Linux-Advocacy Digest #951, Volume #34 Mon, 4 Jun 01 05:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks: ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: ("Edward Rosten")
Re: SourceForge hacked! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (drsquare)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (drsquare)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (drsquare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 11:30:38 +0200
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <EHAS6.6385$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip some stuff>
> >>
> >> Of course they can. They can distribute modules for a certain non-GPL
> >> proggie under the GPL license, can't they?
> >
> > No. A module is just a dynamically linked object file, and the GPL
> > specifically does not allow you to get around the GPL this way.
> >
> Actually I believe it is a little more complex than that. That is what
> the whole VirtualDub flap is all about.
> You can release GPL plugins for a non-GPL program, or you can release
> non-GPL plugins for a GPL program, in both cases avoiding to invoke the
> GPL on the non-GPL parts, as long as the plugins are only an extension to
> the core functionality of the program.
I don't think so.
The GPL-FAQ adress this spesifically.
It looks like what makes the difference in their eyes is whatever the
modules run in proccess or out process.
> As soon as you migrate core
> funcionality into the plugin, then the dreaded virality clause sets in.
> VirtualDub is a nice example. The company distributing it wrapped it in a
> DLL and GPL'ed the DLL. Then distributed the DLL with their proprietary
> program, and advertised the features of VirtualDub (in the GPL'ed DLL
> remember) as core functionality of the program. *This* invoked the GPL on
> their proprietary software, and as they would not open it, constituted a
> GPL violation.
Qouting the GPL:
"If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
distribute them as separate works"
Will a COM object fit the bill here?
It's certainly a seperated work.
And the UI for this COM is a seperate work as well.
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#TOCMereAggregation
This seems to suggest that the FSF believe that the GPL would forbid it.
Since the COM & UI would form a single large program.
However, they then talk about shared adress space, and the complexity of the
communication.
"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication
mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are
used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if
the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex
internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two
parts as combined into a larger program. "
I wonder how DB fits into the bill. And SOAP?
> It is however a grey legal area, so before you start mixing GPL with
> proprietary software you intend to distribute, consult a lawyer, as this
> my personal interpretation of the GPL and the GPL FAQ (I do have 2 years
> of law school under my belt though).
It's going to be *much* greyer area if VD will decide to turn the DLL from a
DLL to an out-of-process COM component.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Newbie Linux User Asks:
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:31:51 +0100
>>>>Firstly, you were the one who mentioned the Nazis for absoloutely no
>>>>reason, so I assumed you were going after Goodwin's misinterpreted
>>>>law. Are you calling yourself a cunt?
>>>
>>> I didn't invoke any laws. I didn't realise mentioning the Nazis was
>>> not allowed on this newsgroup.
>>
>>I was guessing at your meaning, since I had no idea what you were
>>talking about.
>
> I was saying that under the Nazis, Kulkis wouldn't be able to get away
> with disrupting the newsgroup.
Yes he would, he's a bloody facist. He has all the right views and
attitueds.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:33:36 +0100
>>>>In that case, might I suggest:
>>>>
>>>> | |
>>>> `-----------------'
>>>>
>>>>to get matching corners as well.
>>>
>>> Nah, the ` makes the whole thing look assymetrical. My version is
>>> obviously FAR superior :->
>>
>>??
>>I guess that's a difference in fonts.
>>
>>On 9x15 they are just reflections of ona another.
>>
>>:-/
>
> Well, I'm using fixedsys, and the ' is straight up, whereas the ` is
> bent to the left.
X has always had better fixed with fonts than windows :-) Shame about the
scalable fonts, tho.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 10:38:07 +0100
>> > Posting what? Either article? There's so much bleating about IIS, I
>> > thought one about SourceForge/Apache would be interesting for a
>> > change. So, how do you leap to your conclusion, then?
>
> I'm still waiting to hear how you jump to your amazing conclusion. I
> guess you'll ignore that question.
You implied it.
>> Er, Apache wasn't hacked, but the server it was residing on was
>> compromised by a different route. Compare this to all the defacements
>> that happen as a result of IIs being hacked.
>
> Yes, and where did I say otherwise?
You implied it.
