Linux-Advocacy Digest #726, Volume #34 Wed, 23 May 01 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Rich Soyack")
Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x.... ("Donal K. Fellows")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("David Brown")
Re: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free ("fmc")
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (Jeff Cochran)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (Jeff Cochran)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (Jeff Cochran)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (Jeff Cochran)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ian Davey)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (quux111)
Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed (quux111)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Chad Myers")
What is the licence aggreement for REDHAD professional server? (KerryHB)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Rich Soyack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:55:29 GMT
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JamesW
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >In article <9ec2u1$c6cq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >>
> >> Are you disengenous or stupid? Or both. A homophobe is a person who
hates
> >> gays. That's what the word means.
> >
> >There has been a linguistic hijacking here...
> >
> >homo - same
> >phobos - fear
> >
> >homophobe - someone who fears things that are the same != a person who
> >hates gays.
>
> And gay means happy. The english language has always been very good at
> evolving, and words do not necessary retain the meaning of their strict
latin
> translations. If they did we'd still be speaking Latin. As the word is
used
> currently, homophobe refers to someone that hates gays. Common usage tends
to
> define the meaning of English words.
But is it common usage or is one group trying to make it common usage?
Rich Soyack
------------------------------
From: "Donal K. Fellows" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris,staroffice.com.support.install.solaris,comp.unix.advocacy,alt.os.unix,alt.unix
Subject: Re: Solaris 8 vs 7/2.x....
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:54:38 +0100
Michael Marion wrote:
> Bah.. 2 buildings?!? That's child's play. :)
That's just my department. Campus is (probably) 50 or so networked
buildings (assuming the car parking isn't fitted with ethernet :^) but
the official campus map (http://www.man.ac.uk/welcome/campus1.html) is
not the easiest way to work this out. (You can't actually tell from
the map what are separate buildings; my office is in #38 and that
building is completely separate from #37 and #40 apart from walkways.)
> We have 20+ buildings in town here.. and networked together. The backbone
> between some isn't gig (I think ATM) but we also have engineers that sit in a
> building in another campus (a mile or 2 away) and run interactive GUI apps on
> servers over here.. and vice versa.
So? I run apps on servers 8 timezones away (I've never had a compelling
reason to use systems in New Zealand, so it's quite possible you could
beat that. :^) SSH is one of life's little luxuries...
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- With a complex beast like Swing, it's not just a matter of "What button
should I push", but rather "How do I put myself into a nice metamorphosis
so that I am deemed acceptable by the Swing Gods." -- Anonymous
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 14:52:56 +0200
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 12:14:44
> [...]
>>I think the two of you have been reading way above your heads.
>
>We think you are an insulting and pathetic cretin.
>
In this thread, the feeling is mutual. But if someone other than you or
GreyCloud feels I am treating you unfairly, I will try to be more polite -
until then, I'm calling a spade a spade.
>>You've heard
>>of wave-particle duality, and have grasped some of the ideas without
>>understanding the basics. Light does not swap between being particles
>>(i.e., photons) and waves as though these were two different states. It
is
>>both at once.[...]
>
>This makes no logical sense at all. The only logical position would be
>that it is neither. Both particle and wave are most obviously
>incomplete descriptions of whatever this stuff is, whether you call it
>'light', 'electromagnetic radiation', or 'radio waves'.
>
This is quantum mechanics, not Boolean logic - there is no "law of the
excluded middle" here.
------------------------------
From: "fmc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:16:31 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I found this info at:
>
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010522/tc/ibm_to_let_linux_fans_use_mainfr
ame--for_free_1.html
>
> Anyone knows how to get this access?
Yes, read this:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/zd/20010522/tc/ibm_to_let_linux_fans_use_mainfr
ame--for_free_1.html
fm
>
> Zalek
------------------------------
From: (Jeff Cochran)
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:18:24 GMT
>> For those posters that suggested I not do calendaring or give up file
>> compatibility, those aren't real-world options. I can't take
>> functionality from users, and I can't sacrifice work that has been done
>> in the past just to get away from Microsoft, or any company.
>
>Try to freeze upgrades so that Linux work-alikes have a chance to mature.
> OpenOffice is looking like a real contender - it just needs some time,
>and an upgrade freeze would give it that time without inconveniencing
>users.
