Linux-Advocacy Digest #128, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Intel versus Sparc (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:56 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 20:35:30
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > That's the confusing part for me. OEM price of only $40 for Win98? And
>> > I had to pay $80 at Costco for the upgrade? Something doesn't jive up
>> > here.
>>
>> What doesn't "jive up" is that you don't understand OEM licensing.
>>
>> For instance, when Matrox sells an OEM Video card, it doesn't contain the
>> extra software (which is crap anyways, but is used for marketing purposes),
>> or come in a pretty box. This saves them money, so they can sell the OEM
>> version much cheaper than a retail version.
>>
>> Windows OEM licenses require the OEM to provide support to the end users,
>> thus saving MS money on support calls, and they also make them
>> non-transferable licenses (to other machines, they can be transfered to
>> other owners so long as the machine goes with the license). It also doesn't
>> come in a pretty box, but rather shrink wrapped. The OEM builds the price
>> of their support into the hardware.
>>
>> Retail copies of Windows are transferable to another computer, come with
>> pretty packaging, have middlemen and distributors that must make profits,
>> and MS provides all the support, thus it costs you more money.
>
>Thank you. You've cleared that up for me. Makes sense now. Never had
>to deal with OEM licenses other than once calling up IBM about an O/S
>problem, which they gave me two downloads to perform that solved the
>problem.
Oh, c'mon GreyCloud. I thought you were brighter than that. Erik is
just spewing bullshit, apologizing for the monopoly, and pretending MS
somehow needs to act anti-competitively in order to remain profitable
(which is does, of course, but not in the way that Erik pretends).
Making it more expensive for a customer to try to save money because it
decreases monopoly revenues is NOT a cost-benefit analysis; it's
criminal conspiracy and extortion. OEM cliff's-edge ppl agreements
("buy EULA licenses to resell equal to 120% of last years production, or
the price doubles") have nothing to do with savings on support or
packaging.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:57 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > Even with a "monopoly" on DOS, there were alternatives to Windows:
>> > there was GEM, as I discussed in an earlier post. It was very like
>> > Windows in the early days. It was even distributed the same way,
>> > bundled with the app that used it.
>>
>> That is, until Mafia$oft old OEM's that they *MUST* bundle windows
>> with DOS, and so, even if the user didn't want LoseDOS, they had to
>> pay extra for GEM.
>
>Well, no. Windows 1 and 2 were bundled with Excel and
>(I think) Word for the PC, but Windows 3 was sold
>retail, then sold to OEMs.
It was forced on OEMs, who had to buy it in order to get DOS, which was
already a secure illegal monopoly. Word for Windows 1.0 was released
simultaneously with Windows 3.0; Win1 and 2 were bundled with Excel, and
PageMaker, and a few niche products.
>Then it was combined (or bundled, if you like) with
>DOS, renamed "Windows 95", and becomes more
>comparable to OS/2 than GEM.
No, it was bundled as Win3.1; Win95 was "bolted", in the terminology of
the federal court, and was not comparable to either GEM or OS/2.
>MS didn't go for the integration thing until Windows 3
>was firmly on top. They minized the risk that way.
There is no risk in monopolizing, other than the risk of getting caught.
To minimize that risk, MS engineered a worthless consent decree to both
avoid prosecution and to allow Win95. Since MS lied, knowingly, in
claiming that Win95 ('Chicago' at the time) was a new OS, not merely a
combination of DOS and Windows, this caused such consternation that the
Circuit Appeals Court is still trying to sort out the mess.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:58 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Even with a "monopoly" on DOS, there were alternatives to Windows:
>> >there was GEM, as I discussed in an earlier post. It was very like
>> >Windows in the early days. It was even distributed the same way,
>> >bundled with the app that used it.
>>
>> It is rampant but otherwise empty supposition that the existence of
>> alternatives indicates some "weakness" in the monopoly. In fact, the
>> failure of GEM to be anything but a forgotten alternative proves my
>> point.
