Linux-Advocacy Digest #789, Volume #34 Sat, 26 May 01 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Zsolt)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Opera (.)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Zsolt)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Anyone running Mandrake 8.0 yet? Worth the d/l? ("adam")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why? (Ralph Miguel Hansen)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP (flatfish+++)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:42:28 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 14:04:41 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 26 May 2001 01:09:53 GMT, Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Joel Barnett wrote:
>> >>
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> ome.com...
>> >> > On Fri, 25 May 2001 13:12:36 -0700, Joel Barnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >"Peter Hayes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > >> On Wed, 23 May 2001 18:26:11 -0700, "Joel Barnett"
>> >> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > >> wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
>> >> h
>> >> > >> > ome.com...
>> >> > >> > > On Thu, 24 May 2001 00:53:49 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > >> > wrote:
>> >> > >> > > >I installed SP2 under Win2k and it worked perfectly, just like SP1
>> >> > >> > > >did. Contrast this to the Mandrake update CD I was sent in the
>> >> mail
>> >> > >> > > >thaty destroyed my entire system.
>> >> > >> > > >
>> >> > >> > > >Sorry but Linux still sucks and Windows ROCKS!!!!!
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> > > Fuck off and die troll. Win2k is pathetic for it's 40 year old
>> >> file
>> >> > >> > system and
>> >> > >> > > the cpu and memory requirement of a super computer just to not run
>> >> > >like a
>> >> > >> > dog.
>> >> > >> > >
>> >> > >> >
>> >> > >> > NTFS is 40 years old ?
>> >> > >> > W2k will run fine on a P200 with 128 Mb RAM.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> What??? 128 Mb RAM before you can open Notepad???
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >
>> >> > >You claimed W2k required the cpu and memory of a super computer. Was that
>> >> > >claim false, or do you consider a P200 and 128 Mb RAM supercomputer stuff
>> >> ?
>> >> >
>> >> > take a course in history
>> >> >
>> >> > and you're dreaming if you think it'll work worth a shit on a P200.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Nope, I used the P200/128Mb RAM example because I recently installed w2k on
>> >> that machine. It's used as a business desktop - Word, excel, email, AccPac,
>> >> inhouse inventory/purchasing/ordering app. Works fine. The user said it is
>> >> faster than it was with W98/64Mb RAM.
>> >>
>> >> > A pIII@500mhz is pretty the minimum if you don't want it to be dog slow.
>> >>
>> >> jbarntt
>> >Neither Windows 95, 98, nor NT will run for crap on a P200. What did W2k
>> >do differently to make it so much faster?
>> >
>> >Please post the code if you can.
>>
>> I use a nearly plain win95 box that is a pentium 200 with 64M of ram. My system
>> in '95 was os/2, a P90 and 16M and it screamed. I only brought it up to 32M
>> later so it wouldn't trash when doing graphic manipulations on 300dpi 4x6
>> images.
>>
>> This windows box is too slow to keep a win printer running, spool 32M photo job
>> in less than 15 minutes, or keep a 12x plextor 12/10/32 cd writer feed
>> continueously.
> I agree. I have a P90 laptop running windows95. It too has trouble
>printing and anything graphical is dog slow. Most applications won't run
>on it, including MS Office. So I keep it down to a minimum. Just enough
>to do MS Word and internet connectivity for travel.
>--
Isn't that sad? In '94 the pentium was considered gross overkill for desktop
applications, to be reserved for server use.
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:43:25 GMT
~¿~ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 23 May 2001 12:20:04 GMT presented us with the
wisdom:
>
> 14 to 16 MB's of memory? You have one of the most F'd up Office
> configurations imaginable, or your normal.dot is 10MB's strong. No, I doubt
[snip]
> Here are the stats for Word:
>
> CMD ="C:\PROGRA~1\MICROS~2\OFFICE\WINWORD.EXE"
> Curr Dir =C:\My Documents
> Started by =C:\WINDOWS\EXPLORER.EXE
> Data KB =3,332 in mem = 844 in use = 260
> Code KB =18,256 in mem = 2,056 in use = 832
> Handles Count =49
> Windows = 26
>
> The 18,256 figure above is NOT the phsical memory being used, but the total
> memory used by the application, which includes the virtual memory footprint
> of the application.
