SuSE 7.1 Vs. 7.0
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:15:47 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 22 Mar 2001 20:02:15 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John
Hong) wrote:
> Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >It didn't install XFree4.0.2 on my laptop with a Trident Cyber 9397
> >graphics chip. It installed XFree3.x instead which is awful compared to
> >4.0.2
>
> Actually, it doesn't. You have 4.0.2
???
According to the installation screen it installed XF86_SVGA, and according
to Control Center it installed XFree86 3260. According to Sax2 it installed
XFree version 3.
And it behaves like Version 3, ages to draw the screen, even longer to
scroll down a directory listing in Konqueror.
So I guess it's 3.3.6
> >Running Sax2 to install 4.0.2 ended up crashing the machine. Strange, as
> >4.0.2 installs fine under Mandrake 7.2 (install 4.0.1 and upgrade to 4.0.2
> >because 4.0.1 doesn't work with the Cyber 9397.
>
> >So that's at least one con - Sax. I've only just installed SuSE 7.1, a
> >couple of days, so I've not found others yet. It's really bad that YAST
> >doesn't offer a choice of XFree 3 or 4, very Microsoftesque...
>
> Check your Configuration manual, the troubleshooter in there
> explains all about it on page 84-85, that is if we are talking about SuSE
> 7.1.
Yes, 7.1
I've had a couple of days to play with it on a desktop machine and it's
superb. The only problem so far was that the installer allowed only a
1200x1024 desktop even though the card (a TNT2 with 32Mb) can do 1600x1200
at 24bit colour. Guess it found only 16Mb of video ram.
I tried Sax2 in an attempt to get 1600x1200 but it again crashed (hung the
machine solid such that I'd to push the reset button). A quick hack of
XF86Config got 1600x1200. Fine so long as I don't run Sax2 again, which
I've no intention of doing...
And reiserfs means no long wait for fsck to do its work.
Oh, and upgrading to KDE2.1 worked seamlessly.
I'll now get around to readingTFM :-)
Peter
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 13:20:04 -0500
On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> I thought maybe you had a point, but then you got to that "pitiful
> little preconceptions" part, and I remembered you were just a programmer
> desperately trying to glorify your profession. You'll notice that
> architects don't have to constantly fight this battle, and their work is
> similarly a mix of elegance and engineering. Similarly, design patents
> combine artistic integrity with functional engineering, and likewise do
> not have any problems fitting the "pitiful little preconception" that
> constitute intellectual property laws.
Then again, most architects don't have to deal with fools like you who
think that because software developers and designers work on
non-tangible things, the work is easy and not really a work of
authorship. Bugger off, Minnie.
> Not everything that requires skill to create has artistic integrity.
> You can't copyright a table, just because there's more than one way to
> do it.
Maxine here is, of course and as usual, incorrect. A design pattern on
a table most certainly COULD be copyrighted, and a particular mechanism in
the table could be patented.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Fereira)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,soc.singles
Subject: Re: What is user friendly?
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001 18:30:49 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Fereira wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >John Fereira wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Said Shades in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 19 Mar 2001 17:48:36
> -0500;
>> >> >> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> >> Shades wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > > You obviously haven't worked on any HP, Sun, or SGI machines
> with
>> >> >> >> > > version 1990 or later versions of Unix.
>> >> >> >> > >
>> >> >> >> > > The learning curve for these systems is SHALLOWER than windows.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Well then I suppose Sun/HP and SGI are going to be winning the
>> > desktop
>> >> >> >> > anyday? Hmm?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In the same way that the gasoline engine ripped the guts out of
>> >> >> >> steam-powered automobile manufacturers.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >Hmm... too bad Sun/HP and CERTAINLY SGI doesn't have the business
> acumen
>> > to
>> >> >> >make it happen. Otherwise I would agree with you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! And what large manufacturer of technology do *you*
>> >> >> run, Mr. "Business Accumen"?
>> >> >
>> >> >Well, he's been running his asshole more or less successfully for
>> >> >a couple of years now.
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to yours, which seem to have been stopped up for a couple a
> years,
>> >> and it's pretty easy to figure out what that makes you full of.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Spot the pissed off soc.singles fossil who's upset that his little
>> >fiefdom of Politically Correct-shrouded hate has been....invaded,
>> >pillaged, and burned to the ground.
>>
>> Pissed off? No, not in the least. Ask anyone that reads both of us
>> which one of us sounds like he's angry.
>>
>
>You're the one who resents the dissolution of the hive, not me.
What hive?
John Fereira
Ithaca, NY
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