Upgrade freezes put my users at a disadvantage as well. For example,
the Office 97 to 2000 upgrade opened a number of options up for
collaboration that my users have siezed on. I know it's tough to hit
a movin target, but I'm not sure I want to migrate my users, who are
close to state-of-the-art now, to an OS and desktop that is several
years out of date.
For what it's worth, we run a few Linux desktops as testbeds.
OpenOffice actually could fill many of our needs, if it were
completely stable and didn't change frequently. It's missing a few
features of MS-Office that I need but they may be coming.
>> Looks like, outside of internet functions, Linux is still a bust in our
>> environment. And frankly, there's not much of an advantage even there
>> compared to Microsoft-based solutions.
>Licensing, licensing, licensing. MS has been becoming progressively more
>restrictive for the last ten years at least. If you don't have an exit
>strategy in place now, you may have no hope of getting out when you reach
>*your* licensing threshold.
Unfortunately, the cost and licensing issues don't outweigh the
changeover issues, either in manpower resources or cold cash. When
the cost of changing over drops below the cost of staying on Microsoft
products, then the change will occur. But not before. And currently
the cost in lost user productivity is the part that is too high.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: (Jeff Cochran)
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:23:58 GMT
>: I'm back to reviewing Linux for our desktops again, it's been a year
>: or so since we determined it was not an option in our case but things
>: may have changed. Here are my major sticking points that I need
>: suggestions on:
>Many of your suggestions involve making Linux more similar to Windows
>both in compatibility and in functionality. Such suggestions are not
>uncommon, but I don't feel that such an approach is desirable.
>If one wants to "win over" people from Windows, making Linux just
>like Windows isn't going to accomplish that, since people will just
>stick with the genuine article.
>
>I feel that Linux should differentiate itself from Windows while
>improving itself beyond Windows at the same time. For example,
>if we want to get people to stop using Word and its annoying
>proprietary formats, let's work on building a word processor
>that looks different from Word, functions easier than Word in
>every way, uses open file formats and is open source.
>
>In short, I don't want Linux to settle for being a Windows
>substitute. I'd rather it was something so much better that
>people will *want* to switch rather than be oblivious to the
>difference between the two.
It has to offer at least the same functionality in desktop apps, it
has to be fully file format compatible to keep from sacrificing past
work, and most importantly, it can't be so radical it confuses the
average worker, who has no knowledge of the OS anyway.
85% of our emloyees have a home computer system with Microsoft Office
products installed. I can't lose the experience advantage that gives
me when they use the same products at work. Until I have a really
close clone of Office, one that the average user can make the switch
to, then there isn't much of an option beyond using "the genuine
article."
Jeff
------------------------------
From: (Jeff Cochran)
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:28:34 GMT
>> OK, good point - as long as Windows users can slide into a Linux desktop
>> without getting scared, I could see that it would work. But all the
>> familiar functions of Windows would have to be there...
>>
>
>I'm uncomfortable with using Windows as the performance-bar that Linux must
>meet for success. Perhaps it's because I don't find Windows to be all that
>elegant or intuitive to begin with, but I think it's a lousy target for
>design decisions. IME users can adapt to most modern GUIs with little
>mental strain -- there's really not much cosmetic difference anymore
>between Windows, the Mac, KDE, and GNOME. Sure, there are some
>dissonances, but they're minor.
You forget that most users have a system at home, running Windows.
They know Windows, are comfortable with Windows and that home-achieved
experience is valuable for the company. In addition, you can bet they
are coming from another company that uses Windows, where they picked
up many of their skills. If a system can't be really easy to make the
switch, it can't gain a foothold on the desktop. Period.
Macs are ostensibly easier to use. I have several here that people
refuse to use, they just can't get the difference between them and
their home system. I have a designer who won't touch a PC because she
knows her Mac so intimately. Neither of those groups would switch to
Linux at this point in time, and they'd rebel if I put Linux on their
desktop.
Jeff
------------------------------
From: (Jeff Cochran)
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:32:08 GMT
>> I need a substitute for Outlook/Exchange. It has to have calendering
>> and contacts as well as e-mail functionality, and has to have shared
>> calendars. It would be okay if this were a web-based solution, a Linux
>> server for this is a no brainer. Some of the forms routing an
>> collaboration in Outlook/Exchange would be great, but I think we can
>> work around not having those functions.