Thank you. You just proved yourself _WRONG_ !
18256KB = 17.8MB The fact, that only 2MB is in RAM, just proves another point,
that Chad Myers wouldn't believe in this thread a bit above, namely, that only a very
small percentage of Word's features are actually used by people. You are actively
using about 11% of the code in Word, thus that much is in RAM now. The rest is
swapped out, but it is part of the program and the system has to deal with it. As your
amount of virtual memory increases versus your physical memory (RAM), you get
more and more swapping by the OS, thus slowing down the whole system.
> If you don't know how virutal memory is allocated in windows then you should
> leave the argument at this
> point.
>
If you don't know what "virutal memory" means and how it is related to the size of
the program, then you should leave this argument at this point.
Zsolt
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 14:47:22 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001 22:26:41 -0400;
> >Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip- the Finder]
> >"Just a file manager?" Sure.
>
> Calling the Finder "just a file manager" does certainly make your point
> against Daniel, Rick. No, Daniel, the Finder was not "just" a file
> manager.
Yes, it was. True, since System 7 it has evolved
a few new capabilities- it can manage Fonts, Sounds
and DA installaton, which used to require a separate
program. The control panel functionality was
integrated into the Finder, too.
But that's fairly minor stuff. It's still a file manager;
and in 1986, it didn't even have the minor stuff
added. All those thigns I mentioned were
not part of the Finder then.
The IIgs Finder was like the pre-System 7
Macintosh Finder. Rick's Apple 2 Desktop
goes even futher; it does not even use
a system-level toolbox for its user interface;
it's even more self contained.
> Besides being "just" a special new thing never available
> before, which I'll dub a *program manager*, in retrospect (though the
> Finder was truly more of a file manager than what we think of today as a
> program manager, which is more similar now to the CDE desktop than
> anything else),
File managers had existed before the Finder; they
may have been less user friendly, but they existed
for DOS too.
What Mac the Macintosh different was
not the Finder; it was the toolbox.
> the Finder relied heavily on the Macintosh toolbox.
So do all Macintosh apps.
> Declaring all desktops equally limited is not very supportive of your
> case, Daniel.
I don't know what you mean by "desktops" here; certainly
not all file manager like products are equally limited;
Windows Exporer and OS/2's WPS are quite extensible
and may deserve a category of their own. They
use a Finder-like UI, but they can manage anything
you want, not just a fixed set of things like the
various Finders.
But the Apple 2 desktop was like the Finder;
just a file manager.
> The Finder was not just a 'file manager' for MacOS. It was a paradigm,
> which Bill Gates immediately and noticeably tried to copy.
No; the Finder is not the enitre Macintosh user
interface. On the old single-tasking Macs, the
Finder would shut down when you started
any other app, just like Rick's Apple 2 Desktop
program does.
The user interface didn't go away because
the toolbox, rather than the Finder, provided
it. The toolbox never went away.
With the Apple 2 Desktop, the UI does
go away, because it provides its own;
but IIgs programs could get a similar
UI from the system software, so no
great loss.
Unless you were running on a IIe,
and all you had was mousetext. :(
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: 26 May 2001 14:51:30 GMT
Terry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many of you seem to be having troubles with your browsers and the
> features some of them have. If you want a really useful, Linux
> compliant browser, try Opera.
Actually, ive gotten opera to dump core twice in the past few hours,
but all in all it is more stable than its alternatives.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:00:38 GMT
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:50:01 GMT presented us
with the
wisdom:
>
>
> A top-notch unmatched unified development IDE and rapid-development
> aids.
>
I've been using a far more unified and top-notch IDE in the late '80s, called
TopSpeed, which supported Modula2, C and Assembly development on PCs
all fully integrated with debugger and editor (all the same keyboard shortcuts),
you could mix modules from the different languages, debug them together.