>> Are you clever enough to spot the difference?
>
> Are you clever enough to read what I actually said?
I'm also capable of picking up on implications.
Q: If yo have been so widely misinterprteted, then why not correct that?
A: because you weren't.
>> Anyway, it seems to me like you're trolling because you (yet again)
>> qouted something in a certain way in order to completely distort its
>> meaning.
>
> I quoted a very short piece of text and you and others make out I've
> said something completely out of context.
You have mand no attempt to correct this, so I can only assume you mean
it. If not, you've been very unclear.
>> There you go: I didn't even have to go and look up evidence for you
>> doing this because i knew you'd do it again pretty soon. Now I have
>> posted
>> *evidence* it is your turn to "shut up" as you so kindly put it.
>
> You've posted very weak evidence, based on what you _thought_ I said.
> Please stop trying to put words into my mouth!
You are now playing word games. You are capable of realising that thing
can be implied and misinterpreted. You have made no attempt to point out
that your post was misinterpreted by everyon who replied to this. from
this, I can only conclude that you are out to deceive people, or you
actually meant what people interpreted it as.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:19 +0100
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:57:16 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>And I like CMD's filename completion betterthan I like bash.
What's the difference?
>> Quite a lot of arrow key playing, especially to open all the recursed
>> directories.
>Okay, WinKey+E open explorer, and put the choice on My Computer.
>On my computer (and most new one), the icon directly above my computer is My
>Documents.
>If F4 doesn't work, try F6 and then F4.
All that does is put the focus on the right pane.
>> Are we using the same operating system here?
>
>Unlikely, I don't like 9x very much.
>On my system, it takes 4 keystrokes to reach my pictures folder, frex.
I don't think anyone likes 9x very much, but there's not a lot anyone
can do about it.
>> It should be assumed that you know what you want to copy in the first
>> place though.
>
>Ha? And what if I don't? How do I find out what I want to copy?
>I've a directory with several thousands pictures, scattered in couple of
>directories.
>On Explorer, I can copy them based on their content, not so in the CLI.
If you were dealing with pictures, you'd have to have a GUI in the
first place to see them! Replace pictures with text or something, and
you'd have a point.
>> You must have a very fast machine then. Mine takes at least twice as
>> long. And if you were using a CLI, you wouldn't need to bring up
>> CMD.exe
>
>Yes, I've, but I noticed the same on other, slower machine.
>The arguement works both ways, you understand, if you are using GUI, you are
>likely to have explorer already open.
That doesn't make sense. If you were using a CLI, then CMD or whatever
would ALREADY be there, always, otherwise you're not in a CLI. If
you're in a GUI, there's no guarentee that explorer will be there at
all.
>> Yes, but the average user won't be using 2K.
>
>That depend on what he is talking about.
>If he is talking about all of Windows being unusable while it write to disk,
>then it's a 9x problem.
>Which doesn't appear on XP.
Well, I don't think too many people will be too eager to upgrade to
that in a hurry.
>> My machine isn't a server, but I use the CLI all the time. It's so
>> much easier (when you know what you're doing. The average user will be
>> stopped dead in their tracks if they try to use a CLI)
>
>So, you admit that the CLI is not fit to be used by the average user on the
>desktop.
>The CLI can be very powerful, but it require much more than GUI does.
Such as learning some commands.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:21 +0100
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:11:10 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> Perhaps it's my ancient box at work then - PII 300 with 64MB RAM running
>> NT4 WS. Explorer is useless until the coping finishes.
>
>What is happening, exactly? Does the coputer stop working? Or does it work,
>but the copying box don't allow you to use Explorer until it's done?
>
>If the latter, than that is a sign of some of the bad UI slips of MS. They
>shouldn't have used a modal box here.
>It was present in 95, and fixed in 98.
>Maybe installing a recent IE would solve it?
What would IE have to do with it?
>> Programming environments (rhide), text editors (emacs, pico etc), FTP
>> clients, IRC clients, Telnet, File Management (mc in Linux?), SSH,
>> Office Apps (yes, I still use WordPerfect for DOS on my ancient laptop -
>> and I like it),
>
>Those are all personal choices, except fo Telnet & SSH, which is a little
>like cheating, in this case, since you are openning a *CLI* session on
>another computer.
