Linux-Advocacy Digest #37, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product ("JoFi")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product ("JoFi")
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (mlw)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product ("Jan Johanson")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("MH")
Re: IE ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's (pip)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JoFi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:21:32 +0200
"MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:btFG6.532$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
<snip>
> > Remember - linux is free if your time is worth nothing.
>
> This is SO true! I just setup a windows mini home LAN to a broadband
modem -
> ISP using a linksys router. One windows whistler box, one win98 box, one
> winME box, and one RedHat Linux box. Guess which one will not work? That's
> right. The 3 windows boxes were so simple to setup for shared broadband
> access through the router it was amazing. Took all of one hour to connect
> all the pc's, set up sharing and DHCP. The linux box couldn't get past the
> NIC setup. Tried two cards: a Netgear fa311, and a linksys LNE1000TX. Both
> cards provided linux drivers. Neither driver would compile correctly. The
> makefile with the netgear was a complete mess. The linksys card uses the
> tulip.o module. Would it load? Hell no. I don't really care who is at
fault,
> it just doesn't work, period. After spending the better part of an entire
> day looking through the countless failures on the net to get these cards
to
> work I have to shake my head. I'll just purchase a card that has full
linux
> support to get the job done. Time IS the issue here. A $50 NIC card is
> really no issue. A day or two getting something to work which was so
simple
> under windows is.
> World domination. Yeah yeah yeah...
>
>
This is typical of many others experiences. Im sure it wont put off the
Linux zealots' continual effort to persuade everyone how good it is though.
*sigh*
------------------------------
From: "JoFi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 17:22:37 +0200
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 26 Apr 2001 23:55:11 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>
> DirectCD gave you this ability. Windows 2K does not have this capability
> out of the box....you MUST buy additional software and install it as
> administrator. Bet you can't tell us what the DirectCD installer did
> to make your Windows 2K OS insecure?
>
>
Can you? Or are you just here to spout more lies and FUD?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:17:04 GMT
On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 14:00:03 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>
> Aaron> theRadical wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 12:13:25 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> i NEVER have advocated confiscation of weapons dick head.
>
> >> >> >..but that's what you dream about every night, isn't it, fascist prick.
>
> >> >> not at all asshole. however, thanks for admitting that you lied about
> >> >> me wanting to "steal everybody's self-defense tools." you make it
> >> >> very easy to prove you are nothing but a lying sack of shit.
>
> >> >You claimed that anyone who can't "prove" to your satisfaction that they
> >> >need a weapon should have it confiscated.
>
> >> i never said such a thing. you are lying. your conjecture is not
> >> fact. otherwise, post the quote
> >> right here --------->
>
>
> Aaron> No need. Your reputations preceeds you.
>
>Gee, what a surprise, Mr. Kulkis fails to back his words
>(for the record, I have no idea if he was correct here,
>I am just pointing out an example of his consistent failure
>to back up his statements).
for the record, since i believe in various forms of gun control,
kulkis believes i am a fascists who wants to confiscate every gun i
america.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:20:08 GMT
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 16:24:44 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
>> Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >>
>> Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >> >>
>> Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Yes, and advocating shooting people because they are democrats
>> >> >> >> >> does not qualify. Ever.
>> >> >>
>> Aaron> Wrong. I advocate taking a VOTE on whether democrats should be shot,
>> Aaron> according to Democrat ideals (will of the majority = final decision).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> In the past you have advocated shooting people just for being
>> >> >> >> democrats.
>> >> >>
>> Aaron> Wrong, I advocate shooting those who are actively sleek to enslave me,
>> Aaron> you, and the rest of the American populace.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are lying again. For proof, anyone can search google
>> >> >> for posts by you containing the phrase "shoot a democrat"
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are a liar, a particularly stupid liar.
>> >>
>> Aaron> Save America
>> Aaron> Shoot a demoncrook
>> >>
>> >> That would get more hits, but two
>> >> come up:
>> >>
>> >> Save America, Shoot a democrat.
>>
>> Aaron> the Democratic Party is a bunch of Marxists, who, knowing that using
>> Aaron> the name Communists would be bad PR, engage in a campaign of deception
>> Aaron> to get the populace of the country to vote for their own enslavement.
>>
>> Aaron> ANYBODY who seeks to enslave others sacrifices any claim to his own life.
