Linux-Advocacy Digest #866, Volume #34 Thu, 31 May 01 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The nature of competition ("Todd")
Re: ease and convenience ("Todd")
Re: ease and convenience ("Todd")
Re: ease and convenience ("Todd")
Re: ease and convenience ("Todd")
Re: Opera ("Todd")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 16:55:46 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 14:15:38 +0800,
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 26 May 2001 18:00:26 +0800,
> >> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >> > I find that the GUI (KDE and/or GNome) seem slower than the W2k GUI.
> >> Kde and Gnome are notorious for their slowness as WM's, this is quite
> >> understandable as they are both still in development.
> >
> > Ok, fair enough. But Kde and Gnome are what 99% of Linux users are
using...
> > and what they are comparing to W2k.
> I'm not using them, tho I admit I do *love* Gnome, but its too early
> to be using it for a production box imho:)
That's what they say about KDE too... personally, KDE *is* stable...
although it could have more features... and no, I'm not talking about
animated cartoons or paperclips.
For example, I'd like to be able to handle all screen related settings such
as resolution, color bit depth, etc. from one place, such as right
click->properties->screen as in W2k.
In Linux, I had to use something like a XConfigurator or something... and
that wasn't even very intuitive. Linux configured my system to use the
highest possible resolution which I could barely see given my old age of 32
:)
I'm sure KDE/GNome will have this feature now, but right now, W2k's GUI is
more advanced and easier to use (and faster).
> >> I notice you
> >> didn't compare W2k to any of the fast Linux Wm's such as Xfce.
> >
> > True - I didn't. If the only thing I found lacking in Linux were the
WM,
> > I'd gladly pay for a faster WM.
> I don't think thats neccessary, as there are many stable and way faster
Wm's
> about atm.
Hmmm... but I think most of the development effort is centered around KDE
and/or Gnome at this point.
> >> > I am
> >> > using a GeForce 2 MX TwinView (2048x768).
> >> >
> >> > The one MindCraft benchmark where MS, PCWeek and RedHat all attended
> > clearly
> >> > showed W2k was faster than Linux in basic tasks.
> >> Mindcraft tests have been shown again and again, in many topics here,
to
> > be
> >> 'aranged' to favor Windows.
> >
> > How so? Red Hat was there representing the Linux community - twice.
> >
> > Are you saying they were biased??
> >
> >> And every Wintroll knows it.
> >
> > I don't know - I think you are stating this because Windows won and
Linux
> > lost. If Linux had won, you'd be touting how MindCraft ROCKz and all.
> The general feeling (imho) is that 'benchmarks' are too succeptable to
> 'fudging', and their results of dubious benefit anyway.
The reason I liked the benchmark was because MS was there and RedHat was
there and they were both allowed to tweak their respective software for
maximum performance.
And PCWeek and MindCraft both oversaw the efforts.
I don't think there was any 'cheating'.
Granted, even if W2k were 10% faster or slower than Linux (or even 20%), it
wouldn't sway my opinion much.
> Why would M$craft go to all that trouble to show Linux is better
> than Windows ???
Are you saying MindCraft is somehow related to MS??
I don't think PCWeek was out to show that x was better than y. Because it
was such a hot topic ( a very pro-linux time indeed), they wanted an
article.
It wasn't about which was better... it was simply about file/print/app.
serving performance.
And NT was clearly the leader in most benchmarks, and slightly ahead in the
others.
> But your right, I *would* mention it, then have to agree that benchmarks
> are of dubious value anyway, when a Winadvocate pointed it out:)
hehe. Well, I wouldn't even mention them at all except that I constantly
hear from Linvocates that Linux is x% faster than W2k or whatever.
In my experience, I find W2k just as fast in visually perceptive tasks...
and faster in GUI operations. I rely on benchmarks from *3rd* parties to
give me insight as to the relative performance of both.
I will say that two applications I developed at work run without performance
problems (w2k)... the main bottleneck is the WAN.
> <snip>
>
> >> >
> >> > The few times that I have used Linux, it is stable. However,
Netscape
> > was
> >> > able to bring it down. I am using RedHat 7.0 btw.
