Linux-Advocacy Digest #982, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 11:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: UI Importance (drsquare)
Re: Best Distribution? (drsquare)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (drsquare)
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (drsquare)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (drsquare)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (drsquare)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (drsquare)
Re: Compiling Knews was: 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: Very interesting cracker article, and XP warning. (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
(drsquare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:52 +0100
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:05:01 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Selecting some pictures based on names out of 100s is much more tedious.
>> >Especially when the names:
>> >A> has no pattern.
>> >B> doesn't have a clear name.
>>
>> If you were dealing with pictures you'd be in a GUI anyway. Anyway,
>> supposing the thumnail doesn't give a clear indication of what it's
>> about? And why don't you name your files clearly?
>
>Then text, no naming scheme that has pattern.
>You can pick the files in the GUI, you'll have to type them, on by one, on
>the CLI.
The first couple of letters and a tab usually works for me. How do you
pick them on a GUI anyway? What are the keys to move a file to the
floppy?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:53 +0100
On 4 Jun 2001 22:10:02 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> >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.
>
>Yes and I offered a matching CLI version just to show that if you insist on
>doing it at the CLI, Windows offers that too.
We're talking about windows vs whatever, we're talking about GUI vs
CLI.
>> Which means using your mouse, which is awkward and time consuming.
>
>To you perhaps but not to most people. In fact, using a mouse is proven to
>be much faster and much more accurate than typing.
Proven? I am intrigued as to how this has been 'proven'.
>> >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
>
>you are trying to tell us that using a mouse is difficult - I assure you
Not difficult, just awkward.
>that that will not succeed. And you don't have to minimize individual
>windows - had you ever used windows you'd know there is a single mouse click
>that will bring you right to a clear desktop IF you desire that. But even
>that isn't necessary.
Oh, a "click". I like to keep my hands on the keyboard where I need
them. Anything that relies on a mouse (apart from graphics or http) is
just a nuisance.
>> >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.
>
>Of course, cause we're talking about doing it the easiest way possible.
Depends on what you mean by 'easy'. In this case I define 'easy' as
with the least possible effort. Moving your hand all the way over to a
mouse is nothing but a hindrance.
>> >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.
>
>Perhaps it would for you but I can do in the GUI much faster than you could
>at the CLI for most things.
How do you know? How have to found this out?
>> >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.
>
>Not on a current generation computer. Explorer, given that it's running all
>the time, opens in less than a blink of an eye.
Oh, sorry, I'm just a mere home user, I can't afford all the
extravagances of a new computer every 6 months.
>> 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.
>Oh and you are pretending that you can type:
>
>"Special Filename withMiXedcase 82342.jpg" faster than I can just click on
>it?
>
>AHAHAHAHA
"Spe<tab>" is what I have to type. <.5 seconds.
You have the task of navigating all the way to the directory, which
could take up to 20 seconds, then scrolling down a large list, then
moving the cursor everywhere etc...
>> 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.
>
>123456 eh? not even funny... I can get there is 7 clicks, faster than you
>can type it cause you might have some trouble when you get to the fact that
Faster than I can type it? I doubt it. Especially as you're having to
navigate through countless recursed directories, each time waiting for
the delay where it displays all the files, needlessly, in the right
hand side
>the project folder has 104 folders that all start with x_ so you'll have to
104? That's a lot of scrolling for you. Meanwhile, I can specify the
directory like *that*.
>go further to get to that 3 and then there are 9 more that start with 3 and
>then 26 that start with 4. Still with us? I'm already done. See, if you can
>create just any scenario, so can I.
Wow, three keys, what a delay. Quicker than the time it takes to
visually make apart such similarly named files.
>> >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.
>but I did and I gave an even harder example and I can STILL get there
>faster.
No you didn't. You didn't mention all the awful double clicking you'd
have to do, and all the moving of the mouse, or all the waiting for it
to automatically recurse.
>> 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!!
>
>That might be your problem but not in my experience. I can actually aim and
>click - you obviously cannot.
Not when explorer automatically opens the directory, scrolling the
screen half way down, just as you let go of your button.
>> >> Add to that waiting period for Windows Explorer to launch
>> >
>> >wating period? <1 second?
>>
>> About three seconds.
>
>time to upgrade your ESDI drive...
Sorry, I'm just a mere home user, I can't afford such extravagances.
>> >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.
>
>Not.
