Linux-Advocacy Digest #262, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Gary Connors)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux (Terry
Porter)
Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Richard Petty)
Re: Linux is awesome! (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill (Terry Porter)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (Marty)
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Usage Surveys (was: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't
accept the future. (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Wintrolls in panic! (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Wintrolls in panic! (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead (tinman)
Re: It's all about the microsurfs ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:10:24 GMT
Again who other than back room geeks care?
I run Intel.
Some may run Mac.
Some S/390 (ESA/VM MVS/xa etc)
Some AS/400.
The vast majority of the users in the world are desktop users. They
run one OS with the exception of possibly programmer geeks, a small,
very small percentage of the population.
So Linux is multiplatform, big deal. Compared to the number of desktop
users out there you can lump all of the systems that Linux runs on
together and it won't even make a dent in the total number of users,
most of which are using Windows.
How many 9672's did IBM sell last year. I know, do you?
The local PC shop in town sold more desktops, all running Windows
BTW...
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 19:52:22 -0400, Gary Hallock
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Linux and punched cards are a match made in heaven.
>>
>> Oh yea, one other thing. What's with all the S/390 crap? Do you think
>> anyone in this group even knows what you are talking about? Or is that
>> the only feature of Linux you can find that Windows doesn't have?
>>
>
>Actually, I have found a lot of people in this group know about S/390. As
>far as machine architectures, Windows has x86. Need I list again the many
>machine architectures that Linux supports?
>
>
>Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:11:44 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:51:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>The current HP Pavillion and Compaq Internet pc's advertised on TV
>(you know the $899.00 model) have Winmodems and Win printers.
The HP comes with a PCL3 printer. It's hard to say what
exactly the thing that comes with those Compaq's is.
That compaq sounds remarkably like a PIA actually.
In general, neither give you enough detail to figure out
just what kind of POS you're managing to buy for yourself.
Although compaq was at least nice enough mention aureal and
what type of mobo they're using.>
>
>
>
>On 22 Jun 2000 17:59:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
>> won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
>>>
>>
>>"Half the hardware", eh simon?
>>
>>Tell me, which half would that be?
>>
>>And what, specifically?
>>
>>Shouldnt be too hard for a 42 year old who knows what a punchcard reader
>>is, eh?
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: 22 Jun 2000 20:14:46 -0400
On 21 Jun 2000 21:52:03 +0500, Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>> "JEDIDIAH" == JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ...and then fork over $$$ for it.
>
> > Or alternately: not find it there at all.
>
>Or alternately: you find it, installed it, and then find out that it
>is not what you want and can't return it.
Or alternately: You find it, and it trashes several system DLL's
during the installation and also zeros the first 512 bytes of the
Registry, making the whole system useless (yes, Tim Palmer, even
more useless than a Linux box with a dead console), requiring you
to re-install, and you can only do that if you backed up Windows
from the hard drive, because you don't get a Windows CD because you
might pirate it.
--
Have you re-installed your operating system today?
------------------------------
From: Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:05:15 -0400
abraxas wrote:
>
> Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You snipped a lot of stuff. I assume your silence is from the foot in
your mouth.
>
> >> > Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
> >> > its absolutely useless.
> >>
> >> Wow. Youd better run off and tell the good folks at Google this important
> >> news. They run a 4000 node linux cluster RIGHT NOW, which theyre expanding
> >> to 6000 nodes to handle their search engine.
> >
> >
> > AMAZING!!!! HOLY SHIT!!!...So they have taken the Linux Kernel and added
> > Database ability to it, an HTTP server, and other stuff need to run a
> > search engine. OR, did they create "TOOLS" (see above) that run on top of
> > the kernel that does that. If they did, my point still stands.
> >
I assume your silence is from the foot in your mouth.
> >
> >
> >> It doesnt have a GUI! UH OH! HOW CAN IT POSSIBLY WORK?????
> >>
> >
> > Never said that. Watch the stawman die.
> >
>
> Actually you did:
>
Give the dejanews reference.
I did not
> >> > Anyhow, it is you who have missed the point. Linux without a GUI or tools
> >> > its absolutely useless.
