Linux-Advocacy Digest #302, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 17:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: the Boom, Boom department (.)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Edward
Rosten")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Windows makes good coasters (.)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Chad Everett)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Now push hard ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Windows makes good coasters ("surrender")
Linux is the future, say former MS execs (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Shared library hell (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Mig)
Re: Linux and MP3s (Craig Kelley)
Cut&Paste with TS (was: Windows is a virus) (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Linux and MP3s (Craig Kelley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: 7 May 2001 19:51:26 GMT
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Darren Wyn Rees wrote:
>>
>> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy :
>>
>> >First of all, what is the "boom, boom department?".
>>
>> I thought everybody boom, boomed.
>>
>> >Second of all, I agree to a certain extent on the stupidity some distro's have of
>> >including thousands of apps/games that are just re-interations of the
>> >same thing.
>>
>> Hear, hear. Perhaps if the distro makers decided to showcase a couple
>> of good games, instead of throwing in all the available chaff, one
>> might be less unforgiving.
>>
>> >I've finally hung up my SuSE parade gear, and I have moved
>> >back to Corel Linux, yes, I know, people will go, "it is not as flexible
>> >as <distro>", however, for my purposes, it works fine a dandy, I also
>> >have found I have less problems using Corel software (surprise,
>> >surprise), such as Wordperfect and Corel Draw, the added benefit is that
>> >it is debian based which gives me access to 1000's of useful, and no-so
>> >useful files.
>>
>> Of all the popular distributions, SuSE is the worst afflicted
>> as far as the 'let's package the kitchen sink with this distro'
>> disease is concerned.
>>
>> >As for the comment regarding Linux games from Loki, I take issue with
>> >that, I have used both Simcity 3000 and Civilisation Call to Power, and
>> >they are right on par with their Windows counterpart.
>>
>> My opinion is that Loki's CTP is absolutely awful.
>>
>> >Conclusion from previous poster: A whining Wintrol with a hypothetical
>> >senario based on an issue he has with Windows
>>
>> Linux distributions include games of a quality and fashion that hark
>> back to personal computing from the mid eighties.
>>
>> It's a fact.
>>
>> Linux is not yet a credible games platform.
> Not yet, however, OpenGL and OpenAL are both taking shape quickly.
> Also, if you were playing these games with Xfree86 3.3.6, then yes, it
> would be shit house, however, 4.03 is a milestone in terms of
> performance etc when playing games.
Indeed. Heres a figure:
450mhz PIII ATA/66 machine with 2x AGP with a straight shot NVIDIA GEFORCE
256 in it, running mandrake linux w/xfree 4.0.3 and the latest NVIDIA drivers...
Also running w2k with the latest NVIDIA drivers
Unreal Tournament, fullscreen, 1600x1280, 32 bit color depth:
Linux: 60fps, average
Windows: 33fps, average
Now, take this however you like.
Though it will all be moot within the next week or so when my 1300mhz thunderbird
game system is delivered. It will run windows, sadly.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 21:52:29 +0100
>> WSH is just one step below programming, if at all. But people call what
>> perl does scripting. Oh, well.
>
> Actually - WSH IS programming. You can write more than just simple
> command line scripts in WSH.
Yep, Windows is beginning to approach the functionality UNIX had 20 years
ago or more.
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 14:52:03 -0500
"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Well, they're not the same really, and I understand that Stallman wants
to
> >differentiate them. My beef is the use of the term "free", and it always
> >has been. They could have chosen lots of different terms, but then that
> >would be unambiguous, and would be a detriment to the GPL being snuck in
the
> >back door of companies without their knowledge until it was too late.
>
> Personally I agree with the term "free" for GPLed software and all other
> software that has a license that conforms to the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines (BSDL, MPL etc). My beef is primarily against the ambiguity
> concerning derivativeness in the GPL, but I dislike the extreme lack of
> control that the BSDL and MIT licenses suffer from.
I agree, but people aren't lawyers and the GPL takes a lot of mind power to
understand. Many people that have read it, still don't understand it.
> [snip]
> >No. As an example, I was talking to the author of an open source c++
class
> >framework on Source Forge, he had the framework listed as having the GPL
> >license. I asked him about this, and mentioned that this would mean that
> >the framework could only be used in other GPL projects (by anyone other
than
> >himself), and not non-GPL'd projects. He was surprised and had no idea.