>
>Take a look at Bynari's Insight server and Insight client. They provide
>much of the functionality of Exchange including shared folders, access to
>global address books, calendar and meeting management, all without the
>high costs of Client Access Licenses. It also provides IMAP, POP3 and
>SMTP mail protocols and allows users to access global address books built
>on a standards based directory server (LDAP). For users needing calendar
>and scheduling services, it provides free and busy time access, shared
>folders, and meeting requests and replies. It will even support existing
>Outlook and Outlook Express users, as well as Lotus Notes, Eudora,
>Pegasus, Mulberry, Pine, StarMail Netscape mail, and more.
>
>It's not free, but you didn't specify that as a requirement.
>
>http://www.bynari.net/Products/products.html
I'll look at this definitely, thanks. Free is most certainly NOT a
requirement. Our Exchange licensing is one of our highest license
expenses, and any savings is great. We don't mind paying for
software, though we'd like to pay less and have less restrictive
license requirements. As it is, we may end up in technical violation
of Microsoft's licensing, some of the changes just aren't going to sit
with our management. I'm sure many other organizations are in this
same boat, and now is the perfect time for a Linux response to capture
the corporate desktop.
Jeff
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:42:09 GMT
In article <5rOO6.1994$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rich Soyack"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And gay means happy. The english language has always been very good at
>> evolving, and words do not necessary retain the meaning of their strict
>latin
>> translations. If they did we'd still be speaking Latin. As the word is
>used
>> currently, homophobe refers to someone that hates gays. Common usage tends
>to
>> define the meaning of English words.
>
>But is it common usage or is one group trying to make it common usage?
Definately common usage, at least in the UK, I can't really speak for
elsewhere. In fact you'll probably be hard pressed to find people that
consider homophobes to be afraid of gays, especially considering all the
violence perpetrated by homophobes. You could of course argue that their
hatred of gays comes from a combination of fear and ignorance. Anyway, in your
view what is the correct term for hatred of gays if "homophobe" is incorrect?
I can't think of any other word that comes anywhere close to having common
usage.
ian.
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111)
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: 23 May 2001 13:02:31 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
><SNIP>
>
>> A good example of lousy Microsoft infrastructure software is MAPI, OLE
>> DB/ADO, DirectX until version 7, TAPI, etc. etc. etc. MFC itself,
>> while useful, is a horrible Frankenstein's Monster of an API and
>> flouts nearly every good C++ coding convention I can think of. There
>> are better APIs out there -- Troll's QT, wxWindows, even Gtk+ for
>> WIN32 -- but relatively few people use them because Microsoft frowns
>> upon it and makes supporting alternate frameworks in VC++ very
>> difficult. (If you doubt me, just try doing a GUI-based project using
>> the WTL sometime.)
>
> I'm a Visual C++ MFC expert - I'm also a Delphi VCl expert - VCL is the
> far better of the two. I try to code everything I write for GUI's on
> Delphi.
>
I do a lot of work in C++ Builder, and it's always aggravated me that
Borland chose to write the VCL in Pascal rather than C/C++. Having a
Pascal-native framework means that VCL classes are pretty stupid: they
can't be created off the heap but must always be taken from the free-store;
the AnsiString type has no mapping to std::string (*really* lame IMHO); you
can't override the copy constructor; and VCL classes often behave badly
when used with the STL or IOStreams. On top of all that, the VCL is butt-
slow compared even to MFC-based apps. As a high-level application API the
VCL is at best okay. It's meant for the corporate-developer RAD folks, so
I suppose it does the job for them. For myself, I find it quite limiting
and in some cases badly-designed from a C++ perspective.
FWIW the only really good C++ frameworks I've used have all been non-GUI
ones. The STL/Standard Library is a miracle of efficient and modern
design, and Rogue Wave's tools++ is pretty good. The Boost libraries are
really excellent, doubly so for being free. The ACE library is an absolute
necessity for any of my code these days; it makes doing any kind of
networking *much* easier, and it's also free. Andrei Alexandrescu has been
working on a (free) template library called Loki that is also quite good.
QT is a good, solid framework, but it's designed in an old-fashioned way,
and does not take full advantage of modern features of C++ (and there's
always that crazy moc pre-compilation business...).
>
> MFC is a dumb straightjacket. Unfortunately, because it's written by
> Microsoft, it's seen as the thing to write in.
