Linux-Advocacy Digest #779, Volume #34 Fri, 25 May 01 23:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP (flatfish+++)
Re: Time to bitc__ again (flatfish+++)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Terry
Porter)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Terry
Porter)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Terry
Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Mark Fergerson)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Terry Porter)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ray Fischer)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Terry Porter)
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP (Terry Porter)
Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why? (Terry Porter)
Linux Capability (WJP)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Ayende
Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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: Sat, 26 May 2001 04:18:20 +0200
"Michael Marion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > However, there wasn't a single time when I used Mozilla that I didn't
manage
> > to crash the browser within less several minutes, usually twenty minutes
> > suffice to that.
>
> The older builds were less stable, but the last ones (everything this year
for
> sure) have been pretty stable for me. I've had it open all day long a lot
(I
> tend to use the old netscape for our web trouble ticket system and some
> browsing, and mozilla for non-work browsing) and it works well. The
wierdest
> thing I've seen is that with the 0.9 build I did, some random sites will
show
> up with huge fonts for some reason, while most sites look fine.
I'm not talking about old builds, I'm talking about post-0.9 builds.
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 01:58:29 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 23:05:13 GMT, Michael Marion
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It amazes me that either company (let alone both) could convince people not
>only to pay for a beta, but to almost feel honored to be allowed to do it.
>Now _that's_ marketing. :/
There's a sucker born every minute, which was not uttered by PT Barnum
BTW.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux.mandrake,linux.redhat
Subject: Re: Time to bitc__ again
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 02:03:00 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 00:37:55 GMT, daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I build compile kernels all the time. Usually within the first 10
>minutes of installing Linux. My point was that I COULDN T compile
>kernels on either of these because either the kernels are sloppily
>patched or else the libs needed to build them dont work. I just had
>this happen again last night with the latest updated kernel-source
>2.2.19 for Mandrake 7.1. Its neat that they patched IPSEC in for me,
>too bad that make config will crash if you try to change the IPSEC
>parameters from their defaults. And make menuconfig wont even work
>with it!
I know! I was just having a little fun with you :)
I remember when RedHat misnamed the kernel source tree on one of their
versions (5.2? ) by adding an extra suffix to it and compiles would
fail miserably.
I questioned at that time weather or not anybody tests these things
before they go out the door. Glint was also broken on that version as
well as ppp not working correctly either.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2001 02:00:22 GMT
On 25 May 2001 11:19:55 -0500,
Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip of practicle, realistic comments by CE, now just wait for the Wintrolls to
bite)
> ....Oh...but I forgot.....now you can log in and log out of Windows XP
> and not kill your internet connection. Wow!
Hahahahahah
Oh yeah XP is a killer OS alright ;-)
>
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2001 02:09:13 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 12:15:36 -0500,
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Can I setup Windows XP at home so that I can log into it via ssh and have
>> a server running that acts as a proxy web browser, allowing me to
>> browse the web from my machine at work over an encrypted channel and
>> bypassing the filters on my company's firewall? And do all this with
>> out-of-the-box free software?
>
> Nope
<snip>
>
>> Can I use Windows XP to redirect it's output over an encrypted network
>> port so that I can run applications on my home machine from my machine
>> at work, complete with GUI features? And do all this with out-of-the-box
>> free software?
>
> Yes
<snip>
>
>> Can I use Windows XP as a NAT server and firewall and allow the machines
>> on my LAN to all share a single internet connection? And do all this with
>> out-of-the-box free software?
>
> Of course
<snip>
>
>>
>> Can I use Windows XP as a software development platform with the software
>> that it comes with, without the need to purchase additional software for
>> lots of money?
>
> Of course.
Chad Myers is such a bullshitter!
Windows does not come with any development software.
>
>> I can do all this and more with linux, for free.
Correct!
Oh well, at least Microsoft's latest OS, can do 50%
of what we can do with Linux.
Of course Linux is free, and XP is not, *plus* it looks
like XP owners will pay... and pay ... and pay .
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2001 02:19:22 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 17:23:20 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 25 May 2001 02:50:39 GMT
> presented us with the wisdom:
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >
>> Oh, I'm so glad to read this!
>> Would you care to explain that to my Samsung ML-4600 laser printer,
> please!?
>> Because, it came with a manufacturer-written linux driver, which was
> written
>> for RedHat 6.x, but works perfectly with Mandrake 7.2 as well. On the
> other
>> hand, it has Windows 95,, 98 and NT drivers (built by the manufacturer),
>> but _NONE_ of them works with Windows 2000 Professional.