Yeah, but there's nothing stopping you from opening a telnet client in
a GUI.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:22 +0100
On 3 Jun 2001 22:18:04 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> example:
>>
>> # cp *jpg /mnt/floppy
>>
>> GUI:
>>
>> Using M$ Windows as example, there are several steps:
>
>You left off the fact that you can still just type "copy *.jpg a:" in the
>Run... box or at a command prompt, if you feel like it.
>I thought a good OS was one that offered a choice?
Yeah, but we're talking about the difference between a command line
and a GUI.
>> 1.) Launch Windows Explorer ( Start > Programs > Windows Explorer )
>
>Or just double click on My Computer on your desktop or the little my
>computer shortcut you probably have in your quick launch tray or even better
>(see below)
Which means using your mouse, which is awkward and time consuming.
>> 2.) Nav through the file system to get to the files (one to several
>> clicks - assuming "c:\my documents\my pictures", it will take at least
>> twp clicks - first expand the directory "My Documents", then click on
>> "My Pictures"
>
>Or just double click on the My Documents shortcut already on your desktop or
>any of any number of shortcuts already on your desktop cause you figured
>you'd want them conviently nearby so you put them there.
Which means minimising windows, moving your hand all the way to the
mouse, moving it about, looking where you're going etc
>> 3.) Select files. This can also be anything from one click to several
>> clicks. Selecting all JPG files involves in first arranging icons by
>> type (View > Arrange Icons > by Type - one click), then select all the
>> JPG files by dragging (count as one click). Total in this example is two
>> clicks.
>
>You COULD do that or you could just click on the "Type" column heading and
>they'll all sort up nice and neat for you.
Which I suppose means using the mouse again.
>> 4.) Right click on selected files (one click)
>> 5.) Select Send To > Floppy from menu (One click)
>
>or drag them with a single click to your floppy drive in the same window
>that's already open (explorer view).
Using the mouse again. Thank god for keyboard shortcuts, or it would
take 10 years to do the simplest thing in a GUI.
>> Total Clicks: 7 or more clicks.
>
>I can do that in much less BUT you also have to consider something else:
>
>Lets say you have a set of JPG and BMP files in a particular directory. This
>directory is called:
>
>/usr/files/project/x_34LB/evenlongerthanthepreviousname/causeIcan
>
>And you don't want all of them, you only want, oh, this one and that one and
>perhaps that other one over there and then you also need this .exe file as
>well as a couple of quick TXT files you forgot about and none of them start
>or end with the same letters or even contain ANY common letter groups within
>them. OH, and many of these files have MiXeD case file names too.
>
>Now, funny man, how quickly can you do that at the CLI? And with how many
>errors?
>
>How long did it take you to get to that directory? Did you type it right and
>get the case correct too?
tab complete does the job for me.
>So, you got there with some directory completion key help eh? Now - start
Yes, within two seconds. Less time than it takes for explorer to open
up.
>selecting file names. No * is gonna help this time, even ? is going to be of
>limited use. Meanwhile, I'm just holding down the Ctrl key as I click and
>choose as I need to, unclicking them if I make a mistake without any regard
>for case... and then just drag the entire batch to my destination icon...
Meanwhile, I'm just quickly typing in a few filenames, adding a /fl to
the end of the command and it's done. Also, you missed out the awkward
task of getting to directory.
Let's see:
/usr/files/project/x_34LB/evenlongerthanthepreviousname/causeIcan
Say it starts at / by default, that's 123456 clicks, with all the
subsequent whirring and grinding of the disks as the file manager
needlessly lists the files in each directory. Meanwhile, I get to the
directory quickly and painlessly.
>So - which is more likely day to day? The ever so convient example of
>copying a *.ext set of files from the directory you happen to be logged into
>or having to copy dissimilar files from a directory you are not in??? I know
>the later is much more likely to me
Funny how you missed out getting to the directory in the first place,
and it was convenient how the place you were putting the files in an
easily accessable place. Try putting the files in /a/b/c/d/e/f/g. With
a CLI, no problem, with a GUI, you've then got to open each directory
in turn, with all the subsequent grinding of the disk etc. Then,
you'll end up with two giant trees of directories, and you have to
awkwardly scroll between them, meaning more excessive use of the
mouse. And if you're using explorer, the screen will probably scroll
down just as you're about to move the files, and you'll end up putting
them in the wrong directory!!
