Linux-Advocacy Digest #46, Volume #34 Sun, 29 Apr 01 23:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (JS PL)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matt Kennel)
Re: e: Feminism ==> subjugation of males (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ? (hac)
Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy. (Brent R)
Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company (Terry Porter)
Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's (Terry Porter)
A7V-133 and Linux (Michael Mamone)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (Terry Porter)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (Terry Porter)
Re: The upgrade (Terry Porter)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Michael Vester)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:48:43 GMT
Said William Shakespeare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Johan Kullstam in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 28 Apr 2001
>>
> microsoft
>> >plays the proprietary data format game better than anybody else.
>>
>> Microsoft is the only one that plays games, as far as we know.
>
>Not really. Harvard Graphics got busted a few years back for the very
>same thing. They were forced to reveal their file formats so other
>presentation programs could make filters for them. And what about
>Real Player, Quicktime and all the rest?
You didn't bother reading to the end of the paragraph, I'm afraid.
Please, even if you are going to comment on a single sentence or phrase,
read to the end of the paragraph before doing so; good rule of thumb for
Usenet posters. As I said, if you put them in front of a judge and
prove attempted monopolization, I will literally go along with you on
this, and I wouldn't at all mind seeing anyone who doesn't publish their
formate fully or even better use a standardized format taken to court.
But I'm pragmatic. It's not going to happen. And so I refuse to say
that all use of proprietary formats is "playing games", rather than
simply competing. There is value in proprietization, when it isn't used
for profiteering.
>These examples are not really "file formats" but they are much the
>same: Netscape pulled the same proprietary web crap game. And have
>you ever noticed that AOL hyperlinks are kinda, like, "different" from
>everybody else's?
No, because I've never used AOL. Well, there was the first supposed
freebee in 1993 that ended up costing about $40 bucks (which I simply
never paid, informing my credit card company that I hadn't authorized
the charges and letting them deal with it.)
>That is cuz AOL is banking on some day controlling
>say, 70% of the surfers.
Or perhaps it is to attempt to differentiate their product? Maybe even
provide a slight technical advantage? There is no value in religious
adherence to standards unless your goal is to make the cheapest products
available. Then, of course, its a value add, and that's how you know a
hardware market has "matured".
Perhaps the Chicago School fools who believe anti-trust is pointless
could comprehend the problems they're having understanding Microsoft if
they realized that software markets don't show any sign of ever
"maturing" in this sense, because if it's commodity-level, it's zero
cost, to an extent that is NEVER possible with ANY physical product, or
for that matter even a 'real' service.
>Then lots of developers will start just
>coding "AOL links". And what about those of us who don't use AOL? [...]
Judging by the hassles Mr. Pyle has been telling me in another thread,
the industry can't seem to shake NS4, even though its only maybe 10% of
the browsers. I don't think any developers use AOL links except AOL
developers. The rest of the web still uses standard HTML. If AOL
want's to be different, fine; the Internet isn't about doing everything
one way. Accept for the Internet itself. I haven't noticed AOL causing
any problems with my connectivity, and have not been debilitated at all
by not using AOL.
>> Think about it. Sooner or later, that's what's going to happen. I
>> think we've presented good reason for expecting that as long as
>> Microsoft has a monopoly, though, Intel's choice is not their decision,
>> precisely, and so its likely that the least efficient approach will be
>> selected, almost automatically.
>>
>Intel and MS have been in bed for a long time. Intel is another
>disgusting monopoly and most folks do not realize the degree to which
>they break the law. They really only innovate when given some
>competition, like any monopoly. And Intel and MS have been getting
>together with ZDNet and the other press-scums to rig "benchmarks" for
>many years now. :((((((((((((((((((((((((
I sincerely wish I could disagree with you, but I can't. That's doesn't
make every proprietary technology nothing but an attempt to monopolize.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:48:47 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 08:00:47
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I couldn't agree more. It is only the cognitive dislexia of the
>>conservative position which makes me seem to prefer the Democrats. I'd
>>prefer a party half-way between the current liberals and the putative
>>libertarians, if the libertarians could only see their way to
>>jettisoning their anti-government rhetoric.
>>
> I insist that they stop believing that corporations are the highest
> form of life ever envisioned.