>
> Um, read this:
> http://www.pcquest.com/content/weeksreview/101230101.asp
> "The driver CD has drivers for Windows 9x/NT/2000 and Linux"
>
> Here is a link to the Samsung printers drivers page:
> http://www.samsungsupport.com/prt_drv.htm
>
> And here is the link for the Win2000 driver for the printer:
> http://www.samsungsupport.com/ftp/ML4600ENG_pcl.exe
>
>
> Gee, you would think that a Linux user would hear about Google.
That's hardly the point Ayende.
Zsolt said that his printer drivers that came with Windows 2000
*did not work*, whilst the Linux one *did work*.
He wasn't tasking for your help,
Obviously he would know about Google and many other search
engines on the net.
You're crossing that thin line into Wintrollism now.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Fri, 25 May 2001 22:26:41 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Ah, I see where you've got lost. You think
> > > a file manager is a GUI!
> >
> > Im not lost. The Apple II desktop is much more than "just" a file
> > manager. It is true that * bit programs would not access the desktop.
>
> Neither could 16 bit programs, if by "desktop" you
> mean that software.
>
> > However, you could launch programs from there. You could access Control
> > Panels and Settings from there. And you could manage files from there.
> > Just like from the Finder on a Mac.
>
> Yes; it was just a file manager, just like
> the Mac's Finder.
>
"Just a file manager?" Sure.
> The control panel was not part of the
> Finder. The IIgs supported desk
> accessories in the same way that
> the early Macintosh did, and like
> the Mac, the control panel was one
> of these. It could be made available
> in any app that supported DAs.
>
> But the Apple II desktop, like the Finder,
> was not a GUI toolbox, like Macintosh
> Toolbox- or its Apple IIgs equivalent.
>
Have you even used the first GS system software?
> Sure, *some* 'file managers'- like OS/2's WPS
> or Window's Explorer- are just shells for
> dynamic object plugins that provide the
> file management- so they can be more like
> APIs than file mangers, in a way.
>
> But the Apple II desktop and the Finder
> (either the Mac or IIgs versions) are not
> like that.
>
> They are just programs.
>
"Just programs"? .. as opposed to what?
> > > That program is just a file manager. It's cute,
> > > but it's not at all the same as what I'm
> > > talking about. There's no way for an
> > > ordinary application to make use of those
> > > controls you see there, for instance.
> >
> > Whats an "ordinary" application.
>
> You know, your word processor or
> spreadsheet or drawing program or whatever.
>
There's no way for a GS app to access the control panel through
software?
> > And how do you think a "non-ordinary"
> > would access the "controls" that are in the desktop?
>
> I am not quite sure what you mean by
> "non-ordinary"; the Apple II desktop
> implements those controls as part of
> itself; it does not need to "access"
> them per se.
>
You said ...
"There's no way for an ordinary application to make use of those
controls you see there, for instance."
If there are ordinary applications, there must be non-prdinary programs.
> [snip]
> > > Yes, yes. The gs would run this //e stuff
> > > just fine. That wasn't a problem.
> >
> > Excepth that that is the desktop that the GS originally used.
>
> Actually by your own account,
> you used the Launcher.
>
Used teh launcher to start the desktop.
> But what was more common was to boot
> directly into the program you were
> to use, right off a floppy.
>
ReallY? As opposed to booting them from thin air, or from a hard drive?
> > > It could *also* run 16-bit software that
> > > would take advantage of the gs' many
> > > advantages over older IIs. This software
> > > didn't use the 8-bit system software
> > > or ProDOS 8.
> >
> > You have 0 credibility.
>
> Really, I think you greatly underestimate
> what the IIgs could do, even with the first
> ROM revision.
>
I have owned a GS since the first day thjey shipped. How much time have
put in with them?
> > The orginal system disk had a "launcher", a file that identified itself
> > as the 16 bit desktop, but wasnt,
>
> It was just a launcher. Kinda cheezy, but it
> only worked because the system software
> *was* there under it.
>
> > and the Apple II Desktop, which was an
> > 8 bit application. It was the desktop, NOT just a file manager.
>
> It was just a file manager.
>
Keep repeating that.
> > If you
> > "opened" either desktop, ProDOS 8 loaded and ran the desktop. from there
> > you had a GUI environment. 8 bit.
>
> I am pretty certain that the Launcher used
> ProDOS 16; it used the IIgs controls, so
> using ProDOS 8 for that would have been
> most inconvenient.
>
Boot computer--> ProDOS 16 loader --> launcher --> start desktop -->
ProDOS 8 loads --> desktop. From here you could start 8 or 16 bit apps.
