Linux-Advocacy Digest #766, Volume #34 Fri, 25 May 01 09:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Osugi
Sakae")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Dan Pidcock)
Re: Time to bitc__ again (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Dan Pidcock)
A Newbie Linux User Asks: (WJP)
Re: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free (Roger Blake)
Re: IBM goes to jail... (.)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (.)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("~¿~")
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: (Topaz_Crow)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (JamesW)
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP (Zsolt)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP (Zsolt)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Edward
Rosten")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Osugi Sakae" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 19:26:49 +0900
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 11:27:06 +0900, "Osugi Sakae"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>By your reasoning, in a year or so when many windows users have switched
>>to XP, you would have to claim that there was a demand for an os which
>>required activation, and that windows users had asked for a substandard
>>mp3 encoder. Millions of people are (will be) using / have it on their
>>computer, so obviously there was some demand for it.
>>
>>Surely you see the silliness here?
> In your example, yes I do, but my example is different.
>
> Using inferior features, like the mp3 encoder and the activation stuff
> is silly and stupid and I don't support it anymore than you do. But.....
>
> I buy a product and on the box it says it has "x" features. I like "x"
> features so I buy it. I install it under Linux and I get "x/4" features.
> I am not happy.
This is fair, except that the user must know enough to choose hardware
for their system. A mac user who buys a scanner that only comes with
windows drivers isn't going to get any of the features on the box - does
this make the mac os a low-quality os? When I buy hardware, i make sure
it is supported in Linux before i buy it. So i guess you are saying that
windows is a better os because any one can buy almost any hardware and be
likely to find a driver disk in the box. I don't feel that is a valid way
to judge the quality of an os.
True Story: i bought my digital camera many years ago, before i ever
started using linux. Then, after i installed linux and used gphoto for a
while, i found that i liked gphoto better than the software that came
with my camera (windows only software of course). Gphoto has more
features and is actually still being improved. The camera company made
one program for the camera once and near as i can tell never updated it
once in three years. So for me at least, in this case, linux support was
better.
>>Please, do your really think that linux users are the sort who just
>>accept the situation and live with it? People like that are found using
>>windows and mac. linux has gotten where it is today and will continue
>>advancing because the users work to make it better.
>
> Yes I do.
>
> One example is the help systems which semi-exist in Linux distributions.
> How many times do you click on help only to get a message saying "Help
> has not been written yet and I will get to it ass soon as I can".
>
> This simply does not happen in the Windows world.
of course not - much of the windows world is business / profit oriented.
They are selling something and know they have to put out a polished
product or no one will buy it. So comparing kde's mostly volunteer
written documentation (as an example) with the online help for windows is
comparing apples and oranges. Compares the printed documentation that
comes with windows with that which you get with SuSE or Mandrake (or
whoever). Those are companies selling a product and they include very
comprehensive documentation.
>>btw, what will you do for a general use put down when linux distros
>>switch to mozilla and there is no netscape to pick on? A few years ago
>>it was sound, then it was true-type fonts, then it was antialiased
>>fonts. Now you are reduced to kicking the dead body (ok, it is braindead
>>but on life-support) of netscape.
> Mozilla is a behemoth of a disaster and is going nowhere fast. IE is THE
> STANDARD by which ALL browsers are and will continue to be judged.
>
> Mozilla is going to be a disaster just like everything else Netscape has
> done recently....
>
> BTW sound is still an issue and so is font's because Linux users are
> forced to steal them from their WIndows directories.
Sorry about the wording on that - i made it sound like you personally
had been using those complaints. I meant it to be that winvocates in
have been using those general-use putdowns. I apologise.
I think you are writing off mozilla too quickly. After all, MS bought a
more or less complete browser and has been improving it for what? about 5
years? IE is the standard, but mostly because it is the only browser for
most of the computing public and because it is being developed at a huge
cost by a company that can give it away for free. How could anyone hope
to compete, even if IE wasn't part of the operating system (supposedly)?
Wait for Mozilla to get to at least 1.0 or 2.0 before you right it off.
Even MS admitted that IE 3.0 wasn't "compeling".
>>Isn't marketting just a way of convincing people to by what you have to
>>sell? (or is that advertising? Whats the diff?) So who cares? You think
>>windows is good because they spend a lot marketing it to you?
>
>
> No. I think Windows is good because it has useful applications and Linux
> doesn't, unless you are a programmer or want to spend your entire
> lifetime trying to make them work.