That's my point. I am far more rational an advocate of individual rights
and liberty, the true libertarian ideals, than any of the
anti-government kind of libertarians that we see today. They seem
perplexed by the world's inability to distinguish them from Republicans,
and this is why. No libertarian would EVER defend the "rights" of a
corporation to do something. The thinking that it is necessary to do so
in order to protect property rights is simply baseless assumption on
their part.
Corporations are far more hostile to libertarian ideals when they are
given the metaphorical 'humanity' provided in our modern society.
Limited liability corporations are investment pools, not entities with
rights.
> As for Democrats and Republicans I dislike them both. Neither one
> seems to believe in Constitutional government. They both serve
> corporate interests above the public ones, they just don't make
> worshipful noises like the Libertarians.
I prefer to say I agree with every political party, rather than that I
disagree with every political party.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: JS PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:53:14 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> JS PL will never get the picture; it's a matter of his pride and dignity
> at this point. He's the kind of guy who is compelled to yell "jealousy"
> whenever anyone even mentions that Bill Gates [was] the richest man in
> the world, and all of his wealth came from criminal activity.
Sounds like typical envy to me. When you eventually abandon and denounce
your socialist tendencies you'll see that a $40.00 OS which most users
choose isn't all that bad. When you decide to ever use something other
than Window 9x to complain about Microsoft you shall be truly free. Look
at me, I'm using another OS to DEFEND MS and freedom of choice!
Here's about 8140 links to get you started on your bonanza of choice in
this free world.
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 00:57:57 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:actually the company which created said os is under attack by the
:federal government. oddly enough many self proclaimed libertarians and
:conservatives have no problem with this.
Adam Smith didn't have much problem with this notion either.
:apparently high tech lynchings
:are ok provided you're careful to string up the right nigger.
:if you're a leftist such lynchings are, needless to say, entirely
:consistent with your barbaric philosophy.
: jackie 'anakin' tokeman
:
:men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
:more even than death
:- bertrand russell
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: e: Feminism ==> subjugation of males
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:13:04 -0500
"Goddess" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<>Yes, there is that. :-) I rather liked that, at the time. I was very
<>young.
<>
<>To have more fun
<>> with numbers I became a CPA-thats where numbers add up to anything you
<>want them
<>> to.
<>
<>LOL. And probably why I didn't stick with math.
<>
<>Marg
The only profession I know that makes more creative use of numbers than CPAs is
politics!
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
From: hac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Could Linux be used in this factory environment ?
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:21:00 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> "Jonadab the Unsightly One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > That's silly. All you need is to queue the upgrade to
> > > > any given page until nobody's looking at it.
> > >
> > > And you magically know when nobody is looking at it, how?
> >
> > The OS should know that.
>
> It should? I didn't realize they had optical sensors that allowed the
> terminals to notice when someone was looking at the terminal or not.
>
Even an idiot should realize that no one is looking at a page that
isn't displayed. Ergo, pages not displayed may be updated. Which is
what he clearly intended to convey, before you went out of your way to
be obtuse and argumentative. Unless, of course, you really are that
stupid. You seem bent on convincing everyone that you are.
--
Howard Christeller Irvine, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unwelcome changes in Linux advocacy.
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 01:30:58 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> Brent R wrote:
>
> > I've said it many times... the best thing that could happen to MS (and
> > it's customers) is for Bill Gates to go. He's been steering that company
> > in idiotic directions since Windows 95 and is just plain wrong about
> > much of the marketplace. For example: in 1999 and 2k he was constantly
> > saying that the PC was going to take a secondary role to PC's... but now
> > it's clear that that was just more hype than anything else.
>
> How can the PC take a secondary role to itself?
>
> --
> Pete
I'm sorry, I'm meant that the PC was going to take a secondary role to
internet appliances.
--
- Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Pete Goodwin is in good company
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 Apr 2001 01:43:09 GMT
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 19:52:01 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
<snip>
>> However as youve made an excellent point ... ie I dont actually have any
>> of your past posts to use as evidence, I guess i'll just have to start
>> collecting them. Satisfied ?
>
> Go ahead.
>
> Of course, KNode has a handy feature. It keeps a record of every post I
> make. So I can independantly verify anything you might claim I posted.
As a matter of interest so does SLRN, as it did when I started posting here in
1997.
I have all my posts, but not all yours!