>
> Which is really his bad. He should have RTFL. BTW, how did he react when
> you told him that relicensing it to the BDSL (if still possible) would
> enable someone to extend and redistribute his code without releasing the
> enhancements?
Which is why he went with a MPL based license eventually.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: 7 May 2001 19:58:16 GMT
Nik Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter K=F6hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>> > Really people - at least learn how to setup and use an OS before
>> > attempting to disparage it.
>> >
>>
>> Jan at his best, dumb and without any clue whatsoever.
>> Did you ever think that the overwhelmng majority of these linux-users d=
id
>> use windows before they switched or are still using it today in additio=
n
>> to linux?
>>
>> There your whole argument falls apart. But that was clear from the
>> beginning - you are simply a wintroll (saying by itself that you=B4re a=
bout
>> as dumb as a pile of horseshit)
> But that still doesn't address the fact that many of using Windows (W2K =
in
> my case) don't see problems with CD burning. Something, which if you bel=
eive
> the LINUX trolls, is endemic to the platform. I've had my CD burner for
> about a year now on a 350MHz PII running W2K and have yet to make a
> "coaster", so the question is to some degree valid, why are these people
> having so much trouble (or claim to be having so much trouble) is it "nu=
t
> loose behind the keyboard," or are they making it up for the sake of the=
ir
> anti-MS crusade or do they have a genuine problem? It's hard to say with=
all
> the hot air that rises from these groups.
Actually, ill tell you exactly what the problem is.
The problem is that people who use unix and unix derivatives are used to b=
eing
able to do lots of things at the same time on their computers. Why, just
the other day I ripped one cd while burning another and building the lates=
t
mozilla. It was a little slow, but it all worked just fine.
You simply cannot do that under windows. Sure, you will get a flawless bu=
rn if
you walk away and have a sandwich and come back, but you will not get a fl=
awless
burn (unless theres protection in HARDWARE, as in plextor's case) if you a=
re doing
something like playing Quake III during a 10x burn.=20=20
I make that mistake alot with windows, both ME and 2000. I forget that it=
works
best when doing least.
=====.
--=20
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:04:40 GMT
Edward Rosten wrote:
> Bullshit. If you can do it by hand then you can put the exact same steps
> in rc.local, or in a bloody cron job if you must.
>
> I simply don't believe you in this case.
Then I shall leave you in your ignorance.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 7 May 2001 14:29:19 -0500
On Mon, 7 May 2001 04:51:01 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Pancho Villa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> COM is obviously a smoke-screen for combining that
>> > with CORBA-like functionality, as part of Bill Gates' "everybody will
>> > have to pay me money" campaign.
>> >
>> The fact of the matter is that COM and DCOM were MS ripoffs of IBM's
>> SOM and DSOM. OLE is simply bloated, buggy, 2nd-rate technology. To
>> this day, SOM and DSOM kick COM and DCOM's butt! Tragically, along
>> with IBM's OpenDoc, another fantastic technology, SOM and DSOM have
>> been pretty much destroyed by a criminal monopoly, and we are all
>> suffering. :(
>
>COM existed before SOM as well.
>
>SOM was first introduced with OS/2 2.0, which came out in early 1992, just
>weeks before COM was officially launched in Windows 3.1. They were
>contemporaries, created independantly at about the same time.
>
On the one hand you use some fictitious "conception" date for the beginning
of COM, yet everything else is based on when they were released. COM did
not exist before the OMG and CORBA. When was SOM "conceived"?
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:04:56 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d6ttj$91b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Diffrent targets, I'm afraid.
> Porting 9x applications to NT was *easy*, the hard part was to convice
> people to go to 9x in the first place.
> Because too many applications wouldn't work on NT (direct hardware calls,
> and other stuff that NT wouldn't allow) you needed somewhat more lax
attidue
> in order to convert the users.
> I don't think that you can put a DOS copatability layer on Linux and
expect
> over 99% success in running those applications.
> And that was what MS needed, and that is why 9x exist.