I think so.
>> >yes, in the basements of script kiddies everywhere...
>>
>> script kiddies can only function in a nice GUI like windows.
>
>They prefer using Unix so they can spoof their IP
Script kiddies don't know how to spoof IPs.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:55 +0100
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:44:43 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>On 4 Jun 2001 22:10:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>To you perhaps but not to most people. In fact, using a mouse is proven to
>>be much faster and much more accurate than typing.
>
>Depends. For example:
>
> mkdir \progra~1\irfanview
> cd \progra~1\irfanview
> pkunzip \download\iview336.zip
> dir
> iview
And if you were using tab complete you could quarter that time.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:55 +0100
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:57:18 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You seem to think that the CLI is more than the average user can deal
>> with. Don't forget that MS got their start selling a CLI operating
>> system (DOS) to people who had never used a computer before. These
>> newbies learned to format and partition HD's, install and configure
>> drivers, juggle TSR's and applications in limited RAM, write batch
>> files, and deal with umpteen different text-based programs each with
>> its own UI and quirks (and printer drivers).
>
>People will learn only just as much as they absolutely have to. In DOS'
>days, they had to learn all of that in order to use a computer.
>Today, they don't.
They didn't HAVE to then, but doing so severely increased their
efficiency, and decreased their dependency on PC World every time
something went wrong.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:56 +0100
On 4 Jun 2001 22:20:03 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Nico Coetzee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> That is using a form of CLI... You basically just confirmed that using a
>> CLI is in fact better in some cases than a GUI ;)
>
>Of course I can confirm that. i can think of _some_ scenarios where it might
>be faster to use the CLI. If you are fortunately enough to have such a
>simple command as the above then perhaps the CLI works fine and quick. But,
>the MAJORITY of the time I find the GUI file manager MUCH faster and more
>accurate and definately more functional.
One of the most popular tasks is to move all files from a directory to
a floppy. On a CLI that's merely "cp * /f". What could be simpler?
Clicking/selecting away in a file manager?
>> Which sometimes does the wrong thing, like moving instead of copying OR
>> creating shortcuts instead of copying. Happened again to me just last
>> week - dragged a couple of files to the floppy icon (HTML files). Came
>> to the other PC, and what do I find? SHORTCUTS !
>If you drag files from your hard drive to the flopppy (just using the left
>button) then they will ALWAYS be copied. The ONLY way to make them show up
>as shortcuts is to hold the Alt key while copying with the left or using the
>right and then selecting create shortcut. It can't happy by a simple drag
>and drop.
>
>Then again, how can you fault the OS when the user makes a mistake? I mean,
>if I use the CLI and mistype something and accidently delete these files
>instead of those files cause I put a * where a ? should have been - is that
>the OS's fault or the users? I think we know the answer.
But if the file manager was better designed, it wouldn't automatically
copy files or make shortcuts.
>> > 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
>> When working in a CUI environment, you tend to orginise your work
>> better. In fact, you know where stuff is, and you keep directory and
>> file names short, yet descriptive. I also try to limit the levels a bit.
>Just like we do in the GUI.
In a GUI there is no discipline, you just put thing where you want.
>Just like in the GUI. AND our GUI learns. If you visit a certain network
>share twice it appears at the top level automatically for you so you can
>pick it again quickly, this survives reboots too. You can set environment
>variables in Windows and use them too. Shortcuts in the GUI are like
>environment variables (in your example) in a CLI. Same thing. If I want to
>get to the OS root directly I just use %windir% - but I rarely need that.
Just like an alias in a CLI.
>> > wating period? <1 second?
>> If you re-open it directly after you closed it perhaps. On my system,
>> after a fresh boot, it takes about 4 to 5 seconds.
>
>My system takes uniformly under a second unless the first hard drive is
>working hard.
Well, mosts users don't have top of the range computers.
>> > yes, in the basements of script kiddies everywhere...
>>
>> Don't they prefer GUI's ? ? ?
>
>I'm sure they would but they are stuck with using unix to spoof their IPs
Erm, why are you equating unix with GUIs?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:57 +0100
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:18:19 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>> mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user
>>> #64239
>>
>> I keep seeing people put different variations of their email address in
>> their posts. I'm new to the News Groups, so I was wondering if you
>> would be so kind as to enlighten me about why this is done? Sorry to be
>> off topic, but, if it's a useful News Group hint, I'd like to know it.