>> Add to that waiting period for Windows Explorer to launch
>
>wating period? <1 second?
About three seconds.
>> and you have
>> just taken quit a bit longer to do something in a GUI. Also, in Windows
>> the copying process must finish before you can continue work in Windows
>> Explorer, where as in *nix you can continue work while the copying is
>> done in the background. I personally find this the biggest irritation
>> when I work on M$ platforms.
>
>Then I suggest you stop taking drugs, sniffing glue is hazardous cause I do
>not know of any version of Windows that made you wait for a copy to finish
>before continuing. what a joke.
Probably the version most people use.
>> LASTLY, I think the M$ GUI problems is not bound to M$ allone - Linux,
>> MAC and other GUI systems (or systems that can use GUI's) will have
>> similar problems. I think it's time we rethink this whole thing. Yes,
>> there are instances where I like a GUI, for example Graphic Design. But
>> for many applications, the command line will remain KING.
>
>yes, in the basements of script kiddies everywhere...
script kiddies can only function in a nice GUI like windows.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:24 +0100
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:18:42 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:l9xS6.7691$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It stikes me that developers could just invent what they like, and users
>> could just choose to use what they like.
>
>That would be nice, but this require a lot more customizibility than most
>people built into their applications.
>Take Office & VS UI, you can customized it to your heart's content, but
>apperantly this, too, annoy users.
>
>What you suggest is technically very difficult.
>And even if it was possible, would I *really* want to use a program that I'd
>to fix its UI first?
I wouldn't want a program whose UI I could't customise. Imagine mutt
without all its customisations...
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:25 +0100
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 06:28:07 -0000, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
wrote:
>"Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Hey! Emacs is cool. It even gives you *some* syntax highlighting.
>
>Ever try vim?
Vim is just vi but with queer annoying features added. I can't seem to
find a copy of the classic vi anywhere.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:26 +0100
On Sun, 3 Jun 2001 19:18:02 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You are able to take the card out of your case and look at the chip and
>> write down what's written on there? Yes? Are you?
>
>Most of them hide what's on the chip with a sticker or some such, some even
>go so far as to remove the printing or to print on top of it with their own
>logo's. If you remove the sticker, you violate your waranty.
Oh NO. Now we can't let that happen can we.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:26 +0100
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 05:52:59 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Toon Moene" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Doh ! Wonder what the advantage of Linux is, then :-)
>I think that advantage of Linux is that you get to widen the horizon of the
>language.
>Asking a question in a Linux forum has a 50/50 chance to get you flamed to
>death.
Mainly because most people ask queer questions that could easily be
answered by doing a simple search.
>It very rarely happen on Windows forums.
That's because with windows they're used to dealing with idiots.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:27 +0100
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:45:59 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>daniel wrote:
>Typical M$ users don't want to access ext2 partitions on their local HD.
>Those that do know free utilities like Explore2fs.
I'm glad that it can't access ext2 partitions. I wouldn't be able to
trust with my precious linux partitions. I bet if they did support
ext2, they're probably have some "feature" that formats them to FAT32
or something.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:28 +0100
On 04 Jun 2001 01:53:48 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:54:52 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But I don't want to filter out certain authors, as I want to read many
>> of their posts in other threads. My newsreader has no facility to
>> filter out certain authors only in certain threads.
>>
>>>You really are an idiot. Thank god you arent going to attempt to
>>>use linux, it would probably kill you.
>>
>> I already am using linux, so fuck you.
>Wrong, you're posting with Agent, hence running Windows.
Yes, AT THE MOMENT. Am I now allowed to dual boot?
>By 'use' Linux, we mean really using it, everyday, not just
>as a server.
I don't use it as a server, I use it everyday. But I am forced to
switch back to windows for use of my printer, soundcard and winmodem.
Also for its superior GUI and programs.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:28 +0100
On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 04:00:17 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] ()) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>Which gives you the control that you want.
