Linux-Advocacy Digest #363, Volume #27 Tue, 27 Jun 00 10:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux, easy to use? (Mike Connell)
Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause (Tom Loach)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management ("Jonathan Fosburgh")
Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause (Martijn Bruns)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Donal K. Fellows)
Anti-Human Libertarians Endorse Fraud Practiced By Microsoft And Other Big Business
(Mark S. Bilk)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Hoobajoob")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server (Bob Hauck)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: slashdot (salvador peralta)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy (salvador
peralta)
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
RE: OS's ... ("Pedro Iglesias")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: OS's ... (abraxas)
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management (Bill Vermillion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 14:23:24 +0200
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > *You* might not be able to run KDE without Linux, but I beleive other
> > people can:
>
> Um, I said KDE _on its own_.
>
Actually you said "Can I run KDE on its own without Linux perhaps?"
If you just meant "_on its own_", presumably meaning without any
operating system, computer, or physical universe then - no, you can't.
Of course, if that was your question why did you bother to write
"without Linux"?
best wishes,
Mike.
--
Mike Connell [EMAIL PROTECTED] +46 (0)31 772 8572
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.flat222.org/mac/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Loach)
Subject: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 12:12:28 GMT
After reading about the Linux boom and wanting to keep up with trends
I decided to buy a Linux distribution. After looking around and
reading some reviews and because of the news of the merger between
Borland and Corel, I decided on Corel Linux.
I went out and bought a copy of Partition Magic and set up fee space
on my drive as per the Corel requirements and looked forward to an
easy installation. After all I had a Gateway pc, certainly a common
market band that Corel would have tested for compatability. But no
sooner than I started the install the process died, dead, nota,
nothing. Not to worry, because the edition of Corel I bought had
installation help via email available at no cost, with a two day turn
around time promised. Well now a week later, no return message. I
put a note out on Linux.misc and the response I got was this:
Hi - I've got the same problem along with thousands of others in the
newsgroups. No one seems to have an answer. Even Corel seems to be
hiding
from it. It's not the video card. I've tried everything I can possibly
think of. I have had no problems with RedHat.
--
Posted via CNET Help.com
http://www.help.com/
So now the merger between Borland and Corel is as dead as my
installation process. I'm out a couple of bucks, but will probably
see about buying another linux distribution. That said, Corel is
doing the cause of linux no good by not properly supporting their
product. There might be a perfectly simple explanation of what's
happening, but from Corel's response you'd never know it. I may be
wrong, but I think if Linux is to make it in the market place, the
corporations who maket their distributions are going to have to offer
a simple and reliable product that the novice can easily install.
Regards,
Tom
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: 27 Jun 2000 12:27:26 GMT
In article <8j18ht$2vi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In fact, nearly all of Microsoft's "Innovations" were blatently
> lifted from the UNIX and Linux playbooks.
[...]
> Multiple windows (which softees dispised until the release of
> Windows 3.0),
[...]
Actually, multiple windows were available in Windows 2.0. Of course,
that sucked for separate reasons (no apps, slow, ugly and clunky
interface, etc.) so much that it was a veritable galactic-class black
hole next to the sucking-mighty-mountain-ranges-through-a-straw
suckiness of Windows 3.0...
The fact that it was a descendent of IBMs CUA stuff was much more
apparent then though. The "letz kloan da Mac"-type things were mostly
later additions (and those sucked the worst in 3.0 too.)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Jonathan Fosburgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 07:51:59 -0500
"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8j8lo7$357$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Tim Palmer wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
> >
> > What's the point of this? It's a dead link.
>
>
> Be glad you got it that way. Imagine the stupidity - posting a
> link to an "exe" file which is supposed to happily dump itself
> into your computer, take over it's guts, and hopefully not publish
> your credit card numbers, social security numbers, and mailing
> address information all over the bloody net!
>
> And to show that he's exceptionally bright, he posts it on a LINUX
> Avocacy group. Sure, I want to download an executable file
s/LINUX/Unix
------------------------------
From: Martijn Bruns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Corel Does Nothing To Help The Linux Cause
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 14:57:30 +0200
Tom Loach schreef:
>
> After reading about the Linux boom and wanting to keep up with trends
> I decided to buy a Linux distribution. After looking around and
> reading some reviews and because of the news of the merger between
> Borland and Corel, I decided on Corel Linux.