>
> --
> Pete
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Does Linux support "Burn-Proof" CDRW's
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 Apr 2001 01:49:18 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 12:14:02 +0100,
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:49:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > But yet you have no application like:
>> >
>> > CD Architect
>> > SoundForge.
>> > Vegas audio/video
>> > Cubase
>> > Samplitude
>> > Acid
>> > Cakewalk
>> > Sonar.
>> > Logic Audio
>> Someof us do other things than play with audio, Flatfish.
>
> There is nothing like Cakewalk or Cubase to allow me to do my midi stuff
> (well nothing any good) under Linux.
I dont do any audio, apart from play music, so this area is well out of my
experience.
>
>
>
>> > 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.
Porting anything Windows to Linux or vice versa would be a pain.
>
>
>> The really coolpart is that you get to see whats happening,and whats
>> being installed, and where. You even get to chose where things go.
>
>
>> 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.
Actually I've never felt comfortable with RPM, tho I've used it a fair bit.
I prefer to compile, because compiling is just so easy these days.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Michael Mamone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A7V-133 and Linux
Date: 30 Apr 2001 11:53:35 +1100
Hello.
I've recently upgraded my system, and my new mobo is an A7V-133 RAID. I
attached a disk to the Promise ATA-100 card, and whenever I try to make use
of any data on that disk (namely play mp3's off it), it will result in a hard
lock. Moving the disk to the VIA southbridge eliminate that problem.
I know that there have been problems with IDE controllers and this board, and
the fact that I've got a SB-Live sound card isn't helping.
Therefore, does anyone know of a fix, or am I doomed to put all my disks on
the VIA southbridge, leaving the Promise card as wasted silicon?
BTW: I'm using kernel 2.4.4
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 Apr 2001 02:00:22 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:05:23 GMT, MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> MH wrote:
<snip>
>> Correction: MH couldn't get past the NIC setup. Also, it's probably
>> just because you're so used to setting up Windows boxes, and know
>> absolutely nothing about Linux, except how to bitch about how its "ease
>> of use" sucks compared to Windows. Maybe you should just try another
>> Linux distro instead of just generalizing the entirety of Linux based on
>> your ineptness or failings with one particular distro.
>
> Typical LinZealot response. Your ilk is so predictable. You are also an
> idiot.
Pot Kettle ...Black.
> The box is RedHat 6.2. The drivers for the card were 'certified' to run
> under this very distro.
One windows whistler box, one win98 box, one
winME box, and one RedHat Linux box, was your description of the OS's, in your
previous post.
You neglected at the time to say it was Redhat6.2!
You're using Whistler, a very late Windows OS, and a ancient version of RedHat,
ver 6.2 in fact, when Redhat is at version 7 currently. Whats the matter,
couldn't you affort the $10 for the latest version of Redhat ?
Typical UberWintroll, arranging the 'setup' so your OS looks good, then
plastering your nonsense all over usenet.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 Apr 2001 02:08:49 GMT
On 29 Apr 2001 10:43:08 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
>> Correction: MH couldn't get past the NIC setup. Also, it's probably
>> just because you're so used to setting up Windows boxes, and know
>> absolutely nothing about Linux, except how to bitch about how its "ease
>> of use" sucks compared to Windows. Maybe you should just try another
>> Linux distro instead of just generalizing the entirety of Linux based on
>> your ineptness or failings with one particular distro.
>
> Oh - I see how this double standard works.
>
> If we can't figure out the arcane crap and hoops that Linux makes us jump
> through then it's our fault.
Its called education, Wintroll.
>
> When a linvocate can't get even a default install of W2K working right, it's
> Windows fault?
Hey I thought Win2k was 'easy' ?
>
> Face it, and this is undeniable, linux is much much more difficult to setup
> and use.
Than what ?
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The upgrade
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 Apr 2001 02:13:30 GMT
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:36:16 GMT,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I upgraded my 400MHz Pentium PII to a VIA system with an AMD Duron 850MHz.
>
> Windows 98 SE reinstalled everything and had to reboot a few times to
> complete the change over. It also sometimes crashes on shutdown.
>
> Linux SuSE 7.1 just... worked. Hey!
>
> --
> Pete
>
I had the same thing happen when I upgraded my mobo around 1998
Win98 went into 'safe' mode, and RedHat4.2 worked as usual.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
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: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 22:39:53 -0400
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> So any random arrangement of code will support any API you imagine?