>>
>> No such thing on Agent. You can specify author or subject. Not both.
>
>Well as you like Linux so much use knews (nothing to do with KDE). It can
>do what you want and much more and it's all done within the GUI.
I would do if I had a network connection on my linux.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:29 +0100
On 04 Jun 2001 03:28:45 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 19:12:35 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It's not my fault it doesn't even have any facilities for setting up
>> printers. Linux will never catch up with Windows at this rate. All you
>> have to do in Windows is open Control Panel and give it the drivers
>> disk. On Linux, you....... what? Nothing there for installing
>> printers. Or soundcards. And everytime you download something, you
>> have to download about 300 dependencies, all of which depend on
>> another 600 packages and so on... And dpkg doesn't even tell you which
>> packages you need, it just spews out countless pages of shite.
>
>I have to admit, I don't find Debian dpkg over friendly, and during my last
>attempted Debian install I just couldnt install a mouse under X windows.
>It wasn't me, there is only 2 serial ports on this pc, and both Redhat
>and Mandrake work fine. I think something was wrong with the CD I got
>Debian on, as past Debian installs have worked no problem.
>
>Linux can be hard in certain areas DrSquare, and printers can be a bummer!
>When I was installing networks, printers were a problem *full stop!*.
>
>Why not try Mandrake or Redhat, as Debian is not a newbie disto in my
>opinion. What brand/model is your printer?
Epson stylus color 700.
I would try mandrake or redhat, but as I've put so much effort into
downloading/installing debian, I don't want to lose all that. Unless I
get another hard disk of course... and an external modem.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:30 +0100
On 04 Jun 2001 03:34:19 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 01:30:01 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I've read the man pages and various howto's all the way through, and
>> still there is no easy way of installing packages.
>
>Redhats RPM is not so hard, for most things, though I nearly always
>compile the *.tar.gz apps I get, and I find this the easiest and most
>reliable way for me.
>
>Get the tar.gzand have a read of the "INSTALL" file, follow it
>as see how you go ?
I've done that for a few things, but it's still an arse when it
doesn't compile.
>> Compare that to
>> Windows' simple setup.exe type install, no dependencies, nothing, it
>
>Sure it seems simple, and in many ways it is, until things go wrong!
Things can go wrong with windows or linux programs. But with windows
you've not spent as long getting all the components and setting it up,
so there's less lost.
>> just installs, and you don't even have to be root.
>
>Thats because under Windows, *everyone* has root status, including your
>3 year old nephew whos just deleted all your files! ;-)
Yeah, but as windows is so restrictive and the UI is so crippled, so
can give anyone root status and they'll still find it hard to touch
anything. Unless of course it's a virus you've just downloaded.
>Easy ways to be root under Linux include using the "sudo" package or
>just typing 'su" and the root password in a Xterm, installing the
>package (I install in /usr/local/src/) then killing that xterm.
Nah, I prefer the full screen console. Especially for playing nethack
and dopewars.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:31 +0100
On 04 Jun 2001 03:35:15 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 19:12:39 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 18:03:11 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>> I have changed my name.
>>>
>>>Are you rotten186?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>So don't keep us guessing please :)
>
>Who were you ?
I can't remember, but I only posted for a few weeks last time, so you
probably won't remember me.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:31 +0100
On 04 Jun 2001 03:37:09 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:54:53 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 03 Jun 2001 02:35:48 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>>>Plus Ed is a knowledgable guy, I think its silly
>>>to piss him off.
>>>
>>>Up to you tho, usenet is still a free medium.
>>
>> Which is one of its major faults. There should be some way that I can
>> moderate this newsgroup.
>
>Hahaah, why not reconcile the Ruskies and the Red Chinese while you're
>at it ?
I will when I've finished putting up my Nazi flags outside my house.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:32 +0100
On 04 Jun 2001 03:42:44 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 14:54:54 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>It would, however most Windows advocates use Free Agent,
>>>which lacks this capability.
>>>
>>>Agent is not free.
>>
>> I use it for free, so you must be wrong.
>
>Bzzzzzzzzt, now you've sent my untruth-o-meter of it's scale!!!
>
>Norti!
What the HELL are you talking about?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
