Linux-Advocacy Digest #808, Volume #34 Sun, 27 May 01 15:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ease and convenience (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Back up in Linux (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Back up in Linux (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Zsolt)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Philip
Nicholls)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:26:38 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>"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]...
>> >
>> > > Oh puh-leeze. Perhaps if Windows came with any useful software I
>> > > would consider using it; as it comes now it's simply a glorified
>> > > typewriter until you spend hours updating and installing by hand.
>> >
>> > So which is it? If it comes with apps, then MS is an evil monopoly
>> > trying to squish out all app vendors and competitors, if they
>> > don't then they're just a glorified typewriter.
>> >
>> > Which is it?
>>
>> I didn't realize that Microsoft had been sued for including
>> development tools, perl, an ssh daemon, low-latency remote access, a
>> good shell, wget, a real editor (take your pick), etc. etc.
>
>Sure it was, haven't you followed the trial.
Apparently, you didn't.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:26:39 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:48:10
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Well, WindowsNT has always had a good shell (better than Bash in
>most cases).
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! You're the only moron foolish enough to claim
this, Chad.
>The simple fact is, 99% of the users don't use half the
>things you mentioned, and Win2K has two forms of low-latency remote
>access as well.
Wow! TWO?
>Who uses wget besides a bunch of Unix geeks (less than one percent
>of one percent I'm sure).
Maybe about there, yea. But still a larger percentage than Windows
idiots who know how to use command line FTP. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:26:40 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>"David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9eess4$pmg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It seems that on Tue, 22 May 2001 19:32:54 +0100, someone claiming to be
>> "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed this:
>>
>> > Some points:
>> > A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
>>
>> Nope, Eazel.
>
>He mentioned Eazel by name, so I don't think it's going to be it.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Linux on the Desktop is very new. Apps are still being developed.
>
>Linux was developed to be a desktop, you know.
>Linus' one, but still a desktop.
>
>> > 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.
>>
>> Which is what Linux is working towards.
>
>Against a moving target.
Churn baby churn.
>Can you show me a refernce of something that would make me want to move to
>Linux as my desktop?
Not being psychic, the chances are slim.
>What is the killer app/feathure?
Zero cost unlimited licensing.
>Stability doesn't count, I'm afraid, I've stopped running 9x long ago, so I
>don't suffer from any crashes, BSODs, or anything like this.
Guffaw. If you think NT is stable, you don't know what stable means.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: Which three Linux distros would you install ? Why?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:26:41 GMT
Said John Hasler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 26 May 2001 12:13:57
GMT;
>T. Max Devlin writes:
>> What if you want a pretty GUI on one, and configuration tools on another,
>> and development tools on yet another?
>
>They all support the same software, and therefor you can have a pretty GUI,
>configuration tools, and development tools on any of them.
Can, yes. You've provided no reason to do so, though. Not that there
aren't any, but presuming they should be assumed is just ignoring the
fact that there is a little thing called "efficiency" that seems
all-too-often forgotten, and there is efficiency in specializing.
Sure, I could have said "what if you want a pretty GUI, configuration
tools, and development tools all on one." But you'll notice I didn't.
I don't buy into the malarkey about "all in one is best"; that is just
naivete, IMHO.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:28:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Matthew Gardiner \(BOFH\)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2001 00:33:56 +1200
<9eqsc9$7m8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Real world experience.
>
>1.Open Case
>2. Remove metal sleve cover
>3. Slide PCI card in
>4. Screw in
>5. Power on
Pedant point: isn't there something about inserting the SuSE CD
right about here? :-)
>6. Select "Linux_2.4" from menu
>7. Login
>8. click on lizard icon
>9. Click on "Yast 2"
>10. Enter Root password
>11. Click on Network Icon
>12. Follow the wizard.
>
>How is that harder than Windows?
Easy. In the case of Windows, one just purchases an entire new system
for less than US $2,000. :-)
Of course, for those of us without such funds, I'd say the above
is pretty darned easy -- and in any event, under Linux, one can
describe precisely what modules one wants to use in various ways,
the easiest coming to mind is editing /etc/modules.conf or conf.modules,
depending on installation; note that *nothing else has to change*, assuming
one hasn't also changed one's network, because everything else refers
to the alias name in /etc/modules.conf, usually eth0. Note that
Debian has its own ideas; one has to run update-modules after
editing the appropriate file in /etc/modutils; this is documented
reasonably well in /etc/modules.conf itself, and is not difficult.