>
>If you have your whole email address at some point, some automated
>software will pick it up and start spamming you. That's why there's lots
>of wired variations, such as mine,below.
>(u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
So this translates to [EMAIL PROTECTED] ?
>/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
But what the hell is all this?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:58 +0100
On 5 Jun 2001 22:32:53 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Patrick Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Stephen Edwards wrote:
>> >Look people, there's almost no state of a human mindset lower than that
>> >of patriotism, no notion is more pathetic than to be proud of something
>> >*you were born into*. Drop the patriotism folks.
>> >
>>
>> Spoken like a true communist.
>
>You're weird!
He sounds like Kulkis is disguise.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:59 +0100
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:59:39 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>>X has always had better fixed with fonts than windows :-) Shame about
>>>the scalable fonts, tho.
>>
>> I wouldn't be so sure. Fonts in X tend to look all jagged and hard on
>> the eyes.
>In my personal experience, the fixed width fonts are rather better on X.
>Properly scaled fonts look fine on a decent moniter (which I have).
I'm just using things like Arial and Times new Roman. They look find
on windows, but atricious on X.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:03:59 +0100
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:01:10 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Look fool, quit complaining. You chose to use Debian which is a distro
>>>for the hard core only. If you want a easier one, use RedHat. It even
>>>has a control panel and a good tool for setting up printers and X.
>>
>> That would mean downloading another 100MB+ of files, which I am just not
>> prepared to do.
>
>Go by a CD then. Good software is well worth paying for.
Where from?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:00 +0100
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 02:07:32 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare wrote:
>> >Look fool, quit complaining. You chose to use Debian which is a distro
>> >for the hard core only. If you want a easier one, use RedHat. It even has
>> >a control panel and a good tool for setting up printers and X.
>>
>> That would mean downloading another 100MB+ of files, which I am just
>> not prepared to do.
>
>Sometimes the www.linuxmall.com sells the latest CDs for around a $2.50
>or so.
I bet they don't take cash though.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:01 +0100
On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:54:13 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>chrisv wrote:
>> I have a theory, and I'm sure I'm not alone, that the people who claim
>> to be the most repelled by certain activities, are the people with
>> inner conflicts regarding these same activities.
>
>The unstated premise here is that I have an "inner conflict", which is
>false, as I will demonstrate in the next paragraph:
>
>If I object to, and repelled by, someone who dumps poison in the food of
>other people sitting at the table, is that supposed to indicate that I
>have some "inner conflict" or is it my RATIONAL recognition that this
>person is a clear and present danger to EVERYBODY he comes into contact with.
Admit it Aaron, you're just coming up with all this shit to try and
justify your homophobia. You're not fooling anyone.
<snip irrelevance about Kulkis' ma>
>Likewise, male homosexuals similarly engage in behavior which is VERY
>WELL DOCUMENTED to lower thier own life expectancy. However, to make
>matters even worse, the disease they contract makes them more susceptible
>to OTHER highly communicable diseases which are also life threatening
>(Hepatitis, Tuberculosis, etc.).
It's really funny reading your posts.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:02 +0100
On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:45:21 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 00:02:55 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>>Most people can drive a car after it is already built, but give them a
>>>pile of parts and a stack of How-To's and ask them to build it, or add
>>>an air conditioning unit after the car is already built (by someone
>>>else) and they will be in trouble.
>>
>>Your point?
>
>An end user put in front of an already set up Linux system will not
>have too much difficulty in performing ordinary tasks (WP, web
>browsing, playing CD's etc).
>
>It is when that person decides he wants to add new programs, features,
>upgrades, hardware etc that the entire thing falls apart.
Please explain how, and how this would be different to windows.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:03 +0100
On 05 Jun 2001 02:01:54 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:29 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>How about a CD from a magazine cover ?
>
>Thats what I did, before installing Mandrake7.2 which cost $16
>including the magazine ?
Who the fuck pays $16 for a magazine? Was it like "Giant Encyclopedia
Weekly" or something? And I'd still need another hard disk and a
modem.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:03 +0100
On 05 Jun 2001 02:04:00 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:32 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> 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?
>
>Its called *humour* (sometimes) so lighten up please.
>
>Dr Square, I meant that as Agent is NOT free, someone had to pay for it,
>are you saying that is was a gift ?
