Thanks, I look forward to your continued support :)
Romanator wrote:
>
> You can learn a lot from trashing and rebuilding your Linux box. It's
> good practice and great way to learn about your OS and mistakes. I know
> I did. (lol)
> After a bit of time has passed, you will editing your files rather than
> always reinstalling the Linux OS.
> It's great!
>
> Roman
>
> jennifer wrote:
> >
> > I agree. The fact that micro$oft prevents its users from being able to
> > understand the source code is disconcerning. Users can go to school and
> > learn everything there is to know about operating the system, but they
> > will never understand the intimate details of the source. You shouldn't
> > trust what you can't understand. (before I'm flamed...yes, I know
> > nothing about the linux source code, nor how to use my system.
> >
> > At least with linux, you have the opportunity to discover everything
> > about the system. Although all the dual-booters can attest that windows
> > is easier to operate, I'm sure that as they get more familiar with
> > linux, they will understand how powerful they can be over the system,
> > and not the other way around.
> > (As soon as I learn how *not* to trash my system, I won't use windows at
> > all, but as it stands, I'm very good at trashing and rebuilding my Linux
> > box!! :)
> >
> > Where's the control panel?? I can't find my cdrom!!, lol)
> >
> > Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > >
> > > That reminds me of a bug that was found in Win95 and 98. Apparently
> > > after 50 days of continuous uptime your system will crash -- no matter
> > > what. Your machine could be sitting there idle and it would still
> > > crash. What puzzles me is how someone actually managed to find this
> > > bug. How can anyone get a day, let alone 50 days, of uptime out of
> > > their Windows machine?
> > >
> > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:15, jennifer wrote:
> > > > If you think thtaa micro$oft having your password is bad, think of
> > > > this....
> > > >
> > > > One company, huge monopoly, solely responsible for the source code
> > > > on the worlds business and home computers for the past 20 years....
> > > >
> > > > What if they were secretly implanting code in all there Os's that
> > > > could shut down all systems on a specified date, unless we, the
> > > > people submitted to Mr. Gates demands.
> > > >
> > > > Far-fetched yes, but impossible? My worry is not about micro$ofts
> > > > monopoly...It is with the stringent secrecy in which the develop
> > > > their products.
> > > >
> > > > Sridhar Dhanapalan wrote:
> > > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 21:32, Solver wrote:
> > > > > > Just as a note - I wouldn't mind if MS had my password. I would
> > > > > > only mind if they could erase hard drive.
> > > > >
> > > > > If they had your password they COULD erase your hard drive. They
> > > > > could get your e-mail, your credit card deails (if you ever typed
> > > > > them into your computer) -- in fact anything they wanted, from
> > > > > you. And if you didn't use a variant of NT (Win 95/98/ME) you
> > > > > wouldn't even have a password. You would be left wide-open for any
> > > > > script-kiddie to exploit. And if you DID use a variant of NT, you
> > > > > would still be vulnerable, since everybody knows that MS has a bad
> > > > > track record with bugs, security and virii.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I hate when I reboot it twice a day, too.
> > > > >
> > > > > I reboot my computer once a week on average (i.e. I get about a
> > > > > week of uptime). This rebooting is not due to any problem, it's
> > > > > just because I feel like it. In my two years of using GNU/Linux I
> > > > > have only had a few system crashes. Sure, individual applications
> > > > > crash, but this doesn't affect the rest of the system, and I can
> > > > > just restart that programme and work as before.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have Office XP, and the voice recognition really helps. Can't
> > > > > > wait for it in StarOffice.
> > > > >
> > > > > IBM ViaVoice, which is FAR better than the voice recognition in XP
> > > > > (IBM and Dragon are the best in the field), is also available for
> > > > > GNU/Linux. BTW, did you actually PAY that much money for Office
> > > > > XP? I can't remember when I last paid for software (I think it was
> > > > > 1998, when Windows came pre-installed on my then-new machine).
> > > > >
> > > > > > When I bought a PC, I was asked, do I want it's C: drive
> > > > > > formatted, and said yes.