>
For myself and a lot of other developers, there are lots of benefits to
using the Windows Template Library, an add-on to the ATL 3.0 framework.
It's got most of the GUI "frosting" of MFC without all the bloat and cruddy
hacks. It's still not as clean as I might wish for, but given the state of
the WIN32 API itself it's probably the best I can hope for.
>
> C# is influenced by one of the designers of Delphi, so it will be
> interesting to take a look at that when it finally is released.
>
C# is a Java clone. End of story. It does absolutely nothing Java doesn't
already do. There is no need at all for C# -- I just hope Microsoft has
put some effort into making the C++ compiler conformant with the standard
(partial specialization of templates, etc.).
>
> BTW, Kylix is the Linux version of Delphi. I remember the possibility
> of MFC on UNIX... but somehow that never materialised.
>
Kylix is far too expensive and narrow in focus to attract many developers
to the Linux fold. It's a corporate RAD tool (Delphi for Linux, in other
words). It may find an audience, but I doubt it will be very successful.
>
>> Being a monopoly means that Microsoft can foist whatever junk they
>> want on developers and developers have to live with it because
>
> In the case of MFC, I'd agree with. It's an incredibly clutzy
> straightjacket to work in. VCL, on the other hand, by Borland, is like
> a ray of sunshine after grubbing around in the darkness of the shadow
> of the Great Shaitan.
>
><SNIP>
As I said, I use C++ Builder a lot, and generally it's okay for what it
does. (The *compiler* is very good indeed; it's far more conformant to the
standard than Visual C++ 6.0.) I don't share your liking for the VCL for
the reasons I've outlined above; it's not a true C++ OOP toolkit, and (in
my case at least) it tends to cause a lot of problems. To each their own,
I suppose....
Regards,
quux111
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (quux111)
Subject: Re: Linux on the desktop potential, suggestions needed
Date: 23 May 2001 13:11:11 GMT
"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
news:xFEO6.11836$[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>> We need to be thinking about how to *advance* the human/machine
>> interface, not just reinvent it over and over again using the same tired
>> old metaphors. I'm not saying that we should just throw away all the
>> good work that's been done to date, but why simply try to emulate
>> something else when you can try new and different things? Sure, the
>> experiments might fail, but so what? We have the flexibility in the
>> Open Source world to try new things; we are not driven by shareholders
>> or boards of directors.
>
> In general, I agree with you, but in the specific case we're discussing
> here - lowering resistance in businesses to switching from MS products to
> open source - I still believe that the more familiar and Windows-like the
> interface, the better.
>
> Given these two arguments, which would the typical business owner choose:
>
> 1) Switch to Linux with a new, better interface - and incur the
> retraining costs, which will be on-going as new employees come into the
> business
>
> 2) Switch to the WinClone Linux distribution, with minimal user
> resistance, minimal retraining, and minimal confusion to incoming
> employees
>
> I believe it would be the second. Even if Linux were available with a
> significantly better interface, its differences would be an obstacle in
> getting users to switch.
>
I think the main problem is the whole idea of switching just to be
Microsoft-free. As the original poster pointed out, the purchase and
license costs of software tend to be pretty small when compared against
user retraining and integration with other systems. In this scenario, the
lower cost of Linux really doesn't mean anything: in real terms, the cost
is actually somewhat *higher* over time because not only users, but also
programmers and support folks, need to be retrained and systems need to be
re-integrated. It's a long, tedious, and expensive process, and businesses
are understandably gunshy about doing it. (This is why uptake of
Microsoft's newer OSen like Win2K and Whistler is so slow; businesses have
found that WinNT and Win95/98 are Good Enough.)
Linux has very little chance (if any at all) to supplant Microsoft on the
desktop. It's a hard but plain truth. Unless you take the philosophical
point that it is better to use Free Software (i.e., freedom makes the
higher support costs worthwhile), then there is no compelling reason to
move.
IMHO we should not waste our efforts tilting at windmills -- the desktop
market is gone. But the world is very big and full of other opportunities:
PDAs, cell phones, tablets, kiosks, organizers, and so on. These machines
will require us to think of the UI in a different way, and in Linux we have
the freedom to do that. And let us not forget the vast numbers of people
in the world that do not now use computers at all, much less Microsoft
software: the untold millions who are waiting for an interface that is
tailored to their cultural and historical preferences.