>
> You used the operative 'or'. What youve said is that linux without a GUI
> is useless, AND (exclusively) linux without tools is useless. If on the
> otherhand, you had said 'GUI AND tools', you may have had a very, very
> small point.
Linux without GUI or Tools is useless. Seems to say something different
from Linux without GUI is
useless and Linux without Tools is useless.
>
> So now youre twisting your own words around in the face of argument, and
> breaking rules of linear aristolian logic right and left.
>
> What was your point again?
>
That you don't you obviously 1) dont know what you are talking about.
2) you need to turn off your flame thrower 3) and you are a jerk.
How's that.
> >> If you were a 'unix user' you would understand that the bits and pieces
> >> of the GUIs that are layed atop X11 have nothing at all to do with the
> >> usefulness or stability of the system in question, since they are
> >> utterly configurable.
> >>
> >
> >
> > What part of "GUI AND TOOLS" dont you understand?
>
> The part where you replaced your 'or' with an 'and', doubtlessly to obscure
> your own error. Your point is invalidated by virtue [sic] of error of
> argument.
>
The point stands. Respond to it after you take the foot from your mouth.
> > What part of
> > "A kernel without init, cp, mv, ls" do you not understand? You are
> > placing an artificial constrain on my words that was never there. Watch
> > that strawman fall.
> >
>
> You're not doing a very good job of diverting the crux of my focus away
> from your horrific argument building skills and complete lack of logical
> ability. But you can go ahead and keep trying if you like.
>
> You'll get better with practice.
>
Rather than using the "arguement by insult and agression" you should try the
"arguement of logical response".
You strawman falls.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:15:32 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:55:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>idiot....
>
>Bring your Linux CD to anyone of the current HP, Compaq internet
>machines and see how well you fair.
You never quite know with dregs like these. Although, they
might just be overpriced versions of what various Linux and
small 3rd party VARS have been bundling with Linux for quite
some time now.
>
>
>
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 16:35:07 -0700, Jacques Guy
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
>>> won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
>>
>>It's more like 90% of the hardware won't run Linux: the keyboard, the
>>mouse, the monitor, the disk drives, the mouse mat... in fact
My USB keyboard and Mouse work fine in Mandrake without any
extra futzing. Monitors are pretty generic and have been for
quite some time. Although Linux allows you the flexibilty to
support monitors that M$ was likely not thinking about when it
put it's "monitor list" together.
>>the only thing that will run Linux in those machines is a
>>piddling wee silicon chip the name of which escapes me right
>>now. Why, even the power supply won't run Linux! Make that
>>98% then.
>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why Jeff Szarka Has Zero Credibility When He Claims Problems With Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:17:06 +0800
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 04:30:23 -0400, Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 22 Jun 2000 01:51:35 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>
>>>On the flip side Mandrake 7.1 locks up for me on a system with a 5
>>>year old video card while trying to probe for SCSI cards.
>>
>>Last year, Szarka purposely rigged a Linux installation to
>>fail, and then used it as the basis for a fraudulent anti-
>>Linux propaganda operation. I wrote three articles about
>>it, based in part on the work of a number of other people
>>who also analyzed his little project. These are reproduced
>>below:
>
>
>To follow up....
>
>Just out of curiosity I checked alt.os.linux.mandrake to see if others
>had this problem:
>
>"hangup on install, scsi problem?"
Did you email them, and find out what they did ?
>
>I think I deserve an appology or would you like this guys e-mail
>address so you can flame him too? Let me know either way.
Are you a slow learner Szarka ?
You've been trolling here for years, do you really think the regulars share your
short term memmory loss ?
>
>
>Linux, who do you want to flame today?
Windows, which Shrill will troll COLA today.
>
>
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 2 days 11 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: How many times, installation != usability.
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:21:18 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:04:54 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>One example...Big deal..
>
>I'd rather have decent looking video and sound and be able to use ANY
>scanner, ANY printer, ANY modem and virtually ANY device my little
>heart desires, under Win98 without looking at HCL lists like I have to
Except you don't need to use "ANY" scanner. Unless you are more
of a moron than we think you are then you don't pick your hardware
at random anyways. Even under "it runs everything", some options
are better than others. The overhead of that complexity is no less
than needing to deal with the question of compatibility.