Under Windows, all of the "automatic" stuff can lead to
screaming nightmares. For example, I'm no longer able to do
anything intelligent with my Win95 installation with respect
to downloading/DNS name resolution. I might get to work
eventually -- but why? :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 27d:14h:35m actually running Linux.
Linux. When Microsoft isn't enough anymore.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Back up in Linux
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:53:39 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Investigator wrote:
> >
> > The short answer is "yes".
> >
> > More detail is needed, however, to explain the process.
> >
> > Importantly, you do *not* want to back up any draconian system (like Linux)
> > while it is active with a full-bore "tar czf /dev/whatever/BACKUP.tgz /*"
>
> This is true of ALL operating systems, including losedos.
perhaps not MS-DOS. but then you could honestly argue that it is not
fully an operating system.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake,comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.windows.x.kde,tw.bbs.comp.linux
Subject: Re: Back up in Linux
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 17:55:30 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Jerry Wong wrote:
> >
> > I used to backup the windows by Ghost software. In linux, can the command "tar"
> > be used like Ghost. I means to backup the whole Linux system by tar it and
> > restore it when necessary. I have windows98 and two Linux system in my PC
> > (Red Hat 7.0 and Mandrake 8.0), so I can tar one of them when running the other.
> >
> > Is it possible? Please give me some advice.
>
> tar is okay for groups of files, but NOT good for the entire system.
>
> learn to use dump, and/or BRU or Arkeia.
dump is not a sufficient solution either. linus had a few comments
about this on linux-kernel about a month ago. it seems that the only
way to get a clean snapshot of the disk partition is to unmount it
first and then save. this is especially true of the journalling
filesystems.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:02:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Daniel Johnson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 14 May 2001 03:29:28 GMT
<siIL6.20787$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> An API is the minimal amount of data necessary to know how to use a
>> >> library in programming software.
>> >
>> >Ah; so perhaps you object to my calling int 21h an API
>> >because you take "int 21h" to refer narrowly to a machine
>> >instruction, and not all the surrounding folderol?
>>
>> No, its the folderol that is the problem. If you want to define int 21h
>> as some sort of API that has precisely and only one function call (int
>> 21h), that I can go along with. If for some reason you felt like
>> playing semantical games. In real life, it simply isn't an API. 'Nuf
>> said.
>
>I may be a bit rusty on int 21h, but I'm pretty sure it
>is more than one function call; isn't the function number
>desired pass in a register or somesuch silliness?
>
>I think you underestimate what int 21h does. That
>or I'm thinking of the wrong interrupt.
Int 21H, Int 10H, and Int 13H all pass a subfunction parameter in AH,
as best I recall. Depending on this parameter, other
parameters may be passed in other fixed registers. Other
Int calls do as well. Some subfunctions have additional subsubfunctions,
passed in AL, if memory serves.
I'd have to look up the details, but as far as I'm concerned,
applications can call it, therefore it's an API [*]. To be
fair, of course, the applications may have to be written
in macro assembler :-), or use another call which enfolds
the actual interrupt call itself, such as int86() or int86x().
(This according to bios.h in my copy of Borland C++ 4.51, which
is admittedly quite ancient.) These calls take an interrupt
number, two or three pointers to structures representing "register packs",
and return a value from I don't quite know where -- probably
the carry bit since that's occasionally used as a flag to detect
failure -- and put the resulting registers in another "register pack".
Performance is not a consideration here, apparently. :-) (If one
wants to, mind you, one could use inline assembler, as Borland C++
supports it. However, that's highly compiler-specific, and quite
dangerous as well.)
Note that Int 21H is quite machine-specific. One cannot do
Int 21H calls on, say, a SPARC box [%]; even within the same hardware
Int 21H might do something different on a different operating system.
Assuming it's implemented at all.
[*] Not that I like the term; I'm never sure if "API" refers to
an application calling the procedure interface, or providing it.
