Linux-Advocacy Digest #730, Volume #33 Fri, 20 Apr 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism (Mathew)
Re: Ctrl-Alt-Windows ("JS PL")
Re: Anyone have any stats on how many times RedHat 7.1 is being downloaded? (Claus
Sørensen - Formand for KLID)
Re: What's the point ("spicerun")
Re: Microsoft gets hard ("John Pfaff")
Re: Anyone have any stats on how many times RedHat 7.1 is being (jtnews)
Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman (Barry Margolin)
Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM (esko)
Re: What's the point (Neil Cerutti)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Peter Hayes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 02:30:26 +1000
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Mathew wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > > Mathew wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron> Fulcanelli wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > Walter Daniels wrote:
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > The Japanese Government(?) and Japanese business, are so
>intertwined
> > > > > > >> > > taht there isd effectively no difference. This due in large
>part, to
> > > > > > >> > > their decision after WWII, to "co-ordinate" business policies.
>There
> > > > > > >> > > is a ministry, whose name escapes me, that literally controls
>research
> > > > > > >> > > and development. No R&D is done, without their permission. IIRC,
>it
> > > > > > >> > > also determines what can be imprted/exported.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Which, of course, means you have a state capitalist system,
>similar in
> > > > > > >> > ways to authoritarian state capitalist systems in other Asian
>states, like
> > > > > > >> > Korea and Taiwan, though each have moved towards democracy, and
>Japan is
> > > > > > >> > democratic.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > None of that suggests Japan is fascist. Anyone who makes that
>claim is
> > > > > > >> > ignorant about what fascism is, and engaged in hyperbolic rhetoric
>that
> > > > > > >> > creates more heat than light.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Good point. Fascism has always, by it's nature, been
>anti-democratic and
> > > > > > >> to equate a democratic nation with Fascism is silly. Now some people
> > > > > > >> might argue that the democracy is an illusion, like some Socialists,
>but
> > > > > > >> they'd never do something like claim that a democratic nation is
>Fascist.
> > > > > > >> Another thing Daniels doesn't know is that, in Fascism, the state
> > > > > > >> *assists* big business in maintaining and increasing production, as
> > > > > > >> opposed to acting as a burden. This would make the Bush
>administration
> > > > > > >> more like Fascism than Japan easily.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron> Clue for the Clueless...most of the "corporate welfare", as
>Robert Reich
> > > > > > Aaron> so succinctly put it...was instituted by Democrats.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lots was, but I expect most of that is now rolled off.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Aaron> Republicans (and especially libertarians) advocate that the
>government
> > > > > > Aaron> neither hinder NOR ASSIST businesses.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Read the Cato (fairly libertarian) report on Corporate Welfare. The
> > > > > > GOP is in it as big as the democrats were when they were in power.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > And this absolves the Demoncrooks of guilt how exactly?
> > > >
> > > > It just shows that Republicrooks are just as,or more entrencehed than
> > > > the Demoncrooks.Can you except this?
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you admit that the Demoncrooks are crooks.
> > >
> > > Thank you.>
> >
> > The Republicans are more Fascist.
>
> And this is worse than being more Communist how exactly?
>
>
> Please explain why advocating one form of government which requires
> a police-state is better than advocating another form of government
> which requires a police state.
>
> When are you going to wake up and realize that "the lesser of two evils"
> is still fucking EVIL....and that only a person who is truly evil supports
> evil...
Yes but you only concentrate on the Democrats being evil,and nothing
about Republicans,so this makes me suspect about your true leanings.
>
>
> >
> > > Now, do the right thing and vote Libertarian.
> >
> > I take it you are Lebertarian?
> >
>
> Libertarian, you shithead.
I made a typo.
I won't call you shithead,but you sure as hell have showed yourself to be
arrogant and crude,and seemmly with fascist tendencies(ironically),
so I wonder if other libertarians share your same views.
>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > Unix Systems Engineer
> > > DNRC Minister of all I survey
> > > ICQ # 3056642
> > >
> > > L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> > > can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > K: Truth in advertising:
> > > Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> > > Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> > > Special Interest Sierra Club,
> > > Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> > > Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> > > The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> > > Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
> > >
> > >
> > > J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> > > The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> > > also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
> > >
> > > I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> > > challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> > > between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> > > Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
> > >
> > > H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> > > premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> > > you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> > > you are lazy, stupid people"
> > >
> > > G: Knackos...you're a retard.