> >> Netscape has *never* brought my system down, sure Netscape does crash
from
> >> time to time, but only Netscape dies.
> >>
> >> I simply think your fabricating that statement.
> >
> > Actually, I am not.
> Then please accept my appologies ?
No need to apologize :) But I have seen posts from many users that Netscape
will crash, or even cause a panic now and then.
I too have had a panic in Linux, but not from Netscape. (I use RedHat 7.0)
> > I have seen other Linux users' posts regarding Netscape
> > and how it can cause panics - which is surprising given that an app.
> > (admittedly of low quality) can bring down *all* of Linux, not just X.
> Now thats odd, because I have never seen such a post, but of course I may
> have missed it. Has anyone else seen such a post ?
Hmmmm... seems quite a common complaint about NetScape...
> >> > W2k has, in my experience on many systems, proven to be very stable.
> >> Tell us again how stable it is, when Microsoft replace it with a
'better
> >> more stable Windows', just like they did with Win3.11, Win95, Win89,
WinME
> >> etc, ad nauseum.
> >
> > Excuse me. I have *never* stated that the 9x generation was *good* or
even
> > *ok*.
> I actually found Win95 to be 'ok', but I was pointing out how every MS OS
> is first touted as 'stable' till its successor, which is always touted as
> 'more stable' etc.
Well, 95 may have been more stable than 3.1, I don't know. Like I said, I
steered clear from the DOS platforms except for DOS games.
Never ever liked 95/98/ME. Not at all.
> > Personally, I think it is all crap (good for some things) but as an OS,
it
> > is crap. OK?
> I actually was quite at home with Win95, it being a huge improvement over
> Win3.11, so I wouldn't say that all Ms products are crap.
>
> I just have no use for any Ms product myself, since 1997.
>
> >
> > I have always been talking about W2k or NT... and I used OS/2 Warp while
> > others were using 95. I simply refused to use it.
> Hey I had Warp too, but never felt that at ease with it.
Hmmm... well, it required some patience at times, but it was well worth the
effort of learning about it in comparison with having to use 3.1/9x.
Once I found NT, I never looked back though. OS/2 had problems that NT
overcame... but that is another debate altogther :)
> > So *please* do not confuse me with other, more generalized wintrolls :)
> Ok, I won't, but you do seem very pro Microsoft in general, which is in
itself
> OK, but this *is* COLA, and we are having a Wintroll pestilence at the
moment,
> and some of us get a little confused at times.
>
> Sorry :)
I am only "pro-MS" when I need to be to counter extreme FUD from the other
side.
I am "anti-MS" when it comes to XP and Office XP and the .NET platform etc.
I'm actually quite worried about their direction.
If Linux had a well put together API for all systems (including something
like DirectX), I'd be far more in tune with Linux.
> >> >> Linux has proven to be more secure.
> >> >
> >> > Not sure about this. Most 'attackers' or hackers target Windows
> >> > platforms...
> >> Thats because Linux has proven to be more secure.
> >
> > Lol.
> >
> > Sorry, but that just isn't the case.
> How can you be so sure ?
Check out the security bulletins and patches for RedHat Linux on their
website.
They may not be well publicized (everybody likes to pick on MS now), but
Linux does have security problems.
Just as UNIX does (but not as many since it has been around a long time).
I mean, cmon, they *just* found a *serious* flaw with DNS which has been
around for how long??
> > Most hackerz want to target *windows* platforms because they hate MS.
Not
> > because Windows is more or less secure.
> Ok, I'll take your word for it, because in reality, I simply do not have
> the data before me.
>
> >> > Who knows what vunerabilities are in Linux because nobody is really
> > trying
> >> > to find them... or are *they* ?
> >> Every cracker in the world is, as usual.
> >
> > Most are focused on Windows -- but, you never know.
> I have logs like any other Linux user, and you can believe me, my Linux
> box is targeted for cracking in a variety of ways, and usually every day.