DOSEMU is in fact very good at running DOS apps under Linux, although
you have to configure it to permit the level of hardware access you
need. Commercial DOS-under-unix versions were around long before
dos-under-winNT or Win9x existed.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:09:16 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Sorry; you're obviously fantasizing. When the system changes the time
> (for DST) it just presents a confirmation dialog with an OK button; it
> doesn't open the control panel for setting the time, as your comment
> indicates. Perhaps this changed in the newer versions of crapware, but
> IIRC the poster you responded to was using Win95.
Where did he say it was Windows 95? He said "Windows" which could be
anything.
As for fantasizing, you sure you have a good grip on reality there? It
certainly _does_ do it in later versions of Windows (and if you insist on
the moniker of crapware, then I shall refer to Linux as Linsux).
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:11:30 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>That sounds correct. However, that's not how it was portrayed in previous
>>posts.
>
> Yes it is! Nobody ever said they never presented a dialog box. YOU
> claimed that they actually *asked* if you wanted to make the change,
> when apparently all they do is confirm that it was made. You really
> ought to own up to your error, rather than back-pedaling.
It does present a dialog box. Windows 98 SE did it recently on a system I
restored from backup. It allows you to change it if it is wrong. You do
actually use Windows don't you?
I'm not owning up to an error I did not make.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Now push hard
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 22:17:57 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snip>
> As far as non-GUI work is concerned I can say that Java has equal
> performance to native languages in many areas, but with the added
> advantages of byte-code portability and a large API.
I'll buy that. I have seen benchmarks on CORBA ORBs written in both Java and
C or C++, and they performed equally well. The author of that benchmark went
as far as to declare Java dead on the desktop, but reigning supreme on the
server side .... but maybe he got carried away a bit :-)
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: "surrender" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:20:54 GMT
In article <3af6917d$0$12278$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Jan Johanson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote something like:
> It continues to amaze me that the ONLY people having these sorts of
> absolute failures under Windows are linux users.
>
> Are linux users that univerally inadept at running Windows?
>
> I haven't had a bad CD since the last time I had a 2x write speed burner
> with 256 Kb buffer under Win95.
>
> Your system has to be so broken to fail a burn on a current gen burner -
> AND with the latest Burn-Proof technology people like Lite-on and
> Plextor use, it's literally impossible to fail the burn. You can pause
> the entire system with the pause key and the buffer can go to 0% for an
> hour and then resume and continue burning the CD flawlessly.
>
> Of course, I'm sure this support isn't in linux yet...
>
Wrong!
We have had this discussion on cola already.
Purnproof was even available in linux before it was in windows IIRC...
--
Greets,
surrender
--
$ apt-get moo
(__)
(oo)
/------\/
/ | ||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
...."Have you mooed today?"...
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux is the future, say former MS execs
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:23:28 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18768.html
Better sell my shares in Microsoft... oh yeah, I don't have any.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Shared library hell
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:23:28 GMT
On Sat 05 May 2001 02:43, Pete Goodwin wrote:
> So linux does not suffer from shared library hell?
>
> Symbolic linking gets round this problem, I'm told.
>
> However, say I have libqt.so.2.2.4 and libqt.so.2.3.0. Both would be
> symbolically linked as libqt.so.2 - so unless an application links
> directly to each individual version, it may get the wrong version.
>
> You would think that libqt.so.2.2.4 is older than libqt.so.2.3.0 -
> however, there's a difference. One was built with an _older_ version of
> gcc - 2.3.0! This fact alone is enough to break some applications - they
> might work with 2.3.0 but they fail due to the incompatability with gcc.
>
> So how does Linux cope with this?
>
Qt is one of those rare libraries that breaks backward compatibility. If
they really incremented the major version each time they made a
compatibility-breaking change, they'd be up to libqt.so.7 by now...
I solved this problem by altering the Makefiles for Qt so that the -soname
linker option would point to libqt.so.<major>.<minor>, then I recompiled
all the programs on my system. A rather painful experience, actually, due
to the fact that Qt alone takes about 30 minutes to compile on my box.
IMO, Linux distros should start compiling Qt this way, it would save a lot
of headaches.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:18 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 16:41:13 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > GDI calls->printer driver->printer
> > >
> > > And in Linux:
> > >
> > > Postscript->ghostscript->printer
>
> > This isn't accurate. Information flows *both ways*
> > for GDI.
>
> Yes, and I mentioned that as an advantage of GDI down below.