Perl and LaTeX work right out of the box for me in Linux. Getting them to
run in Windows was a major pain.
I think you (or maybe just some winvocates) mean that "MS has great apps
as long as you like the MS way of doing things". I do lots of writing - no
graphical reports, no presentations, very little in the way of
spreadsheeting, just writing. I do not like Word or WordPerfect or Ichitaro
or any other bloated "office suit". Give me a good text editor and i am
happy - i let tex worry about formating. On windows this is actually hard
to do.
>>I still do not understand why winvocates judge an os based on hardware
>>support. You must know that it is up to the hardware companies to
>>support their hardware on the os. The companies are in business to make
>>money, not support one os or another - they decide whether or not to
>>write drivers based on the economics. So if enough linux users start
>>asking for drivers (and buying the hardware), then the company will
>>write the driver. None of this is at all related to the quality of any
>>os.
>
> This is a prime example of the classic LinoNut 2-step, blame everyone
> else.
I did not blame anyone. I said that hardware support is upto the
manufacturer. Are you saying that MS writes all the drivers for all the
hardware that windows supports?
It is a simple chicken-egg problem: no economic reason to write drivers
for an os that few people are using (or at least few people are using
your hardware with) but no one will use the os until it supports a lot of
hardware. For a commercial os like BeOS or OS/2, this can be the kiss of
death, but for an open / free os like linux this is only a small
obstical. Still, it takes time. And I admit, hardware support alone does
not mean an os will become popular.
> Fact is that Windows users and even less Mac users don't give 2 craps
> about an OS. We use applications and have the hardware support to be
> able to utilize them.
You mean all these linux apps that i use everyday don't exist? All my
hardware works fine.
> Linonuts seem to be the only ones that like to talk OS.
I don't understand. Aren't you here talking os? So where is windows
support for mac machines? Win98 / XP / whatever won't run on my ibook? Is
that what you call hardware support?
> Quality?
>
> If I want to use a command line 200 characters long, like Terry Porter
> posted, to burn a CD maybe.
>
> What a fsking joke!
> I can burn one track, take the CD out and burn another track tomorrow
> and so forth using SoundForge and I don't have to remember a single
> command.
If you had to, if you needed to, could you burn a cd from the command
line in windows (any code-forked version)? I'd be surprised if you could.
In linux the command line is an option. It is called choice. Personally,
i use gcombust and have never had any probs with it. (gcombust is a gui
cd-burning program).
Never tried using multi-session disks. Are you making the claim that they
do not work in linux? Funny, it was my windows box (at work) that couldn't
read CD-Rs.
>>For almost every other os, if the company doesn't write the driver no
>>one does. AFAIK, only linux and maybe the *BSDs have users writing
>>drivers with / in addition to / in place of the hardware companies. I
>>think this scares MS, because it makes it a little harder for them to
>>use the hardware companies to kill linux.
>
>
> Linux will ALWAYS be behind in drivers because the manufacturers write
> for the OS that makes money for them first and then, and that is still a
> maybe, they MIGHT get around to writing a Linux version.
This is the chicken-egg thing i mentioned above. Two things:
1. Are you sure you mean ALWAYS? forever is a very long time. What if say
100 years from now when BG and all the other first generation MSers are
gone, MS windows is not the dominant os? By your own admission, the
hardware companies will make drivers for teh dominant platform first and
others later. So MS would have to beg for drivers.
2. you totally ignored what i said. Do you know of any windows drivers
that were written by unpaid volunteer developers? Do you agree that MS is
scared by their inability to control driver development in linux?
>>Explain why-about a year and a half ago- my unsupported matrox g400
>>worked better in linux than in windows where is had supported
>>(ms-approved) drivers? 3d didn't work under linux (i think- never tried
>>that hard to get it working) but the everyday stuff was fine. Under
>>windows, everything was horribly unstable. 3d "worked" but only for a
>>few minutes (crash!) and even the desktop crashed regularly. Within a
>>few months, i was getting gpf's on boot up and nothing could fix it. All
>>this with the ms-approved drivers. So i take winvocates supported
>>hardware claims with a huge grain of salt.
>
> Bullshit!!!
> Linux didn't get Twinhead support till recently. Windows had it all
> along!!
>
> You are FOS....