I've got a scanner, dvdrom, cdrw, video overlay board, 3d acclerator,
multiple NICs, modem, printer, and SCSI cards all working just fine
under Linux.
One does not use the whole hardware or software catalog.
>with Linsux.
>
>
>On 22 Jun 2000 18:14:19 GMT,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:14:01 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> The point is NOT the card, it is that the LinoNuts are always claiming
>>> support from this manufacturer or that vendor, I am only exposing the
>>> fact that Win2k drivers were out, full function Livewire drivers, long
>>> before Linux ones (which don't even exist yet) and therefore showing
>>> that Win2k is a money maker for vendors and Linux is, as always taking
>>> a backseat.
>>
>>Then explain how Linux got ATA-100 drivers *before* Windows.
>
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:18:30 GMT
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:22:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Thank you.....
>
>
>I say just walk around in Fortune 500 companies and ask the IT people.
>Sure you might see Linux in the backroom running a server, but on the
>desktop?
The "backroom" is where it really counts actually...
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Richard Petty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 02:54:46 GMT
Any of them, really.
I just installed TurboLinux (CD came free with a NIC) on a 486 that I'm
going to route and web serve with, too, and the "server" style install
took 170-megabytes.
--Richard
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, peter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'm setting up two 486 linux systems, one will be a small web sever,
>firewall, and ip masq.
>
>The other will be a machine to write perl programs on.
>
>I have two 250 meg drives, I don't plan to install X, so which distro
>is out there that will allow me to do what i want to do on the 486's
>???
--
Spam deterent: Remove the "BOGUS" part for a correct address.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:24:03 +0800
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:17 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Look them up and that will give you a slight clue as to how long I
>>have been in this (the computer) business.
>>
>>You most likely weren't even born yet...
>
>And yet, your daughter only just entered high school? Not a very quick
>learner, is she? ;-))
Hahahahahahah!
Can you believe *anything* simon says ?
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 2 days 13 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:25:05 GMT
On 23 Jun 2000 03:32:48 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>>>I don't know about Mark, but the reason *I* am using linux is simply
>>>that it works, and does the things I want from an OS, mostly the way
>>>I want them done (and where the differences between my wants and what
>>>linux does are really irking me, I *can* [and do] roll my own).
>
>>That's fair enough. Most Windows users however are not interested in
>>rolling their own. Henceforth the vast number of shrinkwrap
>>applications on the market.
>
>I was thinking more in terms of lower level stuff --- If I don't like
>the keyboard bindings an installation comes with, I simply change
>them. If I don't like the way the keyboard is handled, I change
>it. If the latest version of the scanner driver software, when
>installed on a particular machine, claims I have no scanner, I track
>it down to a typo in the legacy code designed to handle outdated
>kernels, and fix it. When I write a program that manages to monopolize
>the CPU when run by an ordinary user, I look at why this happens,
>change it, and send a bug report to the kernel maintainers.
This is good stuff for you, and anyone else talented enough to do the
same but my arguments apply to average folks and most can barely
figure out how to find their own files :)
>I understand that most Windows users feel little urge to do any of that
>sort of stuff, either --- which, unfortunately, means that it doesn't
>get done at all, and people who actually *would* prefer things to work
>in a slightly different way are stuck with what they have.
This is true. The typical user is grossly undereducated as far as
computers are concerned. I DO blame Windows for this.
As the generation of DOS folks (OS/2 as well), leaves the workforce
(God am I that old already!) the current crop of users weaned on the
gui will be more and more lost.
The question arises however, how much do they really NEED to know as
opposed to what would be ideal?
>However, *I* most certainly *do* feel those urges, and thus *I* go with
>a platform that *does* allow me to change things I don't like. And, of
>course, of the range of such platforms, I choose one that already does
>things a lot like I want them to be done, anyway.
For a person like you, Linux is perfect. Students, people who need,
want and can utilize control and power over the computer Linux is
perfect. I have always said that, and I mean it as a compliment when i
use the term computer geek. I am sort of one myself.