Wow... glad I am behind a hardware firewall then :)
> >> If you had a logging system in Windows, you'd see that, but as it is
> > you're blind to whats happening to your Windows box.
> >
> > ?
> Unless you have a log, that records all ICMP/ARP, and tcp/ip data, you
cant
> know whats happening to your box, whilst on-line?
I block all incoming stuff through my firewall (actually a switch, but oh
well :)
> (Assuming you have no 3rd party apps that provide a mediocum of these
> facilities)
>
> <snip>
>
> >> > faster with w2k because of all of the advanced development tools.
> >> So you do have to 'develop' code, orotherwise you wouldnt need
> >> 'development tools' ?
> >
> > A lot of stuff within Windows can be done almost for you automatically
today
> > and with a lot of help - ever see Visual Studio 98??
> No but I've seen and even played with Visual basic a few years ago. I
imagine
> this is similar tho more advanced ?
A lot better... I never have used Visual Basic either, just C++, and
EcmaScript (the W2k native scripting host).
> >> > COM
> >> > objects allow me to pick and choose the tools I need, and they
integrate
> >> > into any part of the OS, or any applications.
> >> >
> >> > Very, very nice.
> >> If you say so.
> >
> > Most UNIX/Linux developers wouldn't grasp how great this is until
they've
> > used it.
> Possibly, but then we would have to abandon the OS of our choice, and who
> wants to do that ?
But the OS should be chosen on how well it provides for applications as
well... and I believe the W2k platform is superior in *this* regard.
> By the same token have you tried Glade, or Visual TCL ?
No. I've looked around, and I find a lot of people using the GNU stuff...
command line tools.
Not that you can't get stuff done with them.
But dragging and dropping objects and editing them in place in *any* dev.
tool is pretty advanced stuff... and it works.
A lot of power there... MS was right after all about COM even though a lot
of people trashed it before. It really is great and it works.
I guess you can tell I've been converted :)
> > I used to dread COM myself until I realized I could easily write COM
objects
> > in any language and call them from any language, application or script.
> >
> > Awesome power.
> Ok.
>
> >
> >> > With Linux, I'd probably have to *hand-code* a lot of the
applications
> > and
> >> > make some of my own tools...
> >
> >> That shouldnt be a problem for you, as Linux comes with a ton of
'advanced
> >> development tools too' but with one small difference to the Windows
tools.
> >
> > Linux development tools are archaic and don't come close to what even MS
> > offers for Win32 development...
> This is easy to say, but are you really in aposition to say it ?
Well, if you look in the Linux dev. sites compared with the Win32 dev.
sites, you see a lot of differences... specifically about the development
tools themselves.
In fact, I find that most Linux users prefer more 'old' style ways (not that
they are bad) of developing, such as using lower level languages,
"hand-coding" things, etc.
I too like that, but for larger projects (for other people), I need to get
stuff done quickly and under budget.
And that usually means a MS platform (for better or worse).
> > Not even close.
> I have never found development as easy as on Linux, but then I also do
> hardware design, in fact its my main thrust.
> In this area Windows has nothing I want, and Linux fulfills my every need.
Really? I once made a 4 channel sound card for OS/2 + drivers... lol.
I used a PCB design software and printed out the mask... the sound card was
basically a simple passive-resistor DAC.
Made the ISA card myself and wrote the OS/2 drivers for playing MOD
(rememeber) files. Pretty cool.
Hehe... but I don't do hardware anymore.
> >> Linux tools are free.
> >
> > True, but when you are developing a multimillion dollar system, a few
> > thousand in development tools is like ordering a few cups of coffee
> > everyday.
> Definetly, no argument there.
>
> >
> >> > Yes, you could do it.
> >> I continue to do it.
> >
> > Fine... some people also still code in Assembler.
> I don't, as Linux has a excellent C compiler for my microprocessor
> of choice, SDCC.
C compilers are certainly in abundance for UNIX/Linux... but what about
stuff that makes writing applications faster and more efficient (in terms of
man hours)?
> But why mention assembler Todd, do you really think Linux is this
> far behind ?
??