I seem to have missed that. I thought you
were trying to say the two techniques were
equivalent.
> > I expect the GS "driver" is really a user mode
> > program that embeds a bitmap into appropriate
> > printer language.
>
> Yes, that's basically it. I don't know for sure what it does with
> things like PCL5. It could be (and I think it is) more sophisticated
> than a bitmap. In any case, I do know that my PCL printers work fine
> with it. The output is not distinguishable from that produced by GDI
> from the same input (e.g. by PDF documents).
That's not very suprising; you are replacing GhostScript's
PostScript renderer with Adobe's there. :D
Rendering PDF to a printer has the same problems
GhostScript has.
> > It's part of the basic problem with GS: GS information flows
> > from the app to the printer, only. Some features just can't
> > be supported like that.
>
> I think I said that. I just didn't happen to think of the specific one
> you came up with.
Okay, okay. I didn't mean to offend. I didn't think
you understood this.
> > The problem is more general than that, though. Consider
> > printing on your HP PCL printer.
>
> > But, as with PS, the printer has its own fonts. These
> > fonts vary from printer to printer- some HP printers
> > let you install more fonts using cute little cartidges.
>
> Those same printers also let you install Postscript the same way.
Yes, they do.
> That's a much better use of the slot, I think.
:D
> Font cartridges are a
> not-particularly-good idea that was popular for a while because of
> software limitations.
Yes. But there is still an advantage to printers that
can render their own fonts.
> > This means that GS has to render everything itself,
> > using fonts that at least have the right metrics (does
> > it use genuine Adobe fonts?); it can't just translate
> > to PCL.
>
> PCL and Postscript both support the concept of downloadable fonts. I'm
> pretty sure GS will take advantage of that if it is available. Even if
> it does not, it _could_ and so this is not a fundamental limitation.
Hmmm. You are saying that GhostScript will
not render the page as a bitmap, if it can find
a translation to higher level PCL?
I'd like to know more about that.
> > GDI gives the application access to printer specific
> > font metrics; you can use them not only when printing
> > but when laying out text for screen display. This gives
> > you a shot at WYSIWYG even when font substition
> > happens.
>
> Ok, that's an actual advantage. But it also has disadvantages in that
> you a) probably don't have exactly matching fonts for the screen, so
> your layout may not be what you expect;
Yes.
> and b) have now created a
> document that nobody else can print properly unless they have the same
> printer + cartridges as you do.
No. Each time you print the substitution is
done afresh; on a new printer it may well
be done differently.
This may mean that you get different wordbreaks
when you change printers, even a different
pagecount.
> It is not clear to me that this is better than downloading the fonts or
> printing a bitmap.
It certainly isn't always a wise thing to do, but for
garden variety word processing it's a plus.
> > The PS approach also limits you to printers
> > that *can* emit PS or bitmaps; if you've got some
> > lousy printer that just outputs text, GDI
> > can handle it (forget WYSIWYG though) and
> > GS can't.
>
> Sure it can. The script "ps2ascii" uses GS to extract the ascii text
> from a ps file.
I don't think that's quite the same thing. :D
Those printers usually *can* do things like
boldfacing. That's already beyond ASCII.
And there's no way for an application printing
to such a printer to discover that it can't use
any graphics.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 20:29:16 GMT
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> In any case, every Windoze user I've talked to that burns CDs tells
> me about how often they've coastered a CD. I've never coastered one
> under Linux, so I have no intention of wasting my time booting to
> Windoze 2000 to burn CDs. Windoze, even of the NT/2000 ilk, has too
> high a peak interrupt latency to be worth risking a $0.50 CD-R.
> You never know when Windoze will pop in and garbage collect,
> and not respond to the CD interrupt in time. Windoze latency is
> like 10 msec typical even in the most advanced desktop versions.
> Linux latency, on the other hand, is measured in microseconds.
I've only created a couple of coasters using Windows 98 SE. A friend has
created quite a few. I guess it depends on your setup. Certainly I have no
qualms about using a CD writer on my old P166 machine running Windows 98 SE.
> To which OS would you trust your time-sensitive operations?
Since it appears to work on Windows and Linux, either.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 21:28:00 +0200
Nik Simpson wrote:
>
> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson wrote:
>>
>> > Really people - at least learn how to setup and use an OS before
>> > attempting to disparage it.