>>
>> Aaron> Hope that helps.
>>
>> At least you admit you were lying when you said you had
>> not advocated shooting people just for being democrats.
>>
>> IF you were a fan of freedom instead of a totalitarian,
>> you would not advocate killing people for their ideas,
>> but rather overt actions that are endangering the lives
>> of others.
>
>Advocating political enslavement IS an overt act.
advocating the shooting of anyone is a gun nut act.
>
>hope that helps.
>
>
>>
>> But you are not a fan of freedom, but rather a cowardly
>> lying forging totalitarian wannabe.
>
>If I'm a coward, then why did I VOLOUNTARILY join the army, and VOLOUNTEER
>to go to war?
if i believed that you did, i would have to give your stupidity as the
reason.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Hall
>> (Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: 29 Apr 2001 10:33:03 -0500
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cgkj7$2r5$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> You can't ignore scheduled downtime.
> >
> > You don't understand what that means.
>
> Yes i do.
>
> >> To use a silly example, if you schedual reboots every hour on your
> >> Windows 9X machine, you will almost never have a crash and hence have
> >> very god uptime figures.
> >
> > that IS a VERY silly example and you know it.
>
> Precisely, but it illustrates the point exactly. Win9X is appaulingly
> unstable, but with the right amount of scheduled downtime, you can get a
> very high cumultaive uptime. This illustrates perfectly why extrapolating
> cumulative uptime to continuous uptime is meaningless at best.
>
>
> > look - it's really simple - if I have a machine that has been running at
> > 100 CPU use for 8 months non-stop and is perfectly stable but one day
> > one
> > of the CPU fans fails and my monitoring software picks it up. The system
> > hasn't crashed but it's obvious that if the CPU is left to heat up it
> > will eventually fail. So, I down the system to replace the fan. That
> > cannot be counted against the OS - the OS had nothing to do with it nor
> > could it have done anything about it (other than, perhaps, taking that
> > CPU out of use). Now, if you want to evaluate hardware uptimes, yes,
> > obviously hardware FAILURES and preventive maintenance are counted - but
> > not user-chosen upgrades. A piece of hardware that has been running 100%
> > flawlessly for 4 years and you decide to add a bigger hard drive - you
> > have to down the machine to do this - it's not the machines fault and
> > you don't hold this against it.
>
>
> yes, correct, it's not the OS's fault that the hardware failed, but it is
> also not tothe OS benefit. If your machine runs for 8 months and the fan
> fails and the runs for another 8 months after that, it is in no way
> correct to say that the machine will stay up for 16 months. There is no
> way of extrapolting the data correctly. To see why, look at the extreme
> example I've given.
>
> One problem with getting OS _continuous_ uptimes is that you have to
> ignore every case where there is a hardware failure. You can't simply
> stop, fix reboot and carry on because it gives meaningless figures.
>
I have to disagree. How is it possible that a hardware failure unrelated to
any software should affect the reported reliability of the OS? Besides,
exactly how long is it that we have to run something before we are finally
allowed to calculate and report it's uptime? I mean, a machine running 30
days without reboot has a uptime of 100% for those 30 days. Do we pick an
arbitrary length of time - say, 1 year. OK, so I have a server that has been
up for 1 year without any reboot of any kind. So, I can report 100% uptime -
but, on the 13th month a CPU fan fails and I have to replace it requiring a
reboot - what is the uptime for the OS (not the entire system, just the OS)?
Look - W2K has been out, officially, since Feb 17th 2000. If I have a
machine that has been running continuously since Feb 17th without reboot and
it's been a year and a half - is that enough time to claim 100% uptime? If
so, I have a file/print sharing system I'd like to show you. It wasn't
updated to SP1 because quite simply it didn't need it and the client doesn't
like to pay for our visits. It sits in it's little spot in a half-rack we
setup for them with a UPS and just runs and runs and runs. I figure 1.5
years without any reboot of any kind is 100% uptime. Agreed?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: 29 Apr 2001 10:33:08 -0500
"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3ae8f9cb$0$21690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:43:04 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> In article <GK4F6.9497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
Funkenbusch"
> > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > And how is that any different from opening up Linux to allow
normal
> > > >> > users to do priviledged activities?