[Fsck u 2 buddy! };>) ]
I never said twinhead support. I have a g400 single head 32 meg card that
i bought because it was the only decent card available in my rather small
town. Caldera OpenLinux and SuSE mistook it for some other matrox card
with 16 meg and it worked fine, but no 3d, like i said. Windows totally
barfed on it. Neither the driver disk provided with the card nor the
drivers from the matrox home page worked properly. the desktop crashed
very often and games were unplayable because the machine would crash so
quickly.
I switched to a 3dfx card (Voodoo 3-2000) and got 3d working in linux
(thanks to mandrake) and working somewhat in windows. Still, the windows
3d quality was only so-so and was even harder to set up than 3d in linux.
>>Also, i seem to recall hearing somewhere recently that nvidia's new
>>drivers are getting some people better frame rates in linux than in
>>windows. what does that say about the quality of the os?
>
> More BS...
Not BS - I might be mistaken, but it is not bs. I think i was clear that
i was not entirely certain about the reliability of the statement.
But please tell me, if the hardware manufacturer is making the drivers,
why is it so hard to believe that linux might be faster than windows? (I
admit that this is prolly a moot point - there are too many variables)
--
Osugi Sakae
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pidcock)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 10:43:48 GMT
On 25 May 2001 03:12:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
wrote:
>On Thu, 24 May 2001 12:24:15 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:9ei5rg$hm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Get a life "~¿~" , or better know as, Mr "I'm too chicken to use my real
>>> name".
...
>> caught doing so. Besides, your the type of guy that I have zero fear of.
>
>What a Ubermoron, hes not scared of a Kiwi, hahahahahahaahh!
>
>They'll hold ya up in the air by the skull (using only one hand), while they
>bite ya feet off, you twit.
>
>In one classic battle with the English, the Maori warriors, went and re-loaded
>the guns of the dying soldiers, cause the battle wasn't lasting long enough!
nice. What went wrong then: surely Aus&NZ should be ruled by Maori's
now.
remove .hatespam to reply
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:21:54 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
daniel wrote:
>
snip
>
Why do these distros insist on pushing forward and putting out cutting-edge
recent, yet highly buggy releases? Why not just keep improving and
existing one if it works?
>
snip
>
You met the point. I am working with Linux for years at home and in the job
and it fits my needs almost perfectly (after figuring out some of this tiny
little secrets). The last years when the great Linux-Hype started the
distributions got more and more sluttish (hmm, the right word ?). I spent
a lot more time in sailing around these cliffs than I would need to set up
and configure a properly composed distribution. But in my opinion it is
worth the work. I made too bad experiences with NT4/5.
--
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.1
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Pidcock)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 11:40:33 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 12:20:51 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9el4sd$pil$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> An internet connection working perfectly, removed a couple of
>installations,
>> Gozilla and Logitech Camera software, rebooted, connected to the net, and
>it
>> fails to load saying that IE cannot find the site. I then re-installed
>> Windows, and amazingly everything starts to work again. Never had
>anything
>> like that happen in Linux.
>>
>Of course, *nothing* to do with external stuff, like maybe an ISP screwup.
Probably not.
I have a similar problem: win95 was OK. Changed to win98SE and now
dial-up internet doesn't work. It dials and can ping for a while but
loading sites is really slow and only gets about the first site I try.
Not an ISP/hardware problem as internet all works fine in Linux and
BeOS.
I really don't want to have to install 98 yet again: I've had to do 3
installs so far just to get it working how it is. BeOS is great for
internet access as it is so responsive but a lot of sites don't work.
Linux is OK but not so responsive and Netscape is prone to crashing
(tho it seems better now I've changed from kde wm to icewm).
Dan
remove .hatespam to reply
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 06:50:45 -0500
I have relatives in another state that use AOL software exclusively for
their internet connection. This appears to me to be a stumbling block
for me to completely get rid of Windows from my PC's. (Those relatives
have no intention of switching to Linux or getting away from "AOL
Hell"). I am vaguely familiar with VMWare and wine, however, those
programs still require Windows to be installed ( unless I misunderstand
the way these programs are "set up"). Heck, if I have to have Windows
installed to run either one of those, I might as well continue using the
AOL software "within" Windows. Does anyone know if there is Linux-based
software which can be used to provide interface with AOL's software?
Does Netscape for Linux have the AOL Instant Message capability?
You may be wondering why I asked these questions in a Linux advocacy
news group. The reason is thusly: I agree that most Linux
distributions provide numerous applications in their "bundles", however,
unless there are program capabilities included to cover situations such
as described above, the requirement for Windows installs will continue -
regardless of what a person, such as myself, would prefer to install. In
other words: I cannot "safely" tell my wife that she can no longer talk
on-line with her sister just because I want to be "Windows free".