>I have programmed computers for almost 2/3 of my life, and I am currently
>finishing a PhD in CS. I have designed and soldered together multiprocessor
>systems a decade ago, and programmed them from the ground up. I also have
>just one subject left to complete an EE degree, and delight in reviving
>what most people consider "obsolete" or "incompatible" hardware. Given
>this background, there are few things more infuriating to me than being
>presented with a piece of "user friendly" software that just doesn't
>work --- and not being able to do anything about it.
>
>Bernie
I wish you well Bernie, and you always pique my curiosity and tax me
to come up with some kind of response. I have a BSEE myself although I
don't really make use of it in my current field.
My rantings are directed more at the "linux does everything, for
everybody crowd" as opposed to folks who can really make use of it's
power.
This is one reason why I rarely try and directly dissuade a newbie
from using Linux. I offer constructive advice when I can and in fact
have recommended Mandrake to many a newbie in this group.
Enjoy,
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Charlie Ebert the LinoShill
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 23 Jun 2000 08:28:23 +0800
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:46:28 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> He's just a Microsoft Stock Holder. Just a Microsoft Stock Holder!
>> That's all. Nothing to worry about.
>
>Ah that's your stock answer is it? Accuse anyone who challenges you to
>produce facts and figures (when your posts are incredibly devoid of such
>things) you accuse them of being Microsoft Stock Holders!
>
>Wow, talk about a smoke screen.
>
>C'mon Charlie, put up or shut up. Give us a magazine name! Give us a
>link!
You've had ******dozens****** and ignored them Goodwin, beat it Wintroll.
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 1 week 2 days 13 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 22:23:34 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > <snip replies>
> >
> > Taking more context restoration lessons from Curtis Bass?
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > <snip>
> >
> > Taking more context restoration lessons from Curtis Bass?
>
> What's the deal, Marty? Are you agreeing with Tholen that I equate
> snippage with "context restoration?"
>
> Just curious.
I come here to bury Tholen, not to praise him. The above is typical of
something Tholen might say. I neither condone nor support it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:44:24 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:07:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>>Look them up and that will give you a slight clue as to how long I
>>>>have been in this (the computer) business.
>>>>
>>>>You most likely weren't even born yet...
>>>
>>>And yet, your daughter only just entered high school? Not a very quick
>>>learner, is she? ;-))
>
>>What are you talking about?
>
>Your claim that you have been in the computer business longer than the
>people you are talking to have been alive.
I guess I did.
My error. I was trying to show that I was not some high school kid who
was using daddies computer to troll around. Sometimes I wish I was :)
>>I'm 42yo?
>
>Good question. What's the answer?
Well I have worked with all of the devices I have mentioned, have been
around the USA several times in support of those devices at one time
or another and so forth.
>And another question --- at what age did you enter the computer
>business? The combination of those two answers should shed light on
>how old you consider other people to be...
I started my first job in the computer business at 19 years old. I
skipped a grade and a half because I was a smart little shit :)
That was 1977 and there were a lot of 370 devices around on Wall
street back then and even until the late 1980's.
Personally I think that most of the folks in this group, especially
the rabid Linux advocates are high school age, or barely out of high
school. I may be wrong on this but it's just a feeling.
I think I am an old fart in this group :)
>>Back then hardware wasn't being replaced by the minute like today and
>>while I wasn't working when it was built and designed, I saw quite a
>>bit of it still around even into the early 1990's.
>
>>A famous newspaper in NYC still uses a 3525 cardreader/punch to run
>>it's payroll.
>
>>You need to get into the real world Bernie :)
>
>Says the person who somehow insinuated that his knowledge of this sort
>of hardware somehow showed how long he had been in the business....
It was a badly contrived agrument. I admit that :(
>Is it just me, or are you undermining your very own point here? I mean,
>if the hardware is still contemporary, then how does your knowledge of
>it say anything about your level of experience?
In this business "knowledge" is a fleeting thing. Todays knowledge is
old news in 6 months, more so today than in yesteryears.
Experience is what makes this business run. A person who was brought
up in 360/370 days actually understands how a channel works and what
to do when devices are boxed, hung or will not come online. They know
from experience. All of the book work in the world will not substitute
for the intuition that even though you have check "x" device 5 times
already, you better check it a sixth time. In today's world a black
box approach is taught, not the actual theory of how something works.
>Bernie
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Usage Surveys (was: High School is out...here come the trolls...who
can't accept the future.