I guess my point is that you *can* program in C, but to develop huge
projects, you really need more powerful tools.
I mentioned Assembler, because you *could* program in Assembler, but why not
use C?
Sure, C is slower than Assembler, but it gets the programming job done
faster -> just like using higher level tools makes writing applications
faster than coding them in straight C.
> > But when you are quoting on a project, time=money.
> Sure, even HP has said that spending $1M is better than being
> 3 months late to market.
>
> > And MS allows you to
> > develop stuff in a greatly reduced time period.
> Of course I'd say the same about Linux, tho my projects are
> *small*.
The C is certainly OK, if not the better choice.
> >> > But timing is everything in big projects,
> >> Agreed.
> >>
> >> > and the MS solution provides us
> >> > with another benefit: service.
> >> Howso ?
> >
> > If you have a problem with their products, depending on the service
level
> > (usually good if you are working on big projects), you could have an
expert
> > at your door the next day to help debug the solution.
> Thats always a very handy thing. I live in Australia, I doubt MS would
have
> a rep at my door, to do what your Ms reps do ?
There are MS reps. there. Trust me on that :)
> > Try to get that with Linux or the other 'free' development tools that
just
> > don't have centralized service.
> I can email the authors of any tools that I have a problem with, and
> they usually answer within a day. Ymmv.
Well, that's pretty good then. I was really talking about someone that knew
the OS inside and out, and you can get OS support very quickly from MS
(again, if you have the contract).
> >> > Just my 2 cents.
> >> I rate your post at 0.01 cents, myself, loaded as it was with biased
> > Windows
> >> comments.
> >
> > Hehe - well at least it was worth something then.
> Hahahah, a pleasure to debate with you Todd.
Same.
> >> In case you havent noticed,this is a *Linux* advocacy group.
> >
> > Yet all you do here is whine about MS.
> Me ?
Well, many Linadvocates.
-Todd
>
>
> --
> 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: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:17:33 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 13:47:05 +0800,
> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sat, 26 May 2001 17:40:29 +0800,
> >> Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
> >>
> >> Because he wants to have a *choice* as to what newsreader to use.
> >
> > So *choose* the one with IE :)
> Thats an oxymoron.
hehe. notice the smiley.
> > Seriously, my *dad* downloads stuff from the net all the time with no
> > problem.
> So did I when I was using Win95, back in 1996-1997, but with some
> provisos.
>
> 1/ I dared not ever d/l 2 files or more at once, for fear of corruption,
> yet this is something I do all the time now with Linux, and corruptions
> are rare.
You are comparing 9x with Linux in terms of robustness? Even I will admit
that Linux *hands down* wins over the 9x 'OS' group any day.
However, for consumer ease-of-use and functionality (that a consumer wants),
98se2 and ME are 'better' than Linux for that target group.
> > I see messages from *technical* people that can't figure out how to do
> > something in Linux -- not because it is difficult, but because it is so
> > damned unintuitive
> Explain to me the function of the 'magnetron' in your microwave oven.
Please
> do not look it up, just use the intuitiveness of its name?
That's my point exactly - users should *not* need to know this kind of
stuff - they just want to *use* the microwave.
Just like consumers want to use *applications* - they don't want to know
that there is an OS (what's that???) actually below their apps.
> > and hard to find related documentation.
> Not once you know where to look. For some reason you have missed
> http://www.linuxdoc.org/ which contains docs for every thing you
> could ever want to know about Linux.
Ok, I'm gonna try that for getting my DHCP working + sound card.
However, I feel that the help for an OS should be integrated fully with the
OS.
W2k does this very well.
> > With Windows, there is a *central* help system for all OS related things
> > that is *fully* text indexed for easy retrieval.
> The Windows helpsystem is a simple thing, that fails to help anyone
> above the level of clueless user.
Well, I disagree slightly. I feel that it helps up to intermediate users
which covers 90% of the people using Windows these days.
There is a lot more documentation for more advanced stuff at microsoft.com
> Paste the Windows help for 'ping' here Todd ?