The debugger even had a feature I've never seen in any other system:
you could step _backward_ in your code, i.e. reverse some executed code
from a breakpoint. In comparison, Microsoft's Visual Studio is a pale knock-off.
Not to mention the Case Vision (formerly WorkShop) system on Silicon Graphics
in the early '90s, with all the features MVS has, plus some very cool 3D visualisation
tools for array-contents, what you could get just by clicking on the name of the
array in the debugger window.
So, again, _nothing_ new or original from Microsoft...
Zsolt
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:05:13 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > 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.
Yes. Today the Mac Finder can do
a *little* more- but only a little.
It does the control panels, installs
fonts, system sounds, and desk
accessories.
But that's not much really. And back
in '86, the Mac Finder, like the IIgs
Finder, did none of those things.
[snip]
> > 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?
I've programmed for it, but never professionally.
I've never used your "Apple 2 Desktop" program,
though. You can't program that, so I was not
interested in it back then.
[snip]
> > 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?
APIs, for instance. They are just apps, not
libraries, not frameworks, not pastrami-on-rye
sandwitches.
Just apps.
[snip]
> > > 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?
The control panel was just a desk accessory;
a GS app used the system software to support
them just as a Macintosh app of the time
would do.
Apps did not have direct access to the
control panels. They didn't need it.
[snip]
> 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.
Ah. Yes, there are. Non-ordinary applications are things
like games that would not *want* such controls;
ordinary apps are things like word processors that
would.
[snip]
> > Actually by your own account,
> > you used the Launcher.
>
> Used teh launcher to start the desktop.
You are certainly free to do that. That
doesn't make the desktop special.
> > 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?
As opposed to booting to the launcher,
as you did, and then starting apps.
[snip]
> > 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?
Several years. You underestmate the IIgs;
it was quite a lot better than the IIe was,
in many ways.
[snip]
> > > 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.
It's true. You seem to have a basic
misunderstand how of system software
works on *any* computer; the real magic
is what you *don't* see, not the pretty
icons.
This is true of every system I know
of.
[snip]
> 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.
You don't need the desktop to launch apps; that
is what the Launcher is for.
> What IIgs controls did the launcher use? Can you describe the screen? If
> so, please do.
As I recall it was a smallish dialog with
standard IIgs buttons down one side, and
a list box down the other. You got to
navigate the filesystem with this, a little
like a standard file dialog.
It was very simple.
[snip]
> > 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.
Huh?
Rick, you are getting weirder by the post.
Please, keep it up! :D
> > What exactly am I supposed to be swuirming
> > out of?
>
> Why was the original GS desktop 8 bit?
You mean, why did Apple ship this
"Apple 2 desktop" thing to you,
rather than a better file manager?
Maybe they were cutting corners. You'd
have to ask them.
Why does it *matter*, Rick?
> You also didnt answer this question from a couple of replies back...
> when did the GS get a fully 16 bit OS?
Never. Every single version of the IIgs OS
had some 8-bit system software, for
backwards compatibility.
It's sort of like Windows 95 that way. :D
------------------------------
From: "adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Anyone running Mandrake 8.0 yet? Worth the d/l?
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:05:26 -0400
I've downloaded and installed Mandrake 8.0. I'd say that for a newbie,
such as I, it is a great distribution. It was alot easier to set up than
Red Hat, although Red Hat seems packed with more business applications.
Overall Mandrake 8.0 is great for the average newbie desktop user
converting from a windows environment.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:11:43 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >I don't agree. Windows *can't* succeed without
> >application software, and that software *can't* be
> >written without a development toolchain.
>
> It did. When Win3 became "popular", the only software available was
> Word for Windows 1.0 and DOS applications. The forcing of developers to
> support Windows, well documented in several legal inquiries, was
> after-the-fact.
No. Microsoft's toolchain was available from
Windows 1 forward.
> >Microsoft *must* provide enough of the
> >elements to have a viable platform; Windows
> >by itself is not enough.
>
> So?
So those other elements are also critical;
not just Windows itself.
[snip]
> >You sure about that? Have you compared
> >the marketshare of VB against (say) Delphi?