No, I cracked it.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:04 +0100
On 05 Jun 2001 02:09:24 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 09:57:30 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>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.
>
>I agree, but after a while, you will find its just the same old things
>stopping compilation, and besides, most source compiles without fuss
>these days, with the 'configure' app finding out if its BSD, Solaris,Linux
>etc.
Yes, unless it's written by some ABSOLUTE CUNT who can't even program,
leaving gcc to spew out a whole list of errors.
>>>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.
>
>Yeah Nethack is cool, have you tried 'adom'?
Nope.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:05 +0100
On 05 Jun 2001 09:36:05 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On 04 Jun 2001 19:15:57 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> (Stephen Cornell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >Rubbish. It's even called `control-panel' in Red Hat Linux. And you
>>
>> Sorry, but I'm using Debian.
>
>Well, you said `Linux needs...'. Linux *has*. If you want
>mass-market ease of use, you should use a mass market distribution.
>Debian is for the purist/minimalist - a great distribution once you
>know what you're doing, but not really suitable for the beginner with
>an aversion to reading documentation.
Hey, I've got like 80MB of documentation about linux. Howto's, various
LDP guides, and much more.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:05 +0100
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 12:47:48 +0300, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jaakko Lintula)) wrote:
>On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:50:39 +0100, drsquare wrote:
>> what's the difference? Does apt-get give you a clear list of what's
>> missing?
>
>Yes, and after user's given permission, it goes and fetchs those
>missing packages automagically, and then installs them. And it
>works. Wonderful, right?
"Fetches them"? I can't see it doing that whilst my linux system has
no network connection.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Very interesting cracker article, and XP warning.
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:06 +0100
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:13:02 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Form@C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Why worry about internet demand in the 3rd world? Just the US could easily
>> swamp the existing address space - when every computer, phone, tv, radio,
>> fridge, freezer, toaster, coke machine, stove, alarm system, cctv system
>> and table lamp has its own IP address! And that's only for starters...
>
>No way in hell.
>We are talking *128 bits* number.
>That is 3.4028236692093846346337460743177e+38
>
>Let's assume that the US has 300 Millions citizens, and each have 200
>appliances.
>That is 60000000000
>
>This is how many adresses are left:
>3.402823669209384634633746073717e+38
>
>Notice that the numbers are identical, that is because that number doesn't
>even bite into the amount of adresses that IPv6 will have.
>
>What if each citizen has million appliances?
>That is 300000000000000
>
>3.402823669209384634633743073717e+38
>
>That doesn't makes an impressions *either*.
Yeah, but if the population increased to 10billion, then that's only
34028236692093846346337460743
And that's just home users. For everywhere else, we're talking like
10trillion places:
(2^128) / 10e13 =
3402823669209384634633746 addresses each.
That's next to nothing.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:07 +0100
On 5 Jun 2001 04:38:17 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leigh Wedding)) wrote:
>In article <9eu937$d72$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>says...
>>When you can get a better browser for free, why pay?
>>
>>
>>
>
>I assume you refer to Internet Explorer (IE).
>
>The way I see it IE is not really free as MS claims, it is
>actually included in the price of MS Windows. Can you
>grasp this concept?
And it's shit.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:08 +0100
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:58:12 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Leigh Wedding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fhnnp$eki$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> The way I see it IE is not really free as MS claims, it is
>> actually included in the price of MS Windows. Can you
>> grasp this concept?
>
>No, I can download updates for free.
>I don't have to buy something to get IE5 on Win95.
Maybe, but you 'pay' for it by it's lack of features and speed.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[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: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 16:04:09 +0100
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:17:08 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Bryan C wrote:
>> >
>> I wonder what kind of hardware requirements are
>> > necessary to successfully support this feature if nothing is being
>> > saved to non-volatile memory as you suggest.
>> >
>> Reportedly, the hardware requirements for XP, at least in terms of
>> memory, are double those of Win 2K. I assume the HD and CPU
>> requirements are also doubled.
>
>I don't think you can even find a new hard drive as small as what Window XP
>would require (1.5gb). I don't think you can even find a new processor as
>small as what Windows XP will require (233mhz). The minimum requirement is
>basicly an old computer with (maybe) a $30 memory boost.
Why the hell does it require 1.5Gb? I can install linux easily in
500Mb on a 100mhz, so what extra bonuses would I get with XP for that
extra processor and extra 1GB disk space?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