OK, but there are about 15 pages... i'm only pasting the first one. I juse
typed 'ping' in the index and got about 10 responses with lots of
documentation.
Here is the first page...
===================================================================
Ping
Verifies connections to a remote computer or computers. This command is
available only if the TCP/IP protocol has been installed.
ping [-t] [-a] [-n count] [-l length] [-f] [-i ttl] [-v tos] [-r count] [-s
count] [[-j computer-list] | [-k computer-list]] [-w timeout]
destination-list
Parameters
-t
Pings the specified computer until interrupted.
-a
Resolves addresses to computer names.
-n count
Sends the number of ECHO packets specified by count. The default is 4.
-l length
Sends ECHO packets containing the amount of data specified by length. The
default is 32 bytes; the maximum is 65,527.
-f
Sends a Do not Fragment flag in the packet. The packet will not be
fragmented by gateways on the route.
-i ttl
Sets the Time To Live field to the value specified by ttl.
-v tos
Sets the Type Of Service field to the value specified by tos.
-r count
Records the route of the outgoing packet and the returning packet in the
Record Route field. A minimum of 1 and a maximum of 9 computers can be
specified by count.
-s count
Specifies the timestamp for the number of hops specified by count.
-j computer-list
Routes packets by way of the list of computers specified by computer-list.
Consecutive computers can be separated by intermediate gateways (loose
source routed). The maximum number allowed by IP is 9.
-k computer-list
Routes packets by way of the list of computers specified by computer-list.
Consecutive computers cannot be separated by intermediate gateways (strict
source routed). The maximum number allowed by IP is 9.
-w timeout
Specifies a time-out interval in milliseconds.
destination-list
Specifies the remote computers to ping.
==============================================================
Want more? :)
> Remember it has to come from your system help.
Yup.
> <snip>
>
> > HOWEVER -> I have had problems simply getting my ethernet card to WORK
under
> > Linux using DHCP.
> So what, I have problems getting my ethernet card to work under Win95 and
Win98.
>
> Every OS has some hardware hassles, get over it.
I believe my hardware was recognized, but *configuring* Linux to get it to
use DHCP is the hard part.
Under W2k, it just installs and works without doing *anything*, not even a
mouse click.
I was surprised by that.
> > Sounds easy? Under W2k, simply PUT IN the network card and TURN ON the
> > system. It AUTOMATICALLY installs drivers, configures DHCP and gets you
on
> > the net.
> Oh really .... puhleese!
Really, it's true. I was surprised too when it worked (when I had my cable
modem installed... hehe)
> > Under Red Hat Linux 7.0 ? My computer is still without a connection
after
> > numerous attempts just to find simple documention on what will probably
be a
> > bunch of editing files and other stuff.
> Perhaps not, it may be a case of you using an unsupported NIC.
It is a common 3Com card... works with Linux.
> > Windows is *FAR* easier and more intuitive than Linux.
> Bullshit, total and utter bullshit.
Well, for most people it really is. If you are from a UNIX background, I
could see why your opinion is like this.
But you don't need to know as much to get an app. running and your system
configured under Windows as you need to under Linux.
> >> Few could use Windows at all without the help of 1) OEM
> >> preinstalls and 2) technical people to ask for help with problems.
> >
> > I am technical and am still trying to figure out how to get BASIC stuff
to
> > work in Linux.
> Its a big world, and being 'technical' doesn't always mean you're
proficient
> in all areas. Your Windows experience does not help you much with Linux.
>
> Linux IS a whole new ball game.
I'd say it is an old ball game... given that it is based off of UNIX... but
ok :)
> >
> > Ridicule me if you like, but the fact is, Linux is just too hard to make
it
> > worth the trouble for people that *value* their time.
>
> Thats an old Wintroll statement Todd, don't be expected to be taken
seriously,
> or even ridiculed. Most will just skim over it.
That's fine... if you want to ignore why most people (that use Windows) try
Linux and then forget about it.
> All learning is worth the time it takes.
TRUE! But, most CONSUMERS do not want to know how their computer works!!!!
They just want to use the applications that run on top of it!
For me and you, yes, I agree with your statement.