Regards,
Bill Powell
USAF/USA (Ret) Management Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roger Blake)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: IBM to let Linux fans use mainframe--for free
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:03:24 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 03:58:01 +0000, Richard Thrippleton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>characters regardless? I know there's some reason for this, but it escapes
>me at this time. Any ideas?
Because the most popular character-cell terminals (ANSI/DEC VT-xxx series)
have 80-column wide screens. You'll notice that if you use a terminal
emulator or the Linux console, that's what you'll get by default.
(There was a time on Usenet when no one would need such a thing explained
to them. :-)
--
Roger Blake
(remove second "g" and second "m" from address for email)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: IBM goes to jail...
Date: 25 May 2001 12:06:34 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How many people read that story about IBM's
> CHALK marketing team being ordered to jail!
> Wasn't that something.
Sure was...you cant *buy* that kind of marketing. Absolutely
brilliant.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: 25 May 2001 12:09:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JS \ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>> Most commonly used desktop OS in General Motors is the Unix family.
> That's a little hard to independently verify isn't it?
Its a little hard, but thank goodness I know a guy who currently works
for ford in detroit, and has more than a couple of GM friends...
Who all say that the unix family is NOT the most commonly used desktop
at GM, as a company. The most commonly used desktop os at GM is windowsNT.
The most commonly used desktop OS among GM engineers and development staff,
however, is UNIX, specifically Solaris and IRIX.
Just like at Ford and just about every other car company on the planet.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:33:01 GMT
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 12:24:15 GMT,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:9ei5rg$hm7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Get a life "~¿~" , or better know as, Mr "I'm too chicken to use my
real
> >> name".
> >
> > I love how you clipped out the relevant part of my post -- the part
about
> > your assertions of gross memory usage of the MS product vs. the other
word
> > processors. Typical ad hominem low brow retort.
> > My posts here average one a day. Your average is ???? Who is in need of
this
> > 'life' you speak of?
> > Trying to divert attention away from the fact that you have once again
> > squarely driven your foot in your mouth by making claims you can't back
up
> > with facts is only surpassed by the way you turn to juvenile attacks
when
> > caught doing so. Besides, your the type of guy that I have zero fear of.
>
> What a Ubermoron, hes not scared of a Kiwi, hahahahahahaahh!
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You really think this is funny ?Kiwi? i yi yi ...
*take note* of how neither one of you can, or care, to backup your absurd
claims.
--You'd both rather hurl insults and divert attention from the topic being
discussed.
Thousands of advocacy posts ... so little advocacy, so little maturity.
> They'll hold ya up in the air by the skull (using only one hand), while
they
> bite ya feet off, you twit.
Reality ... look into it.
> In one classic battle with the English, the Maori warriors, went and
re-loaded
> the guns of the dying soldiers, cause the battle wasn't lasting long
enough!
Well, you keep on living in the land of the Maori warriors there, Terry.
<psssst... quick, someone tell Kulkis he's got competition>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Topaz_Crow)
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:22:36 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 06:50:45 -0500, WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have relatives in another state that use AOL software exclusively for
>their internet connection. This appears to me to be a stumbling block
>for me to completely get rid of Windows from my PC's. (Those relatives
>have no intention of switching to Linux or getting away from "AOL
>Hell"). I am vaguely familiar with VMWare and wine, however, those
>programs still require Windows to be installed ( unless I misunderstand
>the way these programs are "set up"). Heck, if I have to have Windows
>installed to run either one of those, I might as well continue using the
>AOL software "within" Windows. Does anyone know if there is Linux-based
>software which can be used to provide interface with AOL's software?
>Does Netscape for Linux have the AOL Instant Message capability?
>
>You may be wondering why I asked these questions in a Linux advocacy
>news group. The reason is thusly: I agree that most Linux
>distributions provide numerous applications in their "bundles", however,
>unless there are program capabilities included to cover situations such
>as described above, the requirement for Windows installs will continue -
>regardless of what a person, such as myself, would prefer to install. In
>other words: I cannot "safely" tell my wife that she can no longer talk
>on-line with her sister just because I want to be "Windows free".
>
There are several AOL IM clients for linux. AOL makes one themselves.
--
Topaz Crow
No replies by email, sorry.