If they were written properly, when you quit them, they returned you to
the 8 bit desktop.
What IIgs controls did the launcher use? Can you describe the screen? If
so, please do.
> > If you opened a 16 bit app, ProDOS 16
> > loaded and then the app loaded. When you quit, if the app was properly
> > written, ProDOS 8 reloaded and started the Desktop again. If not, you
> > were dumped back the the launcher. Same with 8 bit ProDOS app. If you
> > opened an 8 bit app, the app started with out re-loading ProDOS 8.
> >
> > I know this because I just did it. I have a GS. I have the original
> > system disk. I have 8 bit software and 16 bit software. I also have
> > system 5 and 6, which are full 16 bit versions of GS OS.
> >
> > It will be interesting to see how you try to squirm out of this.
>
> I don't understand what's so confusing to you;
> nobody is suggesting that the Apple IIgs could
> not run 8-bit software.
>
I didnt think you could convincingly do it.
> What exactly am I supposed to be swuirming
> out of?
Why was the original GS desktop 8 bit?
You also didnt answer this question from a couple of replies back...
when did the GS get a fully 16 bit OS?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Mark Fergerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,sci.physics
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 02:25:29 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Mark Fergerson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 24 May 2001
<snip bits we agree on, what fun is that?)
> >> >>> Radio waves have been measured by the NBS at
> >> >>> 88%.
<actually that was GreyCloud>
> >> >Dunno what that means. 88% of what?
> >>
> >> c
> >
> > What wavelength(s)? In what medium? If he thinks it was any part of
> >the usual broadcast bands in air, I'll offer a categorical "bullshit"
> >right now. Otherwise I want a citation to examine. Something at an
> >official National Bureau of Standards website will do nicely.
>
> IIRC, they were radio frequency in a waveguide.
There's the catch. Waveguides are weird beasts; there's phase
velocity (always faster than c in vacuum) and group velocity (always
slower than c in vacuum). Combine them as in the Pythagorean theorem
and they always add up to c.
Group velocity is the velocity at which information is transferred,
you can't get FTL (faster-than-light) paradoxes with waveguides.
BTW, if the waveguide is full of air, replace "c in vacuum" with "c
in air" in the above.
So there's no problem here; in waveguides the group velocity will
always be some fraction of c.
> > Speaking of citations, if he was right, speed radar would be a very
> >much iffier thing than it already is.
>
> If speed radar worked as simply as you probably imagine it does, it
> would be! ;-)
Oh, no. I know how it works, it's just that there's no waveguide
between the gun and my car. ;>)
> >> >>> The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
> >
> > That's just plain deliberate ignorance.
>
> I can understand that point. But I would have to suggest that in such
> an extreme case as quantum effects, it is simply the fact of the matter.
> Certainly, to use the claim to radically overhaul all of physics, it
> would be an argument from ignorance. As an explanation of why a certain
> subtle effect may not be easily understood by those well versed
> (possibly too well versed, IYKWIM) in physics because it *seems* to
> contradict some well-known facts, it is simply tentative.
I have the sneaky feeling you know something about what GreyCloud
claimed that I don't. You really ought to post more of his statements
so I know what you're talking about.
> >> >Sure it has. _Physics Letters_ (12), 260, for one.
> >>
> >> Not all theoretical proofs of lights velocity in a vacuum would
> >> necessarily qualify as 'measurement', perhaps.
> >
> > _No_ theoretical proof of _anything_ qualifies as measurement.
> >Measurement always means instruments and physical events.
>
> I'm afraid I can't agree with that; indirect measurements predicated on
> the validity of the theory make up the great balance of all scientific
> knowledge.
This is beginning to sound like philosophy. Serious science makes a
very few assumptions (like c is constant everywhere for all observers)
and extrapolates from there. Experiments are done to see if those
extrapolations match the way Nature thinks things ought to work. If
they do, the theory's considered "true". If they don't, the
experiments are refined to see where exactly Nature does it
differently, then the theory is revised to fit the facts.
What exactly do you mean by "indirect measurements"?
> >> >>> It has been measured, tho, in space that light without quantum packets
> >> >>> travels instantaneously. Otherwise, the appearance of distant galaxies
> >> >>> would be totally distorted beyond recognition.
You know, I ought to have challenged this earlier. What the hell
does he mean by "light without quantum packets"?
> >> >No, it hasn't. Laser light bounced from retroreflectors on the Moon takes
> >> >a number of seconds to make a round trip. And much of that trip is in a
> >> >good vacuum.