> I went out and bought a copy of Partition Magic and set up fee space
> on my drive as per the Corel requirements and looked forward to an
> easy installation. After all I had a Gateway pc, certainly a common
> market band that Corel would have tested for compatability. But no
> sooner than I started the install the process died, dead, nota,
> nothing. Not to worry, because the edition of Corel I bought had
> installation help via email available at no cost, with a two day turn
> around time promised. Well now a week later, no return message. I
> put a note out on Linux.misc and the response I got was this:
>
> Hi - I've got the same problem along with thousands of others in the
> newsgroups. No one seems to have an answer. Even Corel seems to be
> hiding
> from it. It's not the video card. I've tried everything I can possibly
>
> think of. I have had no problems with RedHat.
>
> --
> Posted via CNET Help.com
> http://www.help.com/
>
> So now the merger between Borland and Corel is as dead as my
> installation process. I'm out a couple of bucks, but will probably
> see about buying another linux distribution. That said, Corel is
> doing the cause of linux no good by not properly supporting their
> product. There might be a perfectly simple explanation of what's
> happening, but from Corel's response you'd never know it. I may be
> wrong, but I think if Linux is to make it in the market place, the
> corporations who maket their distributions are going to have to offer
> a simple and reliable product that the novice can easily install.
>
> Regards,
> Tom
I agree for the most part. You must remember however, that there
are many other Linux distributions which have far better support.
I have very good experiences with SuSE and RedHat myself. Corel
is one of the worst Linux distributions as far as quality,
support and reliability are concerned. They tried to make Linux
look like Windows, and they succeeded only in the bad properties.
But as usual, it's the one rotten apple that spoils the whole
basket. I'd say try SuSE, it's in my opinion the best Linux
distribution available.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 27 Jun 2000 12:52:32 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
void <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This answer is a handwave, as far as I'm concerned. Point by point
> -- first, there's never any need to see system internal data, until
> (not unless) something breaks and one has to fix it. Then there's
> no substitute for the ability to peer inside. Second, you call the
> identifier "unique", but you don't tell me how it's guaranteed to be
> unique, and since that's a real issue, I wouldn't trust the
> mechanism until I had a real answer.
There's several ways to generate a globally unique identifier; one of
them (given that Apple have control over the hardware) is this: stamp
each file with a machine identifier (guaranteed unique to each machine
by the manufacturer) and a sequence id (maintained in firmware in the
machine as well, so you'd need to create a lot of different files to
wrap that round and it would be persistent across OS reinstalls too.)
If you were to allocate 80 bits for that (32 for machine, 48 for seq)
you would have enough to cope with even very heavy use for far longer
than anyone can reasonably expect (281 trillion files before wrapping
on a single machine!) Then you could maintain the appearance of a
real filing system as an abstraction layer on top of this.
Not that Apple necessarily does this, but they could and it would work
fine. The spooks would love it too... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Anti-Human Libertarians Endorse Fraud Practiced By Microsoft And Other Big
Business
Date: 27 Jun 2000 13:04:26 GMT
In article <8j0fs3$1coo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Henry Blaskowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In talk.politics.libertarian salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 4. micros~1 created false error messages in early versions of win 3.1
>> when win 3.1, which was fully compatible with dr-dos, when it encountered
>> dr-dos and then destroyed the evidence in an attempt to cover their
>> tracks.
>
>They created the product, they should be able to do what they want
>with it, even if it means making it work worse.
Libertarians support *fraud* -- lying error messages -- when
practiced by big business Microsoft.
>> 5. micros~1 has deliberately inserted hostile code in releases of the os
>> to damage the proper functioning of competitors products. I have one
>> example of this with wordperfect and another with netscape navigator
>> gold 3.11
>
>Gee, they stayed ahead of their competitors. How un-american. I guess
>we better shut down all successful businesses.
Libertarians support *fraud* -- lying specifications and
programming manuals for MS-Windows, which promise that it
will reliably perform certain functions -- when practiced
by big business Microsoft.
>> 7. micros~1 has repeatedly used vaporware release announcements to prevent
>> potential competitors from entering the commercial marketplace.
>This is more about the nature of the industry than anything MS in
>particular did.