>
>I don't see what point you think it proves. GEM was
>a real competitor during the days of Windows 1
>and Windows 2.
Microsoft doesn't have competitors, only victims and those who are not
yet victims. At the time you suggest GEM was a 'real competitor', it
classified as the latter. Now it is the former.
>Thought one has to admit that GEM was not as good
>a product in some ways, it was smaller and faster-
>that could have meant something, but it really wasn't
>small and fast enough.
Still deluded into thinking Windows found success based on competitive
merits. That's a rather naive position, given the consent decrees,
federal convictions, on-going predatory tactics, and notable lack of
competitive merit (or at least the obvious lack of competition, if you
are too inexperienced to be able to understand how Windows lacks
competitive merit.)
>Once Windows began its mutation into a full blown
>OS, GEM, well, didn't. It was rapidly left behind.
Windows didn't have such a mutation; merely a new marketing program.
The code was and is still the same, so much so that MS can't even dream
of producing a consumer-level OS that is not compatible with the DOS
monopoly all this predation is built on.
>[snip]
>> >Well, I wouldn't say that. MS has some very strong
>> >products- Windows 95 is going to give OS/2 2.0
>> >a run for its money in any scenario.
>>
>> Define "strong product" without relation to market, share, popularity,
>> support, or other self-serving pseudo-metrics.
>
>Windows 95 provides developers writing to it the
>tools they need to give users the products those users
>want.
Sounds like a faith-based conviction to me; unfalsifiable and
'self-evident' only to the faithful.
[...remainder snipped, as it's obvious at this point that Daniel is a
sock puppet or a troll...]
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:01:59 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
>> >> That couldn't be, no, because DOS didn't "succeed" it "monopolized".
>> >
>> >That's how Microsoft spells "success"! :D
>>
>> Why the smiley? Are you one of those happy but retarded folk who can't
>> tell when you're being taken advantage of?
>
>We like to be called "optimists"! :D
>
You're a sock puppet, admit it.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:01 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 22:40:26
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 25 Apr 2001
>> >Actually, IBM offered three OSes originally: MS-DOS, CP/M,
>> >and one other- I think it was Xenix or something like that.
>
>Actually, IBM sold IBM-DOS (basically the same as MS-DOS), CP/M-86, and
>the UCSD P-System, but not Xenix.
>
>> Xenix was Microsoft's repackaging of SCO, so that would have been years
>> later.
>
>As usual, Max, you've got it backwards. Microsoft developed Xenix in-
>house with SCO as one of its biggest distributors. This was underway
>when I joined Microsoft in late 1980 and predates the contract with IBM
>for PC software. Later, Microsoft sold Xenix to SCO. I believe part of
>the price got Microsoft a minority position in SCO.
I didn't realize this had begun so early. Nor did I realize that the
actual facts (Xenix is Microsoft's repackaging of SCO) could be so
warped, even by those who believed all the MS press releases.
>> >MS-DOS was the early favorite because it worked, it was cheap
>> >in both money and memory, and most importantly, it was
>> >available immediately.
>>
>> Mostly, it was cheap. In price; MS gave IBM a single fixed price for
>> unlimited licenses; that's how they managed to get IBM to agree to
>> include BASIC on every system, even if they didn't include MS-DOS on
>> every system. The agreement obviously didn't last long, and was
>> replaced within a few years by the standard cliff's-edge, per-processor
>> licensing scam which most directly secured the illegal monopoly.
>
>Wrong again Max. IBM paid a royalty to Microsoft for each copy of IBM-
>DOS sold. I believe it was somewhere in the $4 to $7 per copy range.
Not initially, no. Initially, it was a bulk license costing a couple
hundred thousand dollars, with the requirement that IBM would bundle
MS-BASIC with every PC. This according to the biography GATES, which
has a great wealth of details on this period. The per copy licensing
must have come later, after BASIC was trashed. But DOS was licensed the
same way, originally.
>It was so cheap compared to what other OEMs paid for MS-DOS because IBM
>participated in the development of IBM-DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning
>through the development of OS/2 version 1.0.