> > >
> > >
> > > F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> > > adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
> > >
> > > E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> > > her behavior improves.
> > >
> > > D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> > > ...despite (C) above.
> > >
> > > C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
> > >
> > > B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> > > method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> > > direction that she doesn't like.
> > >
> > > A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
> > >
> > >
>
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
> L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
> can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> K: Truth in advertising:
> Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
> Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
> Special Interest Sierra Club,
> Anarchist Members of the ACLU
> Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
> The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
> Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
>
>
> J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
> The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
> also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
>
> I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
> challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
> between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
> Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
>
> H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
> premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
> you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
> you are lazy, stupid people"
>
> G: Knackos...you're a retard.
>
>
> F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
> adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
>
> E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
> her behavior improves.
>
> D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
> ...despite (C) above.
>
> C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
>
> B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
> method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
> direction that she doesn't like.
>
> A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
>
>
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Ctrl-Alt-Windows
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:41:46 -0400
"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Brian Langenberger posted:
> >In comp.os.linux.advocacy Roy Culley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >: PC keyboards are crap full stop. Here I am typing on my Sun type-5
> >: keyboard on a PC running linux. A mate built the adapter and it
> >: works like a dream. Sun keyboards are second to none IMHO simply
> >: because they have that wonderful keypad on the left.
> >
> >Or, for $60(US), get a nice Sun Type 6 keyboard with USB:
> >
> >http://store.sun.com/catalog/doc/BrowsePage.jhtml?catid=32807
>
> IBM still made a keyboard w/out the Windows keys on it a couple
> of years ago when I went hunting for one. However, it turned out
> to cost $54 dollars so I decided I could coexist with Microsoft
> keys on my keyboard.
Your shopping in the wrong place. My IBM keyboard doesn't have a windows
key, and the keys actually "click" when I press them. Sticker on the bottom
says 30-NOV-93. Cost was $1.00 at a trade show and it works perfectly.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Claus Sørensen - Formand for KLID)
Subject: Re: Anyone have any stats on how many times RedHat 7.1 is being downloaded?
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 16:48:04 GMT
On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 15:13:59 GMT, jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I wonder how RedHat will continue to grow
>and make money as broadband connections
>become more widespread and everyone downloads it.
Because RedHat sells more than just the software:
- Training
- Certification
- Support
- Consulting
- Development
The most enjoyable greetings
--
Claus Sørensen K L I D
Formand ------------------ Tlf: 20 94 62 34
Nøddelunden 110 Kommercielle Linux Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2765 Smørum Interessenter i Danmark Web: www.klid.dk
------------------------------
From: "spicerun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:49:51 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I agree totally. I'm no redhat fan because I prefer debian and suse but
> the flack thrown at redhat is absurd.
Gee Thanks! Remind me to call your opinions 'flak' sometime in the
future. I would have hoped you'd noticed that my 'flak' could be a
legitimate complaint from a user who has/and is using Redhat for years. I
recognize that the majority of my complaints are 'nitpicks', but I'm not
happy that 'nitpicks' 1. Cost me more time than usual, and 2. I can't
pick up the thousands of HOWTOs and other documents to install an
application or feature that should work with any linux distribution, only
to find after it didn't work that I had to locate a Redhat addendum to
make yet another tweak to get the feature/application to work.
> They must be doing something right
> if they are the dominant linux distro. And, as has been stated many
> times, what they do develop for linux is openly available to anyone
> including their competitors. I've always been disappointed that suse
> don't follow this example, yast being the most obvious example.
My wish is that all applications would be more standard to how Linux does
things. As it is, Linux is largely standard, IMO, but the variations are
*extremely* annoying. Why pick on Redhat? 1. I know it better than the
other distros, and 2. They seem to have more of the publicized 'tweaks'
then everybody else (I've yet to see a HOWTO having to contain debian or
suse tweaks...I'm sure they're out there though.).
I happen to think Debian is almost the 'gold standard' of Linux
distributions, and I intend to be running it hopefully after July. I'll
find out for sure then.
------------------------------
From: "John Pfaff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.arch,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Microsoft gets hard
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 13:06:52 -0400
Actually the number of Linux users is closer to 17 million (source
http://counter.li.org/estimates.html ). If you take about 1/3 of that (I
feel a conservative estimate in that most Linux users are not your
run-of-the-mill computer user), you get close to 6 million.