Admittedly, prior to Windows, this wasn't really that much
of a problem. :-)
[%] One could of course emulate an x86 on any box, using various
pieces of software, such as Bochs, and then get into a rather
involved discussion as to whether one is really calling Int 21H
in such a box. Even within x86 and Windows, Windows doesn't
really call a real-mode Int 21H (AFAIK); it calls it within a
V86 context, which can be construed as a process or context
(actually, a TSS) emulating an x86 machine within an x86 machine.
Nicely protective and useful, if a bit confusing.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 27d:14h:46m actually running Linux.
[select one]
It's a conspiracy of one.
This message is way too short to tell you the wonderful ...
Are you watching TV, or is the TV watching you?
This is the best part of the message.
This space for rent.
I'm here, you're there, and that's pretty much it.
A man and his roomie walked into a bar...."Ouch", they said.
No protons were harmed during this message.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:10:06 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
<Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Tue, 15 May 2001 13:27:17 +0200
<9dsahg$num$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same server
>> > can
>> >> > server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
>> >>
>> >> Each running its own software.
>> >
>> > No, it doesn't.
>> > Get *some* clue before you post.
>> >
>>
>> Yes, it does. If you want. And if it´s a IBM/390.
>> Get *some* clue before you post.
>
>No ISP will use a s/390 for this, dimwit.
>*No one* will use it for this, for that matter. That is beyond stupid.
Why wouldn't they? An s/390, as I understand the hardware (I've
never used it and know very little about it), is a powerful piece
of medium-big iron that might run a back-end Java servlet connecting
into an IBM database such as DB/2 (most likely), or some other database,
*on the same box*. I'm not quite sure how many users it would
serve, but it could probably serve quite a few -- bandwidth
limitations, etc. permitting.
And of course virtual servers are apparently easy to set up on most
versions of Linux (disclaimer: I haven't tried it myself).
Actually, Apache would probably do a fair part of the legwork,
as there are constructs within Apache's config file that suggest
that Apache can do so without difficulty. The rest would be
routing issues to the box itself.
I'll admit to a mild amount of curiosity as to how one would
set up 255 virtual hosts (Class C network) on a single s/390 box,
or any other Linux box, though, with a single (possibly specialized)
1 GB (10 GB?) network interface. But in theory -- why not? :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 27d:16h:16m actually running Linux.
Hi. What's your sign? Mine's "Out To Lunch".
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:16:52 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Quantum Leaper
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 16 May 2001 17:46:25 GMT
<R1zM6.1956$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9ds00i$bhb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:9dqpng$fvt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> > Don't weasel out of it. What is your proof?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://www.netcraft.co.uk/survey/
>> >> >
>> >> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same server
>> >> > can server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
>> >>
>> >> And why shuold there be more names hosted by UNIX than WinNT?
>> >>
>> >> Mabey because it is a lot better at it?
>> >
>> > And why should there be more people choosing MS desktop OS's?
>> > hmmmmmmm.......Maby because it is a lot better at it?
>>
>> Easy: they don't choose. Go in to your local PC World to buy a prefab
>> computer. Do you have a chice in OS?
>>
>I did ask my friend when I put his new system together, which OS did he
>want? Linux which is free, WinME which I could get for him for about $90
>or Win2K at higher cost (don't remember the quote). My friend asked me a
>simple question, he listed a number of games he wanted to run on his New
>computer, and I told him, only 2 ran under linux
Only 2?
Good gravy, I've got 273 entries under /usr/games alone!
(This on Debian, BTW.)
Granted, one might have to ask whether one meant commercial
level games such as Quake, Unreal Tournament, Ultima whatever,
Diablo, etc., or what...
But all of them *will* run under WinMe, if only because people
keep porting them there -- it's an interesting engineering challenge,
and pretty easy for text-based stuff and the simpler XWindows
games stuff such as rogue or hack. Or one can cheat and download
Cygwin's implementation of XFree86...
>but all of them ran under
>WinME and most ran under Win2K but he would need more memory. He also
>asked which one was the most stable, my answer was Linux. (he has had
>stability problems in the past)
>Even though Linux was free, he still went with WinME.
>So giving the consumer a choice, might not help Linux.