We need to set our sights higher than just emulating Microsoft. It's not
just a waste of time and energy; it's squandering the true potential of
Free/Open Source software.
Regards,
quux111
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:40:52 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Roberto Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > If Microsoft wants to earn the same respect as the likes of NCR,
UNISYS
> > or
> > > >> > Xerox, then maybe they should start porting IE to more than just Mac,
> > > >> > Windows and a few obscure UNIX's.
> > > >
> > > >Yeah, you know, those "few obscure UNIX's" like Solaris, HP-UX,
> > > >and Digital Unix.
> > > >
> > > >If those are obscure, what's your definition of common?
> > >
> > > Linux, FreeBSD. The number of people using web browsers on Linux is
probably
> > > ten times the number of people using web browsers in Solaris,
> > > HP-UX and DU combined.
> > >
> > > The unix-like desktop market is so Linux+FreeBSD centric it's not even
> > > funny.
> >
> > Solaris and HP-UX are hardly "obscure", though, regardles of which
> > world you're living in.
>
> So Chad, why doesn't Microsoft make IE for Linux? What are they
> afraid of?
They're not afraid of anything. No one would use IE on Linux, not to mention
that even if every Linux user did, it still wouldn't amount to a hill of beans.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (KerryHB)
Date: 23 May 2001 13:56:44 GMT
Subject: What is the licence aggreement for REDHAD professional server?
I am thinking of using many cheap Intel PC as SERVERS.
Can I buy one copy Redhat Professional Server and install it on 50 PCs?
Kerry
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:43:22 GMT
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9efs03$9ar$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Does XP allow you to setup a MS "Intellimouse" during installation? The
> last windows installation I did (Win98SE) didn't know of their existance -
> you needed an extra driver download or disk to set up an MS mouse ! Linux
> Mandrake, on the other hand, has supported it for many years.
Um, Win98 supports the intellimouse. There are updated drivers which you
can get from Microsoft.com, but last time I used Win98 it found my
intellimouse just fine.
-c
>
> Chad Myers wrote in message
> <3b0ab223$0$2603$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >
> >"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9eeah6$f9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> <drivel snipped>
> >>
> >> What a headline: "MS-Windows User Enjoys More MS-Windows"
> >
> >"... because basic usability you expect in an OS is there,
> >whereas it isn't in Linux".
> >
> >Another big shocker =)
> >
> >
> >> : and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed
> to the
> >> : hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
> >>
> >> I'm still waiting for Windows to support the middle mouse button for
> >> pasting like practically EVERY SINGLE X11 CLIENT EVER WRITTEN.
> >
> >So just set it up to do that. More than likely you either have an
> >MS Intellipoint or a Logitech mouse of some kind, both have the
> >ability to configure this.
> >
> >> Keystrokes for copying/pasting is truly a pain in the ass...
> >
> >I though you guys hated the mousy-clicky stuff?
> >
> >-c
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 13:45:15 GMT
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > > http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
> > > >
> > > > I can't say I don't agree.
> > > >
> > > > Some points:
> > > > A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
> > > > B> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not
for
> > > > the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
> > > > C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or
equal
> > > > product in order to convice people to switch, you need something vastly
> > > > sueprior.
> > > >
> > > > Comments, anyone?
> > > > OK, well, let us be realistic?
> > > > Flames, anyone?
> > >
> > > Anyone who uses Linux as a replacement for Windows is asking for
> > > trouble. Use Linux because you like UNIX/Linux, not because you hate
> > > Microsoft; any other motive will result in disapointment (just like
> > > when I use Windows -- it never fails to disapoint me).
> > >
> > > I've been running 100% Linux for so long that I can't even figure out
> > > how to do many things inside Windows 2000. It literally took me an
> > > hour to figure out how to change the video driver (I couldn't
> > > right-click on the desktop to do it anymore).
> >
> > Um... sure you can. There isn't a Windows since Windows95 that you
> > can't do that.
>
> Please explain.
It's only slightly different between the various Windows (win98, ME,
and 2K are pretty much the same, though).
You right-click on the desktop, properties, settings, advanced, adapter,
click on "Properties". In there you can change or update the driver.
This is in Win98, ME, and 2K. In Win95 it's slightly different IIRC,
but close enough.
NT is quite a bit different, but you can also change the driver though
the desktop (display) properties.
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