Such vague and obviously carefully neutral bullshit terms as
"participated in development" lead me to believe that you are unaware of
what really happened to begin with.
>> It's all the same story, I'm afraid. Microsoft has never been
>> competitive, though some of their products might have accidentally had
>> to compete at some point. Windows certainly wasn't one of them.
>
>Strike three. When IBM released the PC and until sometime after the IBM
>AT was released, you had to buy the OS seperately.
Because MS-BASIC was in the PROM, according to the information I have.
I don't see what this has to do with my comment, though. Are you saying
having to select the cheapest from a list of three entirely unknown
alternatives means that DOS "competed"? You're a pretty incredulous
guy, you know that?
>Well, Windows competed directly against OS/2, the Mac, Amiga, and GEM.
>There are probably some others in there that I've forgotten about... It
>wasn't until version 3.0 that Windows finially started to sell well.
You don't seem to understand the use of the term "compete". Your
ingenuous perspective aside, Windows never had to compete against any of
these, because MS had a DOS monopoly to leverage, and did so without
reservation, and only moderate restriction (since they knew it was
illegal, they had to maintain plausible deniability).
--
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
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:02 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 11:43:09
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 28 Apr 2001 15:48:27
>> >"Eddie Dubourg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:9c6r2n$26p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > Please, do you have any more valuable opinions you would like to
>share
>> >> > > about Linux or UNIX? We'd all love to hear more deep thoughts from
>> >the
>> >> > > "Enterprise Engineer" who doesn't know what a core dump is.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm quite sure James Doohan and LeVar Burton know nothing about core
>> >dumps
>> >> > either.
>> >>
>> >> Unless its the warp core (dumped by 1701-D on many an occasion)
>> >
>> >Hmmm...And right you are!
>> >
>> >Seriously, what exactly IS an "Enterprise Engineer".
>>
>> "Enterprise systems" are what you get when you replace traditional
>> corporate backbone technology (mostly mini-computer based) with Unix
>> system or, if you're incredibly stupid, Microsoft systems. An
>> application like SAP or PeopleSoft are called 'enterprise-wide', and
>> thus an "enterprise engineer" is a technologist who is familiar with
>> such systems.
>
>I'm familiar with the terminology, actually. I just find such terms silly.
>The "Sanitation Engineer" as opposed to garbage collector quality of it.
>And, yes, I agree that applying a Microsoft Solution to a mission-critical
>backbone is "ill-advised" in most cases.
That's the point; an enterprise engineer is not a fancy name for
something, as alternatives to garbage collector might be. Not that any
use of the term 'engineer' in combination with another word is entirely
free from this kind of connotation.
--
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
Subject: Re: Intel versus Sparc
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:03 GMT
Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 19:05:48 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said mlw in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:39:55 -0400;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >> Well, the fact that it affects only operating systems and/or compilers
>> >> on Intel platforms seems to contradict your otherwise-valid observation.
>> >
>> >I don't have this problem on Linux.
>>
>> Welcome to the wonderful world of the inductive assumption.
>
>Read my other response, specifically about "ulimit."
What's your point? Just because something affects only operating
systems and/or compilers on Intel platforms does not mean that all
operating systems and/or compilers on Intel platforms are affected.
Note the distinction between "only" and "all"; presuming one means the
other is an inductive assumption.
--
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
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:04 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:57:15
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 01:24:11
>
>> >As a side note:
>> >C:\Documents and Settings\Ayende>debug
>> >-f 0:0 ffff 5
>> >
>> >C:\Documents and Settings\Ayende>
>> >
>> >It didn't even crash cmd.exe :-)
>>
>> No doubt a hacked patch, rather than a fix to the fundamental flaws
>> embedded in Windows, due to its historical development as a DOS
>> extender.
>
>Please notice the path & the application name, and don't display you
>ignorance.
>This is not a DOS extender, this is an NT system, which has no DOS roots at
>all.