Libertarians support *fraud* -- lying press releases -- when
practiced by big business Microsoft.
>> 8. micros~1 deliberately withheld portions of the win32 api to give their
>> office developers a competitive advantage over their "partners" who
>> offered a competitive product
>
>Gee, they helped those who helped them. How un-american.
Libertarians support *fraud* -- lying specifications and
programming manuals for MS-Windows, which by convention are
expected to expose the entire API -- when practiced by big
business Microsoft.
>> 10. Internal memos from the company suggest that they have routinely used
>> a pattern of fud tactics (fear uncertaintly and doubt) to harm the
>> public's perception of their competitors products
>
>As long as they have not used tactics that cross into fraud (e.g.,
>claiming the competitor will erase your hard drive), they are free
>to claim whatever they want.
Look at this document and see the type of carefully planned
*fraud* by Microsoft that Libertarians are endorsing:
http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html
>Have you watched TV commercials lately?
*Outrageously fraudulent* advertisements show cigarette
smokers frolicking with sexy mates in the sun, instead of
one-third of them -- 500,000 every year! -- dying of painful,
terrifying, suffocating lung cancer and emphysema in hospital
beds.
But the "right" of tobacco companies to flood the population
with these murder-for-profit lies is enthusiastically sup-
ported by Libertarians, whose publications and think-tanks
(propaganda mills) are partly financed by big business such
as tobacco companies, and therefore publish an endless torrent
of pseudo-intellectual bullshit designed to convince people
to ignore what is right in front of their eyes -- the very real
lies and enormous harm perpetrated by these wealthy businessmen.
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
------------------------------
From: "Hoobajoob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:48:47 -0400
> Why should an installed DLL ever disappear?
>
> It's inexcusable!
It's the theory anyway, it's never happened to me...
Oh, and just for the record, win2k _never_ overwrites protected dlls. So
trhe worst you can do is break an application by overwriting one of its
dll's, you can't really break windows that way.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Reply-To: hauck[at]codem{dot}com
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:02:26 GMT
On 26 Jun 2000 08:07:38 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>bobh{at}haucks{dot}org (Bob Hauck) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>The previous poster did qualify with "limits properly set". Try
>>"ulimit -u 32" first and see what happens.
>That works in this synthesized cause, but my point was that any OS can be
>brought down by a badly behaved app.
Most proper systems provide tools to limit the damage. Disk quotas
(both space and number of inodes), plus limits on system resources such
as memory, file handles, processes, and cpu time, and make it a lot
less likely that your bad app will bring down the whole system.
Linux has these mechanisms. Most distros choose to leave them off by
default, partly because most users come from a DOS/Windows background
and would not expect there to be such limits, and partly because the
optimum settings depend on how the system is normally used.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| Codem Systems, Inc.
-| http://www.codem.com/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 27 Jun 2000 13:01:55 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Donal is saying that if he changes his drive name, he WANTS all his
>> aliases and links broken. That's a tech support nightmare waiting to
>> happen.
>
> No, what Donal is saying is that if he changes the system level
> volume identifier he wants the result to be considered by the system
> to be considered unique from the previously identified version and
> for there to be no possibility for any two volumes to ever have the
> same identifier.
I have no idea which planet either of you two are living on, but I was
merely saying that the user visible filesystem abstraction is just a
view of the real filing system which is quite possibly very different.
Why the pair of you feel it is necessary to completely misinterpret
what I write is something I don't feel like prying into right now.
There's nothing wrong with having abstractions of course, but I do
question the wisdom of a scheme which lets users get into the position
of wondering which of some bunch identical looking files a particular
change was made to! (Mind you, users can get confused with any system
you care to choose - they can even get muddled with a single drawer of
a filing cabinet - so problems with all computer FS's should come as
no suprise to anyone...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- I may seem more arrogant, but I think that's just because you didn't
realize how arrogant I was before. :^)
-- Jeffrey Hobbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:16:52 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:07:25 -0700, Salvador Peralta
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'll ask yet again... Where is the proof MS ever tried to run Hotmail
> on NT?
lol... The record has been out for quite some time. People have pointed it
out to you in the past. If you didn't believe what you were being told
then, you won't believe it now. Want me to give up my source at ibm
regarding the failed migration from 12 as400's to more than 1000 nt's? I'll
give you a hint: It was an IBM senior exec, and he told us about it last
week. Linux scales beyond a cray, and micros~1 can't even compete with the
as400 or solaris. lol
------------------------------
From: salvador peralta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 06:26:06 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2:1 wrote:
> > It's all wrong anyway. iirc, winmodems won't even work on anything
> > lower than a pentium 233 w/mmx. Just more evidence that tim doesn't
> > know wtf he's talking about.