--
John Pfaff - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Registered with the Linux Counter.
http://counter.li.org
ID # 39256
"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > JS PL wrote:
> > >
> > > "unicat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > > Of course there's a name for companies that trusted Microsoft as a
> > > busniess
> > > > partner...extinct!
> > >
> > > Which one is extinct? There's about 32,000 Certified Business Partners
> > > Organizations. And about 6 million developers using Microsoft
> Development
> > > tools.
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/business/partners/
> > > Which one became extinct? Ass.
> > >
> > > You really shouldn't Drink & Write.
> > IS that 6 million MSDN subscribers? I would say there is more Linux
> > developers out there, that don't need the fancy $5000 mecharno kit to
> > prove to their mates that they can program. Oh, and btw, I have a SUN
> > developer connection subscription, and compared to the Microsoft shit,
> > it is worth every dollar, esp the support SUN provides, real engineers
> > helping programmers. Not the Microsoft help when you just have some
> > half witt reading out a help file to you.
>
>
> More than 6 million Linux developers! I think not. I submit that there are
> not even 6 million Linux USERS!!
> Linux.org claims that there are 12 million. After reading the incredible
> straw grasping that is used to come up with those numbers, such as
counting
> documents found for Linux at AltaVista! Or,counting unique "From" posts in
a
> Linux newsgroup and extrapolating it out by a "wholly guessed at"
> multiplier! I would guess that it's about one tenth of what is claimed or
> 1.2 million at most.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone have any stats on how many times RedHat 7.1 is being
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:18:20 GMT
Brian Langenberger wrote:
> Of course, RedHat's distribution will also continue to grow ;)
> But seriously, just transferring the two main binary ISOs
> across a 100base-T LAN and then burning them to CD took me
> quite awhile - chances are simply buying the boxed set would
> be just as cost-effective considering the time I spent.
But you don't need to burn a CD
at all. I just copy the ftp directories
to a local server, make a bootnet.img diskette,
and then install RedHat off of my local ftp server.
When very high speed broadband becomes available,
say 10Mbyte/sec, you won't have to download anything
at all, you just install it directly off of an ftp
server on the Internet.
------------------------------
From: Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: What is 99 percent of copyright law? was Re: Richard Stallman
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:27:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 14:19:57 GMT, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>My interpretation of Tim Smith's comment is that he claims the RIPEM
>>authors thought they could have won the lawsuit, but decided to acceded to
>>the FSF's demands to be nice. I'm perfectly willing to believe this is
>>true. But the RIPEM authors' belief that they would have won is as valid
>>as the FSF's belief that they would have won. Both presumably had
>>competent counsel telling them that they had a good case. But they
>>obviously couldn't both be right, and only an actual court case can settle
>>the general issue.
>
>Why do you presume that either side thought they had a good case?
I suppose the FSF could have been bluffing when they threatened to sue, but
I gave them the benefit of the doubt.
>Perhaps that presumption is correct, but the FSF is basically stuck
>with their position regardless of its strength. I'd love to hear the
>legal basis in non lay terms of the FSF's position, but so far
>the best arguments I've read suggest that their position is untenable.
>
>I don't think Tim suggested that the authors were trying to be nice.
That was how I interpreted "to make the FSF happy." I could be
misinterpreting, and maybe he just meant "to keep the FSF from suing."
>It was pretty clear that they chose a path that would avoid being sued.
>Law suits are expensive even if you win, since typically in the US
>you pay your own attorney fees and costs even if you successfully
>defend yourself. Cloning at least parts of gmp was definitely much
>less time consuming and costly than winning a law suit.
I thought that it's common for defendants to counter-sue for legal fees.
But I wonder: would a case like this be a civil or criminal case?
Copyright infringement has aspects of both.
BTW, I don't the the FSF has a whole lot of money, either. A lawsuit would
hurt them financially, as well. If they were going after a big company
that was grossly violating the GPL I expect that they could find some big
supporters to help them (e.g. the EFF), but they would almost certainly
have been on their own in a battle over RIPEM.