>>>>>> Somehow, this doesn't seem like its going to work. Somehow, I think the
>>>>>> implementation details are related to the API, if it is written first,
>>>>>> and the API reflects some of the implementation details, if it is
>>>>>> documented last. In other words, an API is a sketch of the facade, not
>>>>>> an architectural diagram, however complex that facade may be, and
>>>>>> however it may limited where the beams can or must go.
>>>> T. Max, implementation has rarely anything to do with the API.
>>> Obviously, this statement would require some rather tortuously
>>> restricted sense of "having to do with".
>> Not at all. You're just too ignorant to know reality.
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. (See below.)
>>>> Consider this code:
>>> [...]
>>>> How do I implement this system is irrelevent.
>>> Then how is it that you have written code to implement it?
>> He hasn't. He's written the API for it. It's definitely not
>> implemented.
> Well, it looked like code to me, and he said "consider this code:".
> What does that say to you?
It says that he wrote the specification. Perhaps the little bit of
batch file putzing that you've done hasn't introduce you into the
concept of a specification separate from the implementation. This is
quite common in C++ and in various other languages (Ada, PL/SQL, etc.).
Yes, you write some code; no, it isn't functional without a body (the
implementation). It's an API to the functions within that package. I
commonly write the specification, distribute that, and then fill in the
implementation later. (Oooops ... you just got bit by your ignorance!)
By separating the specification from the body, you enforce code hiding
to a greater degree than if you didn't separate them (one of my few
beefs with Java is that you can't do this). You also much more strictly
enforce the nature of a specification.
>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>> not working as expected. Right?
>> Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>> working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>> fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>> the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>> discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>> performance requirements than anything else.)
> In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
> about a function than the API documentation itself can provide. This is
> not a fact which magically goes away because you wish really hard.
This is false, and I say this as an experienced professional software
developer. If I am told that a particular function will perform a
particular operation on a piece of data in a deterministic way, then I
will do a black-box test to make sure that it does (and if it doesn't,
then I start looking to make sure that I've passed the values
correctly; if I have, then I start considering it a bug in the
library). Once the black-box test is done, then I use the function --
without caring how it does things internally. This is common. I do NOT
care about the internals of an API; I care that it does what it
advertises and what data I need to provide so that it does.
>>>> I hope this example will help you understand how meaningless the
>>>> API is when you try to understand the implementation.
>>> I am well aware that in theory you pretend the two are unrelated.
>> They are unrelated in theory and in practice. If they were not, then
>> you could not have multiple independent implementations of the same
>> basic API. Ooops...
> Think, man, think! Why one earth would you need multiple independent
> implementations if this were true? Ooops...
Think, ignoramus, think! You might need multiple independent
implementations because
... you're on a different hardware architecture?
... someone decided to write a library that implemented the API
faster than someone else (by using other routines that may
bypass 'safe' routines)?
... your customer said that they wanted that particular
implementation?
... you're on a different software architecture?
JDBC is an API for accessing databases through Java. Yet each database
vendor (and some non-DB vendors) has written their own implementation
of the JDBC translation layer for their database. The API remains
constant and is a guaranteed way of communicating with any database
that provides a library to do so.
> Just because you CAN write the library code in a number of ways to
> support the API doesn't mean it "doesn't matter" how you write the
> library.
To the consumer of the library, it certainly DOES NOT matter.
> An API which has been implemented in many ways is easier for
> an app producer to write to, because the API has been 'proven' to be
> sufficiently well supported by multiple implementations.
Irrelevant in reality and ignorant as usual.
> Still, in the real world, nobody writes a program which requires a
> library which doesn't yet exist. The idea is ludicrous.
Not at all, bozo. I can write something to support a particular piece
of hardware -- even if that hardware doesn't exist yet; look at the
press surrounding the Xbox development kit. The library is an emulation
library; it's not the real thing at all. The library API is the same as
the real thing, but the library is simply a translation layer.
-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: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2001 13:05:51 -0700
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
> Trolling Trolling Trolling, keep them doggies rolling, rawhide!
I enjoy the "trolling" by the cute and lovable Flatfish. Our resident PC
disk jockey. She does have a point about Linux not supporting obscure
audio components. Personally, I prefer a quiet computer. My main Suse box
is without a sound card now. I needed the slot. Still get my beeps in vi
through the internal speaker. A speaker with a user installed
potentiometer.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