>> >
>>
>> Jan at his best, dumb and without any clue whatsoever.
>> Did you ever think that the overwhelmng majority of these linux-users
>> did use windows before they switched or are still using it today in
>> addition to linux?
>>
>> There your whole argument falls apart. But that was clear from the
>> beginning - you are simply a wintroll (saying by itself that you´re
>> about as dumb as a pile of horseshit)
>
>
> But that still doesn't address the fact that many of using Windows (W2K
> in my case) don't see problems with CD burning. Something, which if you
> beleive the LINUX trolls, is endemic to the platform. I've had my CD
> burner for about a year now on a 350MHz PII running W2K and have yet to
> make a "coaster", so the question is to some degree valid, why are these
> people having so much trouble (or claim to be having so much trouble) is
> it "nut loose behind the keyboard," or are they making it up for the
> sake of their anti-MS crusade or do they have a genuine problem? It's
> hard to say with all the hot air that rises from these groups.
>
>
I actually believe you that it is possible.
Mind you, I do not only run linux here, but also OS/2, NT4 and Win98.
So this utter bullshit from our beloved troll Jan about not having enough
experience with windows simply does not apply.
Jan should shut up, because he just spews forth mindless crap like that
and makes a fool of himself and in the passing of windows users in
general. If there is someone with experience lacking it would be him,
because he seems to know only his beloved windows.
I *do* know that is is possible to safely burn CD´s under Windows if you
do not do too i/o-intensive tasks during that time (all win-versions I
worked with were quite poor with I/O, espacially on IDE). But I still
have not managed to do a coaster under OS/2 or linux, whereas I
already did under NT4. And friends of mine who run windows experience
that unfortunately more often than I did. So I must conclude that, yes,
you can safely burn under windows, but there are pitfalls.
Peter
--
The social dynamics of the net are a direct consequence of the fact
that nobody has yet developed a Remote Strangulation Protocol.
Larry Wall
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 22:51:37 +0200
Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>>
>> When was the last time a Linux advocate jumped into a MICROSOFT
>> ADVOCACY GROUP and derided Windows for being too difficult for the
>> "home" or "average" or "grandmother" user.
>
> No idea, but I would be somewhat surprised if it had not occurred at some
> point in time :-)
I did that some time ago :-)
This after making a complete linux newbie at work install a Linux box with
RH 5.2 on the company network with X and apps running after about just 35
minuttes. Windows 9x (dont know about ME) was much more problematic than
this.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and MP3s
Date: 07 May 2001 14:59:42 -0600
Mark Styles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 07 May 2001 11:52:17 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >If you put the drive with the MP3's in during installation, and
> >leave it alone (with it's current formatting, etc.), then it will
> >be mounted into the filesystem on your first boot-up.
>
> Interesting, will Linux handle a FAT32 filesystem as efficiently as a
> unix file system?
It will handle a FAT32 filesystem as efficiently as any other OS will
handle a FAT32 filesystem.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Subject: Cut&Paste with TS (was: Windows is a virus)
Date: 7 May 2001 20:51:40 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[late flup]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Really? How easy is it to copy and paste graphic images? Say, between
>Konqerer and the GIMP?
>
>How easy is it to copy tables from Aplix and paste them into Star Office?
Genuine curiosity: is it possible to cut&paste between windows of two
different remote machines using Terminal Services? (I have never used TS
before.) I use this functionality in X all the time.
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
UNIX was half a billion (500000000) seconds old on
Tue Nov 5 00:53:20 1985 GMT (measuring since the time(2) epoch).
-- Andy Tannenbaum
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and MP3s
Date: 07 May 2001 15:01:11 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (.) writes:
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > There are several. When you do the install, they'll be available
> > on the appliations menu.
>
> Uhh...wrong. The default xmms install (assuming that you do not have
> gnome installed) drops everything in /usr/local/bin, but not into any
> "applications menu".
>
> Unless you are *specifically* using mandrake,
... or any other distribution's packaging system.
> you fucking moron.
No comment. :)
> > If you put the drive with the MP3's in during installation, and
> > leave it alone (with it's current formatting, etc.), then it will
> > be mounted into the filesystem on your first boot-up.
>
> Are you insane?
Aaron? Quite.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