--
Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 12:29:27 -0500
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
gnu.emacs.help,alt.religions.vim,alt.religion.emacs,fj.editor.vi,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM
I am just so tired of XEmacs. It crashes all the time. It does not have drag
and drop support. Lisp is next to impossible to learn. I have to type basillions
of stupid keystrokes to get the most trivial tasks accomplished. My left
wrist is hurting from hitting C- and ESC- keys constantly. I have recently
discovered VIM, a great programmers' editor (www.vim.org). All keystrokes are
easy and fast, everything works, it creates backup files and so on. I am
switching.
rm -rf /usr/local/lib/xemacs /usr/local/bin/xemacs .emacs `find / -name \*emacs\*`
------------------------------
From: esko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tired of XEMACS, moving to VIM
Crossposted-To:
gnu.emacs.help,alt.religions.vim,alt.religion.emacs,fj.editor.vi,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:52:11 GMT
Get used to using the ESC key in vim, if it's anything like VI. Try running GNU emacs
instead of xemacs ... I haven't
had any problems at all.
-e
In gnu.emacs.help [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am just so tired of XEmacs. It crashes all the time. It does not have drag
> and drop support. Lisp is next to impossible to learn. I have to type basillions
> of stupid keystrokes to get the most trivial tasks accomplished. My left
> wrist is hurting from hitting C- and ESC- keys constantly. I have recently
> discovered VIM, a great programmers' editor (www.vim.org). All keystrokes are
> easy and fast, everything works, it creates backup files and so on. I am
> switching.
> rm -rf /usr/local/lib/xemacs /usr/local/bin/xemacs .emacs `find / -name \*emacs\*`
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Subject: Re: What's the point
Date: 20 Apr 2001 18:00:16 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kelsey Bjarnason posted:
>How long does it take a person to learn how to use a typewriter,
>in order to produce a document? About 10 seconds.
No way. Take somebody who've never used a typewriter before, sit
them down in front of one and ask them to type you up some
mailing labels. See if they figure it out in ten seconds.
Or ask them to use a typewriter to fill out their tax forms.
Operating a typewriter (especially an old clunky one without the
modern convenience of automatic erase and electronic
key-triggers) is extremely difficult and takes years to master.
Probably one of the main reasons computers invaded the business
world was their advantage over typewriters. If typewriters were
so easy, nobody would need a word processor.
>How long _should_ it take a person to learn how to use a word
>processor to produce a document? About 10 seconds. Add in
>another 30 to learn the notion of "save documents in a folder"
>and another 30 to learn how to create and rename folders, throw
>in the notion of spell checking and thesaurus and the like, add
>in the idea of how to safely shut down the program and the
>machine, and the total learning time, for someone who has never
>used a PC before, should be about 10 minutes, total.
You must know some really sharp people, then. File systems
and data management are not topics that can be learned in 30
seconds.
>Granted, no OS + application combination is quite there yet, but
>some are closer than others. It should never, under any
>circumstances, be _necessary_ for a user to know a single thing
>about hardware configuration issues, or how to set up user
>privileges, or how to rebuild a kernel or how to edit a startup
>configuration file. If they _choose_ to learn those things,
>great, more power to them - but if they are forced to do so,
>then the developers have dropped the ball, big time.
Computers only send and receive telegrams. Any other thing that
they seem to do is simulated by a clever programmer. So far,
there's been no limit to how clever programmers can be, but there
is one somewhere. Certain apps have clearly reached that limit,
for instance, word processors. No serious innovation in 20 years.
>Pick up a hammer. Learning time: about 2 seconds.
No way. Pick up hammer. Pick up nail. Drop nail. Hit finger.
Smash woodwork with hammer, etc... A hammer is not easy to use
properly and requires a lot of experience to operate efficiently.
And it has not one moving part! Why should a computer be easier
to operate than a hammer?
>Typewriter: about 10 seconds.
Been over that one.
>Telephone? About 30 seconds, other than for extras.
I don't know about that.
>Using a typical PC? Let's not kid ourselves; what _should_ be a
>10 minute operation can take hours, days, even weeks. That
>screams bad design and development.
Nothing worth learning can be learned in 10 minutes.
>You seem to confuse the ideas of "You shouldn't have to learn to
>do something basic" with the idea of "you shouldn't learn how to
>do something non-basic." They're not the same concept. I'm all
>for people learning how to configure everything from firewalls
>to load balancing to kernel tuning and on... but it should not
>be necessary to learn more than an extremely small number of
>simple things in order to use your PC.