> My son Sam has installed Debian, Redhat, and Mandrake Linux on his own,
without
> my help, and hes just turned 18, and hes not 'technical'.
I too have done RedHat. But, as I said, it fails to recongize and/or
configure my Network card and Soundblaster Live *automatically*.
I have to do something. Why?
> He just follows installer directions. This across 2 pcs, all networked.
If I had the time, I too could *probably* get my RedHat installation
perfectly working.
The question for *me* is, do I want to pour a lot of time into figuring out
how to simply get Linux up and running, when I have w2k that does all of
that for me?
I'd rather be developing apps. or playing games.
-Todd
>
> >
> > -Todd
> >
>
>
> --
> 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: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:02:03 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9f1282$1jtac$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > IE isn't half the OS. Stop exaggerating. It is just an app... and it
> > isn't 80MB either.
> >
> > Stop your whining.
> >
>
> Look - A web brower and a newsreader are 2 entirely different things and
> users should have the option of upgrading one without being forced to
> replace the other at the same time
For the most part, I agree with you. However, since IE/Outlook express are
somewhat integrated, you sort of kinda have to upgrade for the integrated
features to work correctly.
> - this it like buying new tyres for your
> car and being told the tyres and the engine come in one box and cannot be
> replaced individually.
Let's use the example of engine and transmission. That is a little closer.
If you can design the engine *knowing* the transmission, you may be able to
integrate some of the components, saving money or adding features.
If you had to design the engine without knowing exactly the functionality of
the transmission, you may need to make the engine more flexible, increasing
costs, complexity, etc.
-Todd
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:18:27 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Marcello Barboni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ayzQ6.2988$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Todd wrote:
>
> > 2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
>
> What kind of choice is that? You get to choose between IE and IE?
Well, *Windows* update generally lets you select from *Microsoft* software
:)
But, of course, *you* can install whatever you want.
Personally, I have IE 6 and Netscape 6.1 installed.
-Todd
>
> --
> antispam
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: ease and convenience
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:04:12 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Todd
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Mon, 28 May 2001 13:48:15 +0800
> <9esojp$edm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Todd wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:yAHP6.22323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> > Not sure why you chose to do it the hard way...
> >> >
> >> > Windows:
> >> >
> >> > 1) Start->Windows Update
> >> > 2) Download your browser of choice IE 5.5 or 6.
> >>
> >> Only if you're a fucking MORON
> >
> >You just called most of the computer literate population a 'fucking
MORON'.
> >
> >You have some nerve.
>
> Perhaps a good chunk of the Windows-using computer literate population.
Which is 90% of the desktop users in the world.
> There are other operating systems, you know. :-)
Yes, I do know :) :)
> (Some of them
> might even stay up for more than a month on a regular basis. :-) )
W2k stays up for me quite a long time. I have ranged from a couple weeks to
more than a month, but then again, I reboot now and then when I tweak my
hardware or other things. My file/print server at home has had a fairly
long uptime - the only reason I rebooted was to install sp1 and sp2.
> (Side note: IE is now part of Windows, as of 98 and W2k. Therefore,
> one might download IE6, but that's about it.)
5.1/5.5 didn't come with w2k, so you needed to dl those too...
But you are right for the most part.
-Todd
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 99999 = 9 days uptime, 9 crashes afterwards, 99 bugs,
> and 9 versions of what is supposed to be the same API
:-)
> EAC code #191 29d:19h:30m actually running Linux.
> Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act
weird.
------------------------------
From: "Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Wed, 30 May 2001 17:19:55 +0800
Reply-To: "Todd" <todd<remove>[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 28 May 2001 13:32:07 +0800, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:9eqic8$5n7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >It just doesn't seem like there is a quality browser for Linux at all.
>
> You can get Opera, which is better than IE and Netscape put together.
But many posts here say that Opera is causing a lot of crashes under
Linux...
IE under w2k has never crashed for me... and even NetScape 6.1 is pretty
stable under w2k.
Only tried opera once and didn't like the GUI format nor the adverts.
-Todd
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