> > > > > > Bill Gates said that the fact that everyone can recompile the
> > > > > > source code is what he doesn't like about Linux. Perhaps he's
> > > > > > right.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you KIDDING?! What is wrong with being able to do that? That
> > > > > has got to be Linux's greatest strength! You can compile a kernel
> > > > > (or even a whole system) to suit YOUR own machine, not some thing
> > > > > that MS wants you to buy to get "optimal performance". I can
> > > > > customise my kernel to have what I want, making it fully optimised
> > > > > for my particular combination of hardware. For example, Mandrake's
> > > > > RPMs come pre-compiled for an i586 (Pentium-class) procesors. I
> > > > > can squeeze a bit of extra performance by recompiling the SRPM to
> > > > > an i686 binary, since I have a Pentium II. If I have a
> > > > > multi-processor system, I can compile for SMP, and take advantage
> > > > > of features like multi-processor threading far better than a
> > > > > pre-compiled Windows. Similarly, if I want to run GNU/Linux on a
> > > > > i386, I can compile for that. What is WIndows XP optimised for? My
> > > > > guess would be i686, i.e. a Pentium II or III. Try running it on
> > > > > anything lower, and it will work painfully slow -- not just
> > > > > because it is bloated and not designed for those processors, but
> > > > > also because it is not and cannot be compiled for these
> > > > > processors. Similarly, if I had an Athlon or a Pentium IV (or an
> > > > > Alpha, a Power PC, a Sparc, an ARM, etc.), I could compile my
> > > > > system for that processor especially, hence taking full advantage
> > > > > of that particular processor. Windows, being closed-source, cannot
> > > > > do this. GNU/Linux has the potential to make use of new processor
> > > > > features like MMX, 3DNow! and Streaming SIMD (AKA MMX2) far more
> > > > > efficiently and far better than can Windows, or any Microsoft
> > > > > product for that matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Did Uncle Bill actually give a reason for his concern, or do you
> > > > > just believe him because he's rich?
> > > > >
> > > > > > Windows could be more customizable, though, even remaining
> > > > > > closed-source.
> > > > >
> > > > > Windows can never be as configurable as GNU/Linux if it remains
> > > > > closed soiurce. The best they can do is have options (or even
> > > > > auto-detection) for features like MMX or multiple processors. This
> > > > > doesn't mean they are (or can be) optimised for them, though.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Solver
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Sridhar Dhanapalan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > To: "Solver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Linux Newbie"
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 5:03 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [newbie] No-one uses Linux, says Microsoft
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 04:48, Solver wrote:
> > > > > > > > I love Microsoft. I respect Bill Gates. Not only they ain't
> > > > > > > > my enemies - they are my friends. Yes, I like Linux, it's
> > > > > > > > enhanced functionality and especially stability, but
> > > > > > > > Microsoft were the first to do it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since when was Windows stable? And even if it is, were they
> > > > > > > really the "first to do it"? As a former Windows-user (yes,
> > > > > > > I've even used Win2K), I can say that Windows is the most
> > > > > > > crash-prone OS I've ever come across. If it wern't for the
> > > > > > > lack of applications, I would've stayed with OS/2 and DOS
> > > > > > > instead of switching to WIndows.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that they're doing everything the right way.
> > > > > > > > Also, the monopoly situation is very good for users. You can
> > > > > > > > put your file on a disk, go to a friend being sure you'll
> > > > > > > > find the same Windows and Word there. The worst I could
> > > > > > > > imagine is this: Windows - 40%
> > > > > > > > Linux - 30%
> > > > > > > > MacOS - 10%
> > > > > > > > BeOS - 5%
> > > > > > > > Solaris - 5%
> > > > > > > > Other - 5%
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This will never happen. Windows, GNU/Linux and MacOS will
> > > > > > > dominate. BeOS and Solaris, while being excellent OSs, will
> > > > > > > not survive on the desktop. Solaris still has a lot of life on
> > > > > > > the server, though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then you would be usnure as to what will you find there. If
> > > > > > > > Linux user, you had to save both for Linux and Windows
> > > > > > > > formats, and Mac doesn't read these disks. So, you would
> > > > > > > > need to know specifically where are you going, and what the
> > > > > > > > PCs are there. Each time I go to repair a PC, I'm almost
> > > > > > > > sure what I'll see there.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Microsoft love to create a "lock-in", or "venus flytrap"
> > > > > > > situation. They entice you to use their products, and make it
> > > > > > > very difficult for you to leave. MS Word's (before XP) file
> > > > > > > format deliberately contains a lot of binary code, making it
> > > > > > > difficult for a competitor to make an import/export filter for