Note the lack of reading comprehension on your part.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:05 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 22:49:22 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> > "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Yeah these Wintrollslike you need to get a life, and advocate your sad
>> >> Ms OS, in the relevant groups.
>> Sorry Eric, I wasnt replying to anything you wrote, if I did by mistake
>> then I apologise.
>>
>> Flatfish and occasionally Pete Goodwin get me going, but I have never
>> classified you as a Wintroll.
>
>I appologize again, I was in kind of a bad mood and I saw quite a few
>responses from you that seemed quite closed minded. I suppose I should have
>put them in the context of who you were responding to. However, part of
>what irked me was that you seemed to be painting all pro-windows people in
>the same light.
Prepare to be irked. The only excuse for ignorance is ignorance.
>I don't consider myself to be trolling either, though apparently to many,
>simply arguing against Linux or for MS no matter what the circumstance is
>trolling.
Pretending to argue for MS; there is no argument "for" MS, save being
victim of illegal activity which prevents free market competition from
getting rid of crappy products.
Terry was right, though, you are not a troll, Erik (though, yes, you
look like one when you have 'bad days', just like I do.) You're just a
sock puppet.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:06 GMT
Said ~¿~ in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 11:55:47 GMT;
>
>> >> Terry is off his medication again. He's been "gone" for a while so
>> >> they must have let him out again.
>
>> > Yeah, those hockey puck sized Prozac's are getting hard to come by.
>
>> Look at the Wintrolls foam, they're worse than Pirahna when they smell a
>> little blood.
>
>Then quit bleeding and put a Band-Aid on your juvenile attacking of people
>with differing viewpoints.
>Not to mention your incessant butt-munching of those who have more knowledge
>than you when they figure out what you're about.
>
>
The ubertroll speaks again.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:07 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 27 Apr 2001 05:04:58 GMT;
>Soon I will be converting my Wife's Win98 machine to Linux, however
saving all
>her stuff has been painfully difficult.
[...]
>nothing - Wordnet
What's this?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:08 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:24:38
>Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> Problem #1 no network neighbourhood icon. Although I set up Samba easily
>> on my Linux box, her pc lacked the above NN facility. Could I restore it
>> ... nope. Tweakui fails to work, Windows help is non existant. I have no
>> interest in buying 'secrets of the windows registry' so I can manipulate a
>> terse, binary database, that will render her machine unusable should I
>> screw up the editing.
>
>I have a SAMBA server at work and Windows PC's that connect to it. It
>wasn't hard to make Windows see the Samba server - once you modify LMHOSTS
>and point the names at the SAMBA box.
Provided you have a network neighborhood icon on the desktop of the
client; if you don't, nothing works.
>> Problem #2 No decent FTP facility on her machine, so I installed a time
>> limited Windows FTP 'shareware' programe, good for 10 days!
>> Using that ftp application I easily uploaded all her files to my Linux FTP
>> server, and then burnt all 250 megabytes onto a CD.
>
>There's a command line ftp in Windows that works just fine. There's no FTP
>server though. There used to be one in various older incarnations of
>Personal Web server. For some reason, Microsoft has removed it.
The command line ftp does not support recursion, so its rather useless
for this kind of thing.
>> Windows98 GUI - 22 to choose from, probably IceWm
>
>Hmmm... not of them, not even KDE or GNOME are as functional as Windows GUI.
Depending on how brain-dead your opinion of 'functional' might be.
Guffaw.
>> Windows filemgr - XWinCommander
>
>If konqueror is an example of file manager's it's nothing to write home
>about.
The same is true of Explorer (either).
>> Word - Lyx, Ted, Abiword
>
>Word is way ahead compared to Lyx or AbiWord (which was alpha-test last
>time I looked). However it depends what you want to do, doesn't it? Word
>seems to start creaking when you get beyond the simple stuff.
It was slightly behind in functions, but ahead in features, about seven
years ago. Now, it is way behind in both.
>> mIRC - Xchat
>
>There's nothing Microsoft Comic Chat is there?