>
> I have not, because it is irrelevant. The marketshare of Windows versus
> other platforms that Delphi or VB support
What other platforms does Delphi support? VB certainly
supports none.
> is sufficient to prove illegal monopolization.
So, success is *in and of itself* illegal and wrong
in your view? No matter how it is accomplished?
[snip]
> >But that's not really my point. It's not
> >just that Windows needed MS to provide
> >the tools to take off; MS has to provide
> >a toolchain so taht they can promulgate
> >their new technologies through it.
>
> "Take off." "Tool chain." What the fuck is this gibberish supposed to
> mean?
"Take off" refers to the events of 1990-1991, when
Windows went from being a curiosity to being
something akin to standard equipment. It was most
dramatic.
A "tool chain" is a set of programs that together
create software executables. Typically you
have some sort of code editor, a debugger, a
compiler, a linker, and in Microsoft's case
there was also a resource-compiler.
Those are the *minimum* you need;
MS will sell you much more today.
But without those tools, there could
be no Windows software at all; Windows
could not have succeeded.
[snip]
> >They can't stay competitive if they
> >can't do that.
>
> They can't be competitive as long as they monopolize. Get it?
Um, no, I don't. Why not?
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:10:09 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I'm afraid that means "none", Gary. No hard feelings.
>
Poorr Max. No need to be afraid. You are just mistaken. Your
conclusion is also illogical - unless you make a habit of going around
sabotaging other peoples experiments. If the number of experiments I
have performed is zero and greater than the number you have performed,
then the number you have performed must be less than zero.
> Irrelevant to what? You indicated it was relevant to my credibility. I
> just pointed out it was just a relevant to your own credibility. What's
> the problem?
>
I made no comments about your credibiilty. Why are you getting defensive?
> Indeed; and one can understand experiments without being the one to
> perform them, as well, and without understanding all of the math
> involved in them, as well.
>
So?
> I would submit that my understanding, in general, of every experiment
> ever performed is superior to yours. How would you refute this point?
>
Your joking, right? How would you prove this point?
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:14:10 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> You must have understood me, if you think I was.
>
No, I did not mistunderstand you.
>
> I am a reasonable man, without any preclusions either way.
>
Alas, it was an 'either/or' question, so you've still failed to answer
it. Don't worry about it; I know that you can't answer it, because you
don't know the meaning of the words well enough.
> I am getting to you, huh?
>
Yep, I haven't had this big a laugh in a long time!
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 11:15:14 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> According to *YOU*? Guffaw!
>
And everyone else reading this ng
Gary
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:17:47 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Oh dear. You don't undersand how the toolchain
> >works, huh?
>
> I know for a fact that it doesn't matter. Get it?
Yet you bring up irrelevancies like MFC.
It would help you argue your case if you
did understand these technical matters.
> >MFC is quite a limited thing.
>
> No shit. Really?
Really.
> >It's a bunch
> >of C++ classes that are frankly kind of
> >obsolete. MS can't abandon them completely
> >because that would piss off developers.
>
> Or, rather, more honestly, would screw developers over
> even more than they are already.
Microsoft is quite supportive of
its developers, really. It tries hard not
to piss them off.
> >But it's purely a Visual C++ thing. And
> >it's not the only C++ framework MS
> >offers; there's also a simpler, cleaner one
> >that is linked to ATL.
>
> Yada, yada, yada...
So, even if you are married to Microsoft
Visual C++, you do not have to get
married to MFC.
> >And of course VB does not use MFC at
> >all; only C++ programs can do so.
>
> What proof are you providing that VB is not a C++ program?
Hmmm. Permit me to clarify: I meant to say
"And of course VB programs do not use MFC
at all; only C++ programs can do so."
I do not know if Visual Basic uses MFC
internally somehow.
[snip]
> >All this is possible because the real
> >stable layer that goes between apps
> >and the OS isn't any of these- it is the
> >Win32 API, a rather simpler low level
> >construct. MFC, WFC, all those TLAs
> >are language-specific frameworks that
> >are implemented in terms of it.