> > > >>
> > > >> The only priviledged activity that normal users will be allowed to
do
> > is
> > > >> write to the CD. Normal users would still not have the ability to
> > load
> > > >> and unload drivers. If you have to give out this kind of authority
> on
> > > >> W2K to allow normal users to write CDs, why not just give everyone
> the
> > > >> password of administrator and be done with it?
> > > >
> > > >"Loading" drivers means starting and stopping them, not installing
> them.
> > > >The users can only start and stop the drivers that the administrator
> has
> > > >installed, and the admin can deny them access to specific drivers by
> > > >disallowing them access in the ACL.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But this doesn't work witht the CD/RW inability to allow
> > non-administrators
> > > write access to CD/RW devices on W2K. You shouldn't suggest things
that
> > > don't work.
> >
> > Explain then how I, a "power user", am able to use DirectCD right now on
> my
> > W2K Pro machine?
>
> You begin by calling adaptec (or whoever owns the bug ridden thing this
> week) and saying "Your piece of shit product has yet another bug, here
> goes................., so could you bring your product into the realm of
> what every other burner program can do for users under Windows 2000?
Wait - you got something confused. I am saying that DirectCD *WORKS* fine.
:)
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: 29 Apr 2001 10:35:01 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cb714$2ce$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3ae8f9cb$0$21690$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On Tue, 24 Apr 2001 04:43:04 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > >"Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> In article <GK4F6.9497$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
Funkenbusch"
> > > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > And how is that any different from opening up Linux to allow
normal
> > > >> > users to do priviledged activities?
> > > >>
> > > >> The only priviledged activity that normal users will be allowed to
do
> > is
> > > >> write to the CD. Normal users would still not have the ability to
> > load
> > > >> and unload drivers. If you have to give out this kind of authority
> on
> > > >> W2K to allow normal users to write CDs, why not just give everyone
> the
> > > >> password of administrator and be done with it?
> > > >
> > > >"Loading" drivers means starting and stopping them, not installing
> them.
> > > >The users can only start and stop the drivers that the administrator
> has
> > > >installed, and the admin can deny them access to specific drivers by
> > > >disallowing them access in the ACL.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But this doesn't work witht the CD/RW inability to allow
> > non-administrators
> > > write access to CD/RW devices on W2K. You shouldn't suggest things
that
> > > don't work.
> >
> > Explain then how I, a "power user", am able to use DirectCD right now on
> my
> > W2K Pro machine?
>
> Because a power user has higher privileges?
>
Yes, but a power user is not an administrator and cannot affect system
files. I didn't say regular user because I don't run as one but I'll try
that out today and see what happens. However, this specifically addresses
the claim that "non-administrators" cannot access CDRW devices on W2K -
that's simply untrue.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 11:40:58 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ranting snipped]
I don't know what your problem is, but I I was looking to buy a laptop. I
didn't want to spend a lot on one because, by and large, they are the "bic
razor" of computing. The company I am at, offered me a Compaq Presario 1690.
They were getting rid of it because it was too slow. I installed RedHat Linux
7.1, went without a hitch (sans modem, of course) even the PCMCIA netcard
worked as designed.
Not only do I now have a perfectly usable laptop, for which I did not have to
pay, it also runs all the nifty Linux stuff that people CAN'T run on Windows
9x/ME.
Granted, it is slower than my dual PIII desktop, but it is a portable.
I don't know what you are complaining about, Linux is awesome for the desktop,
and laptop.
As with all things, just check the hardware compatibility list.
--
I'm not offering myself as an example; every life evolves by its own laws.
========================
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is an excellent product
Date: 29 Apr 2001 10:37:14 -0500
"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 26 Apr 2001 23:55:11 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 08:02:44 +0200, JoFi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> ><snip>
> >> >> > > Hint: I already tried it and I *can* burn CD's as a "user" with
> >> >default
> >> >> > > user settings. I didn't do anything except install the CDRWin
> >> >software,
> >> >> > > create a new user, log in as that user and burn a CD.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Then your setup is insecure. Do you have Win2K installed on a
FAT32
> >> >> > partition, by chance?
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's an idea...shut the fuck up quit trying to grasp at straws.
It's
> >an
> >> >> NTSF file system, your just plain_fucking_wrong about the Win2K
burning
> >> >> issue / FUD! End of discussion.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Exactly. Just another anti-MS zealot spouting as many lies as they can
in
> >> >the hope that someone will think its true without actually verifying.