Reply to alt.anonymous.messages Subject: ATTN: Topaz Crow
PGP/GPG: DSS: 0xBADA36EA RSA: 0x357245A1
------------------------------
From: JamesW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 13:36:53 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > You've generally confabulated the original argument to the point it is
> > > incomprehensible entirely. Nobody claimed that radio waves travel at
> > > .88c in a vacuum. You are mistaking a claim that seems to contradict
> > > your explanation for one that actually contradicts the mathematics those
> > > explanations are based on.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry Max, but you are wrong. Go back and read the whole thread. It
> > started with GreyCloud claiming the the radio waves from a distant star
> > traveled slower than the the speed of light. In the next post he put
> > a number to this:
> >
> > "The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
> > It does not travel at the speed of light.
>
> That's called th Hubble effect.
No - the stuff you've written below is the Hubble effect but that just
changes the frequency - which as numerous posters ouside of GreyCloud's
conspiracy theories have pointed out has no effect on c in a vacuum. The
88% c stuff is just nonsense.
> The greater the distant to a star, the more redshift.
>
> In fact, the modern method is to estimate star distances based
> completely on red-shift methods.
>
> And it's accurate enough that unseen planets can be detect by the
> variations in red-shift caused by the additional shifts from
> approaching/receding from revolving around the center of mass
> of the star's "solar system"
>
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:43:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 23 May 2001 16:39:50 GMT presented us with
the wisdom:
> That's the beta, I said the gold copy. You can legally buy the beta
> (ain't that a trip!) for $10.00 or so.
>
This is shame! You have to _PAY_ them for beta testing their software !?!?
They should be paying you to put up with their garbage and do testing for them!
Next time Microsoft will charge you for sending in bug reports, and you'll be happy
that it is _only_ $25 per word...
When are you guys going to realize how badly you are ripped off ?
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 14:47:37 +0100
>>Gamma rays will go through quite thick metal. I heard an alternative
>>explanation to this recently (in a book called "The Physics of
>>Vibrations and Waves"), which explains it from an entirely different
>>point of view.
>
> It all depends on how "thin" or "thick" metal you have, the type of
> metal
> (e.g., lead vs. aluminium), and the energy (frequency) of the gamma
> rays.
Yep, true.
>>The explanation is that at very high frequencies, the conductivity of
>>metals decreases greatly, especially in proportion to the permiability.
>>This increases the distance that a wave can propogate through the metal.
>>
> That's an interesting explanation - it definitly sounds sensible, but
> I'm afraid it's getting a bit beyond my understanding, so I'll have to
> take your word for it.
It was a little hazy for me as well, since I haven't really covered EM
waves in such depth.
One of the lovely things is that in many things there seem to be two
enirely different explanations for the same thing that are both correct.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 12:53:49 GMT
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 23 May 2001 14:05:25 +1200 presented us
with the
wisdom:
> 2. I can also see Microsoft introducing two schemes, Microsoft approved
> drivers and Microsoft approved software. Why? a couple of months ago the
They will most likely try both. And they most likely will charge big bucks for
a MASS (Microsoft Approved Software Stamp), which means small software
companies can't afford them, not to mention hobby programmers, academics etc.
This means, that all niche computing will be turned to Linux (e.g. scientific
software, which is already in great progress in that direction). As a result,
only mass-computing needs (i.e. web browsing and office sw) will be served
by Windows, which will gradually turn it into an applience market, what MS
wanted anyway. So the end prospect is rather positive: computers will be
free of monkeys again and intelligent people will use them only. The mass
will use those MS appliences instead.
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 15:00:08 +0100
In article <9el13o$cho$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9ek4ai$k62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > I wouldn't say so. The problem is that the ones that you *meet*
>> >> > are the ones that are like that. Hell, I know of someone that
>> >> > *reinstalled* the OS just because he accidently activated the
>> >> > history side bar on IE, and didn't know how to turn that off.
>> >>
>> >> The mind boggles. If he could figure out the whole reinstalling
>> >> thing, one wonders why on earth he didn't figure out how to turn it
>> >> off.
>> >
>> > On, reinstalling is quite easy. You shove the CD in the drive, and
>> > then you click keep clicking next.
>>
>> Then install drivers, applications, etc etc.
>
> He didn't format first, he reinstall on top of existing install.
Doesn't it require you to reinstall all drivers etc because it trashes
the old registry?
Even so, I'm suprised he figured out that reinstalling the OS would work,
and went through the process, when he couldn't figure out how to get rid
of the sidebar.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