Not directly, no -- but I for one have already seen evidence
of Linux mutating a bit -- mostly in areas such as KDE and Gnome --
to make it a bit friendlier. Unknown as to how well that has
worked (I'm one of those old school people who prefers the
command line :-) ).
Such efforts tend to confuse me, as well, since I edit the
underlying configuration files, and am never sure as to whether
the GUI above me can handle my edits. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 27d:16h:32m actually running Linux.
[ ] Do you want this message to be private? Oops, too late.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 21:39:41 +0200
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ayende Rahien
> <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Tue, 15 May 2001 13:27:17 +0200
> <9dsahg$num$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same
server
> >> > can
> >> >> > server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
> >> >>
> >> >> Each running its own software.
> >> >
> >> > No, it doesn't.
> >> > Get *some* clue before you post.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, it does. If you want. And if it´s a IBM/390.
> >> Get *some* clue before you post.
> >
> >No ISP will use a s/390 for this, dimwit.
> >*No one* will use it for this, for that matter. That is beyond stupid.
>
> Why wouldn't they? An s/390, as I understand the hardware (I've
> never used it and know very little about it), is a powerful piece
> of medium-big iron that might run a back-end Java servlet connecting
> into an IBM database such as DB/2 (most likely), or some other database,
> *on the same box*. I'm not quite sure how many users it would
> serve, but it could probably serve quite a few -- bandwidth
> limitations, etc. permitting.
He said that S/390 can run software for many sites (running many instances
of the server, one per site).
That is about as stupid approach as one can take when hosting sites.
The way to do it is to have one instance of the server to serve many sites.
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 18:51:31 GMT
Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sun, 27 May 2001 11:36:17 -0400 presented us with
the wisdom:
> Zsolt wrote:
>
>
> > So in short you are caught "mistaken", then instead of admitting it,
> > made it worse by another double mistake (Cygwin is not in the same
> > box as WinXP and not even free).
>
> Cygwin is free: http://www.cygwin.com/faq/faq_1.html#SEC3
>
> Is it free software?
>
> Yes. Parts are GNU software (gcc, gas, ld, etc...), parts are covered
[snip]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] for more information. All other questions should be
> sent to the project mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
It is a _very_ interesting choice of point to stop your quote !!!
Let me continue the quote exactly where you left off:
"Note that when we say "free" we mean freedom, not price. The goal of such freedom is
that the
people who use a given piece of software should be able to change it to fit their
needs, learn from
it, share it with their friends, etc. The Cygwin license allows you those freedoms, so
it is free
software. "
"The Cygwin 1.0 product was a "commercial" distribution of cygwin...."
Nice, selective quote I must admit!
Just keep up the good work ... ;)
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: Philip Nicholls <[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: Sun, 27 May 2001 19:02:24 GMT
On 24 May 2001 17:47:01 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad
Everett) wrote:
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400, JS \\ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for all
>>my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and connection
>>sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
>>liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching users
>>(unlike Win2K) I was actually contemplating using it much more often and
>>only using Windows for apps I need to use that aren't available on Linux.
>>But....
>>Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT KICKS
>>MANDRAKE ASS!!
>>
>
>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?
Can the average Joe or Jane off the street do this with your free
software? Would the average Joe or Jane off the street even WANT to
do any of this?
The will, however, be able to install, configure and use Windows XP.
>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?
Again, I don't think Windows XP is targetting people who would want to
do this. Do you?
>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?
>
>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?
>
>I can do all this and more with linux, for free.
Bully for you. And how many other people on your block have the
technical expertise to do all this?
I'll tell you a secret. Most of them don't, most of them don't CARE.
Windows XP caters to them.
>With Windows XP, I'll even need to buy additional software to create
>professional documents, presentations, spreadsheets, and databases.
>I can do all this with Linux with out-of-the-box software.
Again, bully for you. How many people on your block are able to do
this.
>....Oh...but I forgot.....now you can log in and log out of Windows XP
>and not kill your internet connection. Wow!
Most people who need to use computers for work or school have lives
outside of computers. Windows XP caters to them.
So your an alpha geek. Bully for you. Most people aren't. Are you
saying they shouldn't use computers? If microsoft has found that
some peple are willing to pay a few hundred bucks for computer
software that will install and be usable without a MS in computer
science, can you blame them?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