>
> Wow. So Win32 is actually the thing that MS monopolizes? Are you sure?
What does that mean?
> >They make life easier, but they aren't
> >fundamental, and there are lots of them
> >to chose from- even from Microsoft.
>
> And GTK and QT, from what I've heard. Yet Win32 accounts for 95%+ of
> the market. How precisely is it that this isn't monopolization?
It's success. You call that "monopolization" and
hate it; that's your prerogative. Don't expect
me to feel the same.
> >If you go to other sources, there are
> >*many* more frameworks you can use.
>
> Your attempt to claim that MS development tools (all exclusively capable
> of supporting Windows, not merely Win32) are the 'core product' is
> laughable, Daniel.
That's not saying much. There's little you
*won't* laught at.
> You've just proven, quite well, that MS development
> tools are nothing but exploitation of the actual monopoly, which is
> variously "the OS", "Windows", or the "API/Toolkit/GUI" Win32, depending
> on how the dishonest and criminal monopolists try to explain their
> illegal behavior.
I did not prove such a thing; perhaps in your own
mind you have constructed a proof of this, but
you haven't shared it with me.
------------------------------
From: Ralph Miguel Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why?
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 17:18:46 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
peter 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 ?
>
>
> Peter
>
With this hardware given make Mandrake or SuSE your desktop system -easy to
set up and configure. If your web server must not run in a few hours and
you really want to learn something about Linux, give Debian a try. Not a
"Linux", but a fine system for a database and very instructive would be
FreeBSD.
--
Cheers
Ralph Miguel Hansen
Using S.u.S.E. 4.3 and SuSE 7.1
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:21:15 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >Neither could 16 bit programs, if by "desktop" you
> >mean that software.
>
> You are incorrect, Daniel. The desktop being described was capable of
> much more than simple file management.
What else could it be? What else could
it do?
> Whether it included a toolkit, a
> la modern GUIs, is beside the point.
Modern file managers do not include
GUI toolkits, actually. They use them,
but the toolkit is external.
> Rick didn't mean "GUI toolkit" when he said "desktop".
Then he was throwing up a red herring;
but I think Rick *believed* he was being
relevant in some way; he does not seem
to know the difference.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Warning to new users of Windows XP
Date: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:21:32 GMT
On Sat, 26 May 2001 05:20:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In ashen ink the dread hand of flatfish+++ did inscribe:
>> There's a sucker born every minute, which was not uttered by PT Barnum
>> BTW.
>IIRC the quote is "There's a sucker born every minute and someone to take him."
>by PT Barnum.
Actually it's pretty much accepted that good old PT never uttered that
famous saying, not that it changes anything though.
http://www.alt-usage-english.org/excerpts/fxtheres.html
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
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: Sat, 26 May 2001 15:25:00 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 25 May 2001
[snip]
> >Aha! I get it! "Dishonesty" to you means
> >what "willful ignorance" means to ordinary
> >people!
> >
> >*Now* I get it!
>
> I'm impressed. Honestly. I might almost believe you were rational, if
> you actually understood what you just said.
Woohoo!
> >Some of the things you've said seem quite
> >a bit more coherent, now that I know what
> >your personal definition of "dishonest" is.
>
> Check back to 1997; it is what I've been saying all along. "Willful
> ignorance == dishonesty." Why did it take you so long to figure out?
I didn't know you had discussed this in 1997. It took
so long because in *this* thread there were't
all that many clues.
> More importantly, why didn't you already know it was true?
Well, it's njot what anyone else means
by the terms; but I don't expect that you'll
ever be able to understand *that*; the
trick to talking to you is understanding
what you mean by these words.
[snip]
> >Not that I agree with them, of course, but
> >I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to.
>
> Where did you get the phrase "willful ignorance", Chad,
"Dan", actually.
> if not from me?
It's not an uncommon phrase; I've
never heard *you* use it, but that
does not mean you didn't; I was
not reading you back then.
> I've been using those exact words for years. Are you going to dispute
> this correlation?
Not at all. I do wonder why you switched to
"dishonest" instead of "willfully ignorant",
though, if you had been using the later term.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