> > > > > > > it, and hence locking people into MS Word. Internet Explorer
> > > > > > > accepts a twisted, proprietary form of HTML, foring web
> > > > > > > designers to make pages that only work best in IE (since it is
> > > > > > > the most widely used browser). Since pages look best in IE,
> > > > > > > more people use it, creating a viscous cycle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Open standards and open file formats like W3C HTML and other
> > > > > > > XML-based formats (e.g. the new OpenOffice and Office XP
> > > > > > > formats) are what encourage innovation in the industry, since
> > > > > > > they are fully open to everyone. The StarOffice (now
> > > > > > > OpenOffice) people have done a wonderful job at
> > > > > > > reverse-engineering the binary MS Office formats. Parsing the
> > > > > > > Office XP formats, being XML-based, has been much easier for
> > > > > > > them, and has made them more competitive. With open formats
> > > > > > > like this, it doesn't matter what programme you use, or what
> > > > > > > platform you use. OpenOffice is shaping up to be a real MS
> > > > > > > Office-killer, and it is available on a multitude of
> > > > > > > platforms, including GNU/Linux and WIndows.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Microsoft are responsible for what they release. They
> > > > > > > > provide the product to you, and given you buy it legally,
> > > > > > > > they also provide you with support, updates, etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Like these?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092434,00.html
> > > > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2772328,00.html
> > > > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092585,00.html
> > > > > > > http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,5092661,00.html
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a danger with closed-source software: you have no idea
> > > > > > > what's inside. For all we know, everyone's passwords are
> > > > > > > probably being forwarded to Microsoft.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can register at Linux Counter and
> > > > > > > > others, but they won't give you that support, even though
> > > > > > > > bug reporting is awesome.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can buy support from distro vendors (Mandrake, Red Hat,
> > > > > > > etc.) This is just like any other software. You get what you
> > > > > > > pay for. GNU/Linux is free, and you get free support in the
> > > > > > > form of neewsgroups and mailing lists. If you want official
> > > > > > > support, you have to pay. It still works out cheaper than
> > > > > > > paying for propritary software, since you're paying purely for
> > > > > > > support, not for the software. You can't expect something for
> > > > > > > nothing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > And, another thing I love in Linux are the
> > > > > > > > penguins. I love that they're everywhere, and one of my
> > > > > > > > recompilation jobs will be to put even more penguins on
> > > > > > > > their work at Linux desktop and applications. They just look
> > > > > > > > cool - nice animals.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tux rulez :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Also, I'd like to add that I hate to buy PC with
> > > > > > > > preinstalled software. When I got one with preinstalled
> > > > > > > > Windows (what I used then), the first thing I done was
> > > > > > > > formatting C: and installing it myself. Now I use dual-boot
> > > > > > > > W98, and Linux Mandrake. If I bought a PC with this dual
> > > > > > > > boot, I'd still run Partition Magic and wipe it all, to
> > > > > > > > install myself. I don't love when something is preinstalled.
> > > > > > > > As a PC expert, I want to install everything myself - even
> > > > > > > > if this is something I never installed. Yes, I did feel
> > > > > > > > unsure installing Windows for the first time, as I also did
> > > > > > > > installing Linux and BeOS for the first time. It all passes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you buy a new PC, chances are it'll have WIndows
> > > > > > > pre-installed. Whether you actually use that or something else
> > > > > > > doesn't matter, you are paying MS for it. Buying a system
> > > > > > > without Windows can considerably lower the cost of a PC (I
> > > > > > > think it is somewhere in the order of 10%).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It seems to me like you're simply believing all the FUD
> > > > > > > vomited out by those at Microsoft and their allies (e.g.
> > > >
> > > > ZDNet). There is
> > > >
> > > > > > > more than one side to the coin.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Sridhar Dhanapalan.
> > > > > > > "There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
> > > > > > > LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
> > > > > > > -- Jeremy S. Anderson
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Sridhar Dhanapalan.
> > > > > "There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
> > > > > LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
> > > > > -- Jeremy S. Anderson
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sridhar Dhanapalan.
> > > "There are two major products that come from Berkeley:
> > > LSD and UNIX. We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
> > > -- Jeremy S. Anderson