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jun 2000 13:53:53 +0500
>>>>> "James" == James Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> But do all web browsers accurately specify the OS they're
>> running under? Does Websnapshot count all Netscape hits where
>> the OS is not specified as coming from MS-Windows?
> No. I use junkbuster as a filter, and it purposely sends out the
> description as a MacOS, even though I use an x86 Solaris. Now,
> of course, I am in the minority of minorities.
No you are not, there are lots of people in the Linux World who use
Junkbuster (it is part of most distros) including me. My browser
string is set to "Non.of.your.Business ver. 4.0" ;-).
Charles
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jun 2000 14:01:45 +0500
>>>>> "2:1" == 2:1 writes:
> I'm not a wintroll. It's called sarcasam... :-) If you noticed I
> spelt shuffle and files in the same was as the well known troll
> Tim Palmer. I also posted in all caps and made a silly reference
> to it.
>> Interesting a Wintroll posting with Netscape 4.7 on SunOS 5.7!
> I'm *positive* this Ultra10 is running Solaris. But mabey it
> calles itself sunos...
Sorry I missed that and called you a troll :-) and yes it does call
itself SunOS in the headers.
Charles
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jun 2000 14:19:41 +0500
>>>>> "2:1" == 2:1 writes:
> IT'S ALL LINSUXXX FAULT. WINDOWS RULEZZZZ. WINDOWS DOESNT NEED
> STUPID 1970S STUFF LIKE CAPS LOCK KEYS. WINDOWS KNOWS WHEN YOPU
> NEED CAPITALS JUST LIKE IN THIS POST
ROTFL
> I think I'm going to go away and write a Caps-Lock HOWTO
> now. But seriously,. though, PC keyboards are rubbish. This
> one's got lots of useful keys like: undo copy paset cut stop
> props front open find again help
Seriously, I envy the Sun keyboard.
Charles
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Goodwin's Law invoked - Thread now dead
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 20:50:51 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > -- snip --
> >
> > > > <snip replies>
> > >
> > > Taking more context restoration lessons from Curtis Bass?
> >
> > -- snip --
> >
> > > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Taking more context restoration lessons from Curtis Bass?
> >
> > What's the deal, Marty? Are you agreeing with Tholen that I equate
> > snippage with "context restoration?"
> >
> > Just curious.
>
> I come here to bury Tholen, not to praise him. The above is typical of
> something Tholen might say. I neither condone nor support it.
Why bury the undead? They just crawl back out.
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: It's all about the microsurfs
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:51:29 GMT
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:11:44 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 22:51:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>The current HP Pavillion and Compaq Internet pc's advertised on TV
>>(you know the $899.00 model) have Winmodems and Win printers.
>
>
> The HP comes with a PCL3 printer. It's hard to say what
> exactly the thing that comes with those Compaq's is.
The one I saw said it worked with Windows (I checked the model against
the standalone printers for sale). I suspect it is a PCL printer that
requires a Win level of software. Other HP printers actually said
NT/Win2k and Mac on the box.
> That compaq sounds remarkably like a PIA actually.
I would agree, especially with that "internet key", what the hell does
that thing do anyway?
But, my point is a hell of a lot of people buy these things, whether
or not they are good.
> In general, neither give you enough detail to figure out
> just what kind of POS you're managing to buy for yourself.
> Although compaq was at least nice enough mention aureal and
> what type of mobo they're using.>
There are so many models, and I am shopping, that it is virtually
impossible to provide details.
Suffice to say, take a stroll through CompUSA one evening and take a
gander for yourself. You will discover several things:
1. It is difficult to determine what peripheral hardware is installed
as far as brand name.
2. You will spend time searching for the boxed versions of such
hardware in the store to determine exactly what it is you are buying.
It is very confusing.
>>
>>
>>
>>On 22 Jun 2000 17:59:28 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> It doesn't even matter because half the hardware in those machines
>>> won't run Linux anyway so Linux isn't even an option.
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Half the hardware", eh simon?
>>>
>>>Tell me, which half would that be?
>>>
>>>And what, specifically?
>>>
>>>Shouldnt be too hard for a 42 year old who knows what a punchcard reader
>>>is, eh?
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
