i think you have a problem with your p.c. date
it is saying 14/01/2008
at present date = 16-01-01
australia
stephen
At 08:17 PM 14/01/2008, Charles A. Punch wrote:
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>
> > My impression is that the Linux community in general cannot decide whether
> > linux should be seen as a viable desktop alternative to Windows and MAC, or
> > a viable backend alternative to Solaris, or simply as a hobbyist
> OS. (To me
> > the former is very debatable, the laters are more realistic.)
> >
> > I think that linux will never be a viable desktop for the masses until
> > productivity software is as common as it is for Windows (but then, i guess,
> > linux programmers would have to contend with the "dumb windows user"
> > mentality). I know that a couple of months ago the Linux Journal had a
> > multi-media issue that showed how linux could be used for generating music
> > and movies, and while interesting, it's not even comparable to the
> > multimedia power of the MAC and BeOS. (I can't open any application
> without
> > XMMS "coughing" on me....)
> >
> > To me it seems that despite all linux advances it is still _just_ an
> > inexpensive internet sever (web, mail, news, etc..), and a hobbyist OS for
> > developers. I think a lot of the reason why is the elitism that Linux folks
> > have and distain for the "dumb windows user." What's needed is a real
> > paradigm shift within the community. Yeah, we have token companies like
> > Gnome and Eazel that genuinely care and are compassionate about the
> computer
> > food-chain, but this isn't enough. (What's up with this in-fighting
> between
> > KDE and Gnome?)
> >
> > Then again, maybe the fate of linux is never to become a computer for the
> > common user, but rather a development environment for programmers and web
> > developers. We seem very divided on this issue.
> >
> > One last thing, I'm not complaining really, it just that I think there are
> > different priorities that drive linux compared to the other OSs.
> > Consequently, there are opportunity costs and trade-offs. The thing that
> > really bothers me is the elitism.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2001 9:35 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: [newbie] Mandrakesoft CEO defends Linux
> >
> > using the expert mode on the install, my package install was 347.2mb.
> > That includes KDE2 with Koffice the network stuuf. Blackbox. Abiword and
> > all the other stuff that is needed.
> > After adding a bunch of updated and stuff from the unsupported dir it
> > whent up to 422.7 mb.
> >
> > Now mandrake make it so easy to add/remove packages that when I need to
> > compile a program from source, I install those packages then and remove
> > them when I am finshed.
> >
> > Mark Hillary
> > Registered Linux User 200755
> >
> > eryl wrote:
> >
> > > john rigby wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> The 99.99% of people out in the Cyberbog that Linux NEEDS to
> > >> reach/convert to save us all from Bill, do not need now, in the
> > >> future, ever, ANY Development Tools.
> > >>
> > >
> > > I agree. That's been one of the problems I have with linux. When I
> > > hand a linux disk to one of my Windows using friends to try, I tell them
> > > that the minimum workstation GUI install will take about 1.5 gigabytes.
> > > Everyone gives me the "Huh". Why? Because Windoze 98, with office and
> > > a bunch of other programs takes about 600 meg. The distros need
> > > something like a "Minimal GUI Install" that includes KDE office, One
> > > text editor, one file manager, etc. Everything should be available, but
> > > face it--for these newbies it's not necessary. Once they find out that
> > > they really like using linux, then they have room to experiment. My Mom
> > > does not need 5 different terminals or 6 window managers, and she will
> > > never have any use for developmental tools.
>
>Just another 2 cents from a newbie; I use Linux because IT WORKS! The
>first PC
>I ever used was plain Vanilla DOS. Back then we carved our own windows and
>climbed in and out of them the hard way, with a little help from our friends.
>The Linux community seems to have that same spirit. I have been using Windows
>for a few years, but have never liked it. LM was the answer to my problem. I
>think that LM could be an alternative to Windows, not by making it more "user
>friendly," but by getting more productivity software to run efficiently on it,
>without having to be a programmer to install it. That doesn't mean to
>make it
>"for idiots." Can't we find a happy medium? User friendly, to me just means
>"limited." I would like to see LM become less like MS, not more! LM 7.2 was a
>big dissapointment to me. I went back to 7.1, which is the best OS I have ever
>used. I hope that the next distribution will have all the bugs out of it,
>because 7.2 would have been really nice, if I could get it to run properly. As
>it stands, it was just a tease.
>
>ShalomOut
> Chal