Well said.
>A computer, on the other hand, can, quite readily, do those
>things, and be an active device. Many programs auto-save
>documents, for example, at some timed interval, and further,
>either prompt or automatically save when you close the program
>or attempt to shut down the machine. This is a good thing, it
>means you're not going to close the application and lose all
>your data simply because you thought you'd saved but you
>actually hadn't.
A computer novice will not know that "Save" really means
"Overwrite my previous work with this version", though. There are
lots of areas that can be improved, but they would be at the
expense of experienced computer users who have no trouble with
"Save".
>So why this notion can't be extended to, say, diagnosing
>networking faults, or coping with hardware conflicts, I don't
>know.
Because they are hard problems to solve, I think. Programmers
have written and continue to write programs to fix problems like
this, but with the current state of PC architecture, there are
literally millions of possible hardware configurations.
Programmers cannot account for all of them, even millions of
programmers.
>Why the user should _have_ to do any thinking beyond
>"Start computer, start program, work on data, quit and save" is
>unclear - as is the advantage to him having to do so. The
>advantage in his being _able_ to do so is apparent, but not the
>advantage in his _having_ to do so.
The solution to that would be closed-box computers like the IMac
or the Commodore 64. I never once installed a device driver for
my Commodore 64.
>Of course not; you use technology to make your life easier - as
>do most people. Why, then, would you spurn the notion that the
>technology can be simplified further? Would you argue against a
>car that can drive itself, never having a collision, because it
>means users don't have to learn how to use it? Why, then, be
>against the simplifiication of the computing process?
Some advancements and conveniences are arrived at through, not
just purchasing technology, but learning to operate it. I've
heard there are many people that, though they own an oven, cannot
cook anything but TV dinners. How much more useful is an oven to
a chef?
>Wrong. The argument is not to _prevent_ people learning things,
>but to not _require_ that they learn what is, for the most part,
>a totally irrelevant body of knowledge. I want to write
>documents in my word processor - of what possible relevance is
>learning about tuning my sound card settings? None. So why
>learn it - unless I want to?
Is there a word processor that requires a functioning sound card?
If so, then maybe there *has* been innovation in word processors
in 20 years. ;-)
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** Your mule won the colony tap-dancing contest. You collect
$150. ***
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:57:54 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 20 Apr 2001 09:29:21 -0500, Greg Copeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > My only criticism of SuSE is SAX/SAX2 which is utter rubbish. I needed
> > several goes to get the resolution and depth I wanted. It never did succeed
> > on my laptop, merely crashing and locking up the whole machine. I'd to hack
> > XF86Config by hand to get it to work. SuSE really need to re-write this
> > abomination, especially as everything else works so well, if a little
> > slower than Mandrake.
> >
> > Peter
>
> Hate to say it, but this is just a bad user choice. It is well known that
> XF86 generally sucks for Laptops because the manufacturers generally do non-
> standard things with their video hardware and often, don't properly support
> it and/or release programming details on it. This is why there are two
> commercial options here (one specifically targets Laptops) to fill the void.
> In short, this is a crappy hardware and idiotic hardware people and not a
> Linux issue. You might argue that it's a X issue, however, XF86 makes a
> best effort to support this crappy hardware the best they can considering
> what they have to work with (often, next to nothing and trial and error).
>
> In short, complaining about bad hardware and the choice of X that you
> wanted to run on it is just low class. In my mind, it's the same thing
> as someone doing you a favor and then you complain about it because you
> made a bad choice in video hardware. Seems somewhat ungrateful to me.
But in this instance [1] I paid money for SuSE, (and SuSE support have
responded to my support query with some parameters for starting SAX2, so
well done to them), and [2] Mandrake 7.2 installed fine on the laptop,
other than its printing problems, down to "cutting edge" with CUPS, as far
as I can make out, and [3] it isn't XFree4.0.x but SAX/2 I was moaning
about anyway, since it couldn't cope whereas Mandrake could.
Oh, and the SuSE "LiveEval" CD worked fine on the laptop, so I'm still in
the dark as to why the distro didn't, and since the "LiveEval" CD is there
to test hardware compatability as much as giving a flavour of the full
product, I think this is something SuSE might find worthy of investigation.
Peter
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