>
> They definitely work on a p200. I have one at home.
I couldn't get one running on a p60 or a p133. Then I read that the
hardware minimum was something like 233mhz. Glad that yours works. The
last one I tried caused my 650mhz p3 no end of problems before I chucked
it and installed a XOOM internal hardware modem ($69.95 at fry's and linux
friendly). In any case, they don't work on a 386 as tim was saying..
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:29:25 GMT
> You forgot the most important instruction, 00=NOP.
I did not use it too more ...
> Gee, you had disk rom routines to call? Wow, I didn't have that luxury
until I
> got an Apple II and the Merlin Assembler for it (formerly the AppleCorps
> assembler)....
Amstrad CPC 664 is pretty old, and it had disks ... well, 180kb per side,
not too
much, but interesting for me those times.
> How are you with 32 and 64 bits assembly....and the ability to know when
the
> compiler final product is correct?
Obviously this is not a exam, and you can ask me a lot of things that I
do not know,
but so could do I, and most of people. Well, if the point you want to check
is my
overall computer knowledge ... what for ?
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:33:20 GMT
> You're the one that brought up age and was trying to silence me with the
"I'm
> more experienced than you in computers" arrogant attitude.
You said first. Read it again and see. I do not like people that start
wars and
then say the enemy is guilty ...
> As you have just
> found out, you are not the most experienced in computers in the world.
Here's
> a bigger shock, there are people here that have even more years in the
industry
> than I do. Some have been retired for a good number of years.
Sure, that does not keep me from having my opinion.
> Maybe you can
> see why I might want to take down some 28 year old person trying to claim
they
> have more experience than I do (Especially when at age 28, your career in
> computer has really just started).
You started the flame, and when you did, you did not tell you age, so why
are you
in your right to answer and I was wrong doing it ?
> Bingo! You can indeed have an opinion as long as you are serious and
honest,
> and quit representing yourself as the ultimate computer guru because 'you
> played with computers before others were born'. But also expect that you
WILL
> get dissenting opinions to your own.
Of course, I am always open to learn ... but do not like people bashing me
as you did.
And never forget that be it your case or not, age does not bring knowledge,
reading
does.
------------------------------
From: "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:35:04 GMT
I quote your first response and you please tell me if it is
polite, ok ? So I can understand how this goes ...
>Now quit trying to rewrite History and make it look like a sales pamphlet.
It
>might help if you learned some History. Actually it would help if you
learned
>anything at all.
For me your is not a intelligent, full of arguments or full
of knowledge response, so do not come now feeling
attacked by my arrogance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 13:43:24 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8j0cvd$2a3o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> Pronounce 'trough' if you would please. Then turn your brain back on.
>
> Sounds like truff. Or would you pronounce it as troo?
>
You must not have them in england...Wait...actually you DO have them,
because ive urinated on one there.
>> It wouldnt be unreasonable if the two were permanently and
> irrecoverably
>> intertwined a'la Explorer and the giant lump of shit known as the NT
>> kernel. But you can use something other than KDE, because KDE has
>> nothing to do with the way linux works at all.
>
> Linux + KDE = workstation equivalent to Windows
Wrong.
> Linux != Windows
> Linux + Gnome = workstation different to Windows
>
Correct.
>> > As for calling me a moron, this is a typical response from a Linux
>> > rent-a-gob. I see it all the time. Yawn, yawn, yawn.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not surprised at all that you get called a moron all the time.
>
> I only have to look at who is calling me a moron to understand why.
>
Actually, apon perusing your posts in this newsgroup for a while, Ive found
that you apparantly get called a moron quite often.
>> No, I label you as a moron because you *are* one.
>
> Like I said...
>
>> I wouldnt have interrupted at all, because then you would have had
>> an excellent point.
>
> Oh so because I lump Linux with KDE I'm a moron. Can I run KDE on its
> own without Linux perhaps? Oh, look I can't can I?