<*chough*>
>> Outhouse - Exmh
>
>Never heard of Outhouse.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Everyone else has! :-D
>> ICQ - Licq
>
>ICQ on Windows is far, far better than LICQ.
[...]
Okay, its obvious how this is going to go. You take all the fun out of
ridiculing your ridiculous position when you make it so ridiculous that
it ridicules itself.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:09 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 08:28:59
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Mind you, how hard is it to:
>>
>> - fire up an xterm, if necessary
>> - type in 'lyx' or click on a LyX icon
>> - File>New from Template
>> - select a filename
>> - select a template ('letter.lyx')
>> - Type in what's needed on the provided template
>> - print it out
>
>- Fire up word.
>- Select letter template
>- Start writing letter
>- Print it out
>
>Sounds like a few _less_ steps than LyX.
Guffaw.
Fire up word.
Hope word doesn't crash PC.
Select letter template.
Hope selecting template does not crash PC.
Start writing letter.
Turn off annoying paperclip.
Go to hospital for wound to hand from punching keyboard and monitor when
you find out that turning off the annoying paperclip is not as obvious
as it seems.
Continue writing letter.
Start from step 1 when the first key you hit causes your PC to crash.
Back to continuing the letter, having avoided trip to hospital by
screaming into pillow for twenty minutes.
Save letter.
Hope you can get the letter back after saving it causes the PC to crash.
Print letter.
Hope printing letter doesn't cause PC to crash.
Edit letter, after realizing word "corrected" your spelling,
substituting a reference to genitalia for the customer's executive's
last name.
A few more steps, it seems to me.
>As for clippy, I use the cat. He may ask _once_ if I'm writing a letter,
>but only the once.
Why?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:10 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 08:33:42
+0100;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Your kidding ??
>> Lyx boots up faster, has templates, and prints exactly the way I want, no
>> missing pages or other supprises.
>
>Nope. I demonstrated in another post how word takes far less steps than
>LyX to produce a letter.
Oh you did, did you?
Guffaw.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:11 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 08:36:38
>In article <9ckmdv$5ns$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> Never really used LyX, but I suppose this is close: I have written a
>> simple letter in LaTeX (+vim --- it *has* to be vim). Hell, it's a damn
>> sight easier to use than Word once you're used to it.
>
>"Once you're used to it", a telling phrase. With Word you can just start
>typing.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. The four years I made my living teaching people to
use Word says you're wrong. Way wrong.
>> In fact I've just completed a 23 page document for my degree using LaTeX,
>> wih plenty of embedded pictures, tables, lists and equations. I shudder
>> to think how well it would have worked under Word.
>
>Ah, now we're onto a different tack. I'd agree writing reports with Word
>becomes a less than pleasant experience ("dammit! the picture is on the
>third page, not embedded halfway up the fourth!").
No, it makes it an intolerable and unacceptable experience.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 21:02:12 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 30 Apr 2001 21:24:35 GMT;
>On 30 Apr 2001 14:41:36 GMT, Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Terry Porter posted:
>>>On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 17:13:20 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>>> Problem #1 no network neighbourhood icon. Although I set up
>>>>> Samba easily on my Linux box, her pc lacked the above NN
>>>>> facility. Could I restore it ...
><snip>
>
>> My guess is that you, some time in the distant past when you
>> didn't believe this Win98 box would be on a network, deleted the
>> Network Neighborhood icon. If you do, it warns you that it cannot
>> be restored.
>My guess is that someone did that, or removed files necessary for the
>'network neighbourbood' icon.
>
>It certainly wasnt me, my Wife had that pc with Win98 installed
>when I met her, and I dont use or maintain Windows pc's these days
>(including hers), because frankly I cant stand the hoops one must
>jump thru to do so.
Chances are it just stopped working; this is Win98 we're talking about.
The proper approach would be to remove and reinstall all the networking
components in Control Panel--Add/Remove Programs--Windows. If that
doesn't work, you'd need to re-install Windows, and cross your fingers.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