> >> >
> >> >BTW I can burn on W2k as a normal user. *shock* ;-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Please enlighten us on what you did to allow normal users to burn CDs
> >> on W2K. You probably went out a bought a $50.00+ program for this
> >> purpose. You could've used that money to buy an entire OS plus
> >> gads of applications, plus apps that will allow normal users to
> >> burn CDs SECURELY.
> >
> >How I brn CDs under W2K:
> >
> >Installed DirectCD as administrator.
> >Logged in as my usual self, a "power user"
> >Dragged and dropped files onto CD-RW
> >Was utterly not amazed that it worked.
> >
> >what's the big deal?
> >
>
> DirectCD gave you this ability. Windows 2K does not have this capability
> out of the box....you MUST buy additional software and install it as
> administrator.
Well, that is correct. W2K does not have the utility to burn CDs out of the
box. i.e., the OS doesn't prevent it but simply does not have the software
included in it to burn CDs. Does the linux kernel itself include a utility
that will mount and burn to CDs? Or is that something you have to add in.
Also, there are free CD burning applications for Windows.
Bet you can't tell us what the DirectCD installer did
> to make your Windows 2K OS insecure?
That assumes that by installing DirectCD I've in some way made W2K insecure.
I do not agree with that assumption hence there is no bet.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: 29 Apr 2001 10:38:14 -0500
"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > Hmm, a default Windows install is pretty functional for me.
> >
> > What specifically are you talking about?
>
> Lack of a decent command-line interface and a standard API like unix
> has.
A decent command line interface? Um... what is it you can't do from the
command line (that you couldn't do easier/faster from the GUI)???
No standard API? You really MUST be joking.
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 15:38:09 GMT
"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3ae8f66f$0$21754$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:CPaF6.1106$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:3ae45db3$0$2765$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > #3) if it reduces piracy so that prices for software fall - I'm all
for
> > it -
> > > I want cheap software too.
> >
> > That's a foolish pipe-dream. It will be hacked and disabled almost
> > immediately. You forget the lengths people will go through to get
> something
> > for nothing. Disk-based copy protection failed. Dongles failed. XP's
> > protection scheme, too, will fail.
>
> MS has acknowledged that they expect it to be beaten within a month of the
> RTM version going to the CD factory. It's not intended to defeat dedicated
> crackers - anyone that thinks they can beat everyone else is foolish. But
it
> will prevent casual copying (like those copies of office that get spread
> from the office to the house to every friend you know!)
>
> >
> > The only thing MS is accomplishing is pissing off a healthy percentage
of
> > its' user base and, quite probably, introducing more bugs into the OS.
>
> gee - pissing off people cause they can't steal something? Were people
> sympathetic to criminals when they started putting locks on doors and
alarms
> in cars?
>
> I can never understand this - people are actually pissed that Microsoft is
> doing something to prevent casual bootlegging of their software. The same
> software that these people who bitch the loudest that they swear they will
> never use! I mean, why is it that we hear the most noise from linux
> advocates about this anti-piracy effort - why would they care? Supposedly
> they never use MS software. Ohhh, perhaps it's the fact that they don't
pay
> for Linux and they expect to pirate a copy of Windows to get what they
> really want for free to? Maybe they will be embaressed when they have to
> actually buy a copy... weird...
Another possibility is that most of those bitching about this move by MS do
indeed use MS software but don't pay for it. Makes sense. Most of us have to
use windows at work and or at home. If you're of the Linux brethren, you're
used to not paying for software. (if you don't count a $5 cheapbytes CD).
They get all caught up in this free software panacea and figure it should
apply to all software, commercial included. Hating Bill Gates only adds to
their twisted justifications.
In other words, they're the type of software pirate that this move is
designed to thwart.
Except Linux users would be savvy enough to break the protection scheme post
haste.
Why they're bitching about windows users getting pissed off is beyond my
logic unless they're windows users themselves.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:15:00 +0200
"Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:zSVG6.4950$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9ch5uu$gm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2001/March/browser.html
> >
> > NS 4 (the trouble maker) is only 9%, IE (4 &5) are at 86%.
>
> Unfortunately, for me the NS4 percentage is rather higher. A lot of me
> regular visitors are not on the best terms with MS... ;)
Ouch.