>
Yes, because you lump linux with KDE, youre a moron. You have a good
grasp of the situation.
Actually, KDE functions quite nicely under a number of platforms BESIDES
linux. If you were anything less than a complete idiot, you'd know
that.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 13:44:32 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Mike Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> *You* might not be able to run KDE without Linux, but I beleive other
>> people can:
>
> Um, I said KDE _on its own_.
>
You cant run Gimp on its own without linux...lets see...
Gimp=linux I guess.
Wait, you cant run Abiword on its own without linux...I guess
Abiword=linux.
Actually, you cant run Gnome on its own either...
Gnome=linux...
So which is it, pete?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 13:46:20 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8j5qfq$vt4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> You are seeing linux incorrectly. There are no opinions here, there
> is FACT,
>> and there is FALSEHOOD.
>
> And this from someone who labels me a moron? You just don't get it do
> you?
>
Indeed. You are a moron because you cannot tell the difference between
FACT, and something you just made up.
>> > In Windows case there is DOS and Windows, but DOS is pretty much
> ignorable
>> > (I know it's there) and Windows can be treated as one package. So,
>> > naturally, I lump Linux together as Linux, X and KDE. I'm looking at
> it as
>> > an alternative to Windows.
>>
>> Youre incorrect.
>
> Beautiful. About what I'd expect from you. A one liner with very little
> content or reason. More noise!
What I typed is true; You ARE incorrect. Do not blame your own idiocy
on anyone but yourself, weirdo.
>
> HEY _MORON_! TRY TELLING ME WHY I'M INCORRECT AND I MIGHT PAY ATTENTION!
>
I have, repeatedly, as have at least half a dozen other people on this
newsgroup. You are a moron because you STILL dont understand.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 27 Jun 2000 13:47:36 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8j9fq5$lg8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> > I'm looking at it as
>> > an alternative to Windows.
>>
>> That's nice but don't expect Linux to be like Windows. It isn't.
>
> Oh I can see that. I can see the inconsistancies, the holes and
> mish-mash of ideas. This is the system that is trumpeted here as the
> downfall of Windows. Yet I can't even do something as simple as an
> Upgrade with one distro.
>
> Linux (+KDE or +Gnome) is nothing like Windows. Windows I can expect
> things to work together. Linux doesn't even do that! I tried drag and
> drop between KDE's Window Manager and KDE's Explorer - blimey! - doesn't
> work! And that's just one of the holes I've found so far.
>
We'll call you when linux is to the fabulous 'point and drool' stage that
windows is. Then youll be able to understand it.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: 27 Jun 2000 13:50:13 GMT
Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2000 20:41:33 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>
>>Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:25:13 GMT, "Pedro Iglesias"
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was just trying to share some thoughts, if you do not like them, do not
>>>>answer them
>>>>and if you do, at least be a little polite. I am probably working with
>>>>computers before
>>>>you were born ... anyway, arguing that is stupid.
>>>
>>> Welcome to the club... These people don't care what anyone thinks...
>>> They're just Microsoft ver 2.0. I mean really... doesn't the whole "WE
>>> WANT DESKTOP DOMINACNCE NOW!" remind you of someone?
>>
>>Who exactly is saying that, jeff?
>
> Redhat... Corel... Mandrake... many more.
Oh really now? Care to quote representatives from each company, exactly what
they said, and exactly when they said it?
=====yttrx
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 13:30:25 GMT
In article <39580888$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jonathan Fosburgh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8j8lo7$357$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > Tim Palmer wrote:
>> > > http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
>> >
>> > What's the point of this? It's a dead link.
>> Be glad you got it that way. Imagine the stupidity - posting a
>> link to an "exe" file which is supposed to happily dump itself
>> into your computer, take over it's guts, and hopefully not publish
>> your credit card numbers, social security numbers, and mailing
>> address information all over the bloody net!
>> And to show that he's exceptionally bright, he posts it on a LINUX
>> Avocacy group. Sure, I want to download an executable file
>s/LINUX/Unix
Actually to help maximize the confusion, this thread is
posted to comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, comp.os.linux.advocacy,
and comp.unix.advocacy. At least one variant of each runs on iNTEL
platforms, so that's the only commonality :-)
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