> >>
> >> Yet some of it is in air, as GreyCloud is pointing out. Indeed, all
> >> direct experimental evidence of the speed of light in a vacuum is
> >> similarly burdened, according to him. I think it is unlikely, myself,
> >> but possible.
> >
> > Irrelevant. The round-trip time is calculated including the velocity
> >differentials for air and vacuum. Experiment matches calculations.
> >What else is there to say?
>
> That there are other experiments that indicate slightly different ways
> of explaining the match between calculation and experiment which are
> more accurate, consistent, or practical. These results can be
> considered more of a mirage than a proof of the theory, if modeled by
> quantum packets speeding up and slowing down. Or at least this is what
> my understanding of GreyCloud's point was.
What other experiments?
Why did you just post part of his stuff for comment?
Mark L. Fergerson
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2001 02:30:58 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 10:43:48 GMT,
Dan Pidcock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
Hahahah yeah they should, but the English, who soon learnt that the Maori's
kicked ass, sent in their secret weapon.
...... a priest.
> remove .hatespam to reply
Bty regarding another post of yours, have you tried Mozilla0.9
, I find it immensly better than Netscape ?
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray Fischer)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 02:36:45 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Rule #1: never underestimate your opponent.
Tough to do in your case.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
[EMAIL PROTECTED] into you -- Nietzsche
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2001 02:36:31 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 12:33:01 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> What a Ubermoron, hes not scared of a Kiwi, hahahahahahaahh!
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You really think this is funny ?Kiwi? i yi yi ...
Yeah I do :)
>
> *take note* of how neither one of you can, or care, to backup your absurd
> claims.
Hahahah, there, there,little Ubertwit, don't cry.
> --You'd both rather hurl insults and divert attention from the topic being
> discussed.
Nope, you have a copyright on that technique, Uberlooser.
> Thousands of advocacy posts ... so little advocacy, so little maturity.
So little time, so many Uberidiots.
>
>> 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.
Reality ... get over 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.
Hey they're my next door neighbours.
>
><psssst... quick, someone tell Kulkis he's got competition>
I'd love to see you hassle a Maori nightclub doorman.
......Uberedspotontheground
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2001 02:42:24 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 16:31:08 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [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!
>
> Apple did the same, you know.
What's your point ?
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 26 May 2001 02:46:48 GMT
On Fri, 25 May 2001 16:18:35 GMT, peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've got three extra computers that I would like to install different
> version of Linux, so I can learn more about this great OS.
>
> Some system info:
>
> System 1: P60, 1.2 gig hd, 32-64 mb memory
> System 2: Cyrix 166, 3 gig hd, 64-96 mb memory
> System 3: Cyrix MII 366 or AMD K6-II+, 6.4 gig hd, 64-128 mb memory
>
> So my question is, which three versions should I use, I want to set up
> a web server, do some C++, java, and perl programming, setup a
> database, and use Linux for normal "desktop" activities (programming,
> writting letters, surfing the internet, etc).
>
> I'm guessing,
>
> 1) RH for the system 1 (P60) and make that the web server.
>
> 2) Maybe Suse 7.1 for system 2, to learn more about another good
> distro, and maybe setup a database on it.
>
> 3) Mandrake 8.0 for the system 3 and make that my "desktop" system.
>
> I have more computer parts laying around, so i could probably build
> one or two more low end systems, 6.4 gig is the largest extra HD I
> have,though.
>
> So what setup would you do, or have you already done ?
I'd think that #3 wouldbe fine with any Linux Distro, and I'd
probably put Mandrakeon it.
Suse for #1, as a server it would be fine.
For #2 I'd use Debian.
>
>
> Peter
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: WJP <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux Capability
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 21:50:15 -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
H***"). 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: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 06:00:50 +0200
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 25 May 2001 17:23:20 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 25 May 2001 02:50:39 GMT
> > presented us with the wisdom:
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> Oh, I'm so glad to read this!
> >> Would you care to explain that to my Samsung ML-4600 laser printer,
> > please!?
> >> Because, it came with a manufacturer-written linux driver, which was
> > written
> >> for RedHat 6.x, but works perfectly with Mandrake 7.2 as well. On the
> > other
> >> hand, it has Windows 95,, 98 and NT drivers (built by the
manufacturer),
> >> but _NONE_ of them works with Windows 2000 Professional.
> Zsolt said that his printer drivers that came with Windows 2000
> *did not work*, whilst the Linux one *did work*.
He said that CD didn't have a Win2K driver, and that Win2K doesn't come with
a driver for it.
I pointed out where he can get it.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