NS6 is even worse, because it is not backward compatible with NS4.
But there are plenty of non-MS browsers around, and 90% of them are better
than NS4.
> > When writing reasonably complex pages, you can almost always divivde the
> > workload to:
> > Building it: 50%
> > Testing & fixing it in IE: 5% (It usually just works, but I will give a
> > reasonable figure)
> > Testing & fixing it in NS4: 45%
>
> Exactly! That is what annoys me...
>
> > BTW, there are still people who are using V1.0 browsers (more IE than
NS,
> > though), so I wouldn't scorn V3 browsers.
> > NS3 was a masterpiece.
>
> Yes, there are. But that really is their choice, and they have to live
with
> whatever their browser shows.
>
> NS4 was a step backwards from 3!
I recall, there was a period of 3 months after I tried NS4 that I returned
to NS3, only to slowly switch to IE4 some time later.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:23:47 +0200
"JoFi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9chapm$76e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On 26 Apr 2001 23:57:08 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> <snip>
> > >
> >
> > Remember Windows costs money, you'll have to buy additional software to
> > make Windows even functional, and you'll have to spend even more money
> > in the form of time after that, unless your time is worth nothing.
> >
> >
>
>
> The reason I use Windows is because of its functionality out of the box.
The
> more Microsoft add to this the better.
>
> For Linux I would have to read manuals, configure text files etc etc for
> software which has very poor functionality and usability.
>
> You call this functional?
A good point.
I threw away some very good program because they weren't user friendly.
WinCVS, real player, WMP (not bad UI, but bad responsiveness), WinDVD, true
space http://www.iarchitect.com/truesp.htm, and NS 6 (well, the UI had a
*little* part in it, it didn't give me anything and took all the memory that
I could afford) come to mind.
Also, a lot of compression packages that are absolutely a nightmare to work
with.
Normally, unless I *really* need this application, I wouldn't use it unless
I don't need to go to the help to do the common tasks.
(For example, for a word processor, that would be going to the help to find
out how to copy & paste.)
I rarely uses Linux GUI, usually through a remote console, so I can't
commend on that, but I just had a very bad experiance trying to find out how
to format a file system on linux.
First I tried man format, which brought me a string formatting command. Then
I tried man -K format, man -K "format filesystem", etc.
I spend half an hour with it, finally having to reboot to *DOS* to do so.
Yuck.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 16:44:34 +0100
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
I wish there was Cubase under Linux. I love it - it's great.
> >> > Nor do you have any of the plugins availible for those applications,
> >> > which can be shared amongst the various applications via Direct-X.
> >> Sorry mate, Linux doesnt use DirectX.
> >
> > Which is one of the reasons that porting games is a pain.
>
> OpenGL, OpenAL, and SDL are mighty fine gaming API's.
Quite so, I don't disagree. But they are only useful if people use them.
The point is that obviously the best games are released using DirectX
more and more. With this XBox thing the situation will, worsen.
> >> Now I know our resident Wintroll prefers 'install shield' as it shields
> >> him from his own ignorance, and prevents said ignorance, from keeping
> >> him up at night, in a world that mystifies and terryfies him :)
> >
> > You mean like RPM does. Hmmmmmm.
> Please elaborate on that comment please.
When you do a rpm -i xxx.rpm I don't know where things go unless I do
more digging. Therefore you could say that the two are quite similar
except that most install-shield installs let you choose the base
directory and do some install customisations. I don't know if .deb is
better (I must plead ignorance - but I hear good things about it), but
IMHO RPM leaves a lot to be desired in some aspects. I like some
features such as the idea of querying a file to find our what package it
belongs to and Uninstall DOES actually uninstall it, but it needs
improving. In either case I find install-shield a far easier and better
way to install things than say the GnoRPM installer. We _need_ a better
install system. I don't really care that much from my point of view
because a prefer doing the old nerd-type src.tar.gz config/make route,
but for most other people this area REALLY needs improvement. That is
not to say that RPM is not configurable and powerful - just that it
should be geared towards people who need to know nothing about RPM other
than to click on an icon. Actually, scrub that. I'd like a point and
click customisable install method as well. If fact I would like a method
that would do a src configure/compile/install automatically in one go -
just as easily as rpm -i. That would actually be what I'd quite like.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
