Linux-Advocacy Digest #344
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #34Tue, 8 May 01 22:13:06 EDT Contents: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler) Re: Linux Users...Why? (Chronos Tachyon) Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees) Re: Linux Users...Why? (Dave Martel) ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer (Harison Phinizy) Re: the Boom, Boom department (Darren Wyn Rees) Re: ChromeLinuxT/ WebServer (Harison Phinizy) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Terry Porter) Re: Linux has one chance left. (Terry Porter) Re: the Boom, Boom department (Salvador Peralta) Re: Linux Users...Why? (Paolo Ciambotti) Pesky lack of support (Mark Styles) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Terry Porter) Re: Linux Users...Why? (Glitch) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy From: Austin Ziegler [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 20:58:30 -0400 On Tue, 8 May 2001, JD wrote: Austin Ziegler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message On Tue, 8 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote: Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 [...] I think you meant to say that it's an irrelevancy. Especially since you tried to claim that a program written that uses an API is derivative of a particular implementation of that API (a library). Which is ... well, let's just say that it's one of your sillier ideas, which is something worth noting. Stop acting like a simpleton. Your metaphysical idea of an API as having anything to do with the matter is what is preventing you from acting like a reasonable person, knowledgable of the issue and balanced in your opinion. If you need to go study for a few years before you could possibly understand that statement, it wouldn't surprise me. Perhaps you're simply not bright enough to understand that it is perfectly reasonable and accurate. One wonders, perchance, why Maxie feels it necessary to pretend that everything is about metaphysics. Maybe he can't think of things in real terms, so he has to resort to meta-discussions ... where he sounds just as foolish as he does every other time. Your mind is too good to waste it in discussion with tmax. You're right, of course, and he's long since exhausted his amusement value. I only bang my head against walls for so long before realising that this one really isn't going to budge from his unreality. -f -- austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht Toronto.ON.ca* (There is no Luck without Discipline) =* I speak for myself alone -- From: Chronos Tachyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why? Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 01:01:18 GMT On Mon 07 May 2001 08:10, Mad.Scientist wrote: This topic is about why you made the switch to Linux. I made the switch mostly because of what I learned about recent M$ practices. I really resented their paranoia, and their need to control everything. Their statements against Open Source were very fraudulent, especially as I read upon it. I believed in the OS model, and that made me think about what M$ really did. So I became skeptical of them, and decided to research Linux and M$. The more I read upon it, the more I was interest. I am a geek to the core, so I really wanted to try it. The final straw came when I learned of M$ plans for WinXP, such as the uses of .NET, I lost all hope for them. Then came the news of their crackdown of casual copying. And then accusing Open Source as being un-American. So I installed Linux. Now, M$ has fucked AOL over, starting a war, and the industry is turning against M$. My reason for switching is more ideological, as my WinME runs well, but does crash every few days still. What are your reasons? My first introduction to non-toy computers came when my parents bought a Packrat Bell for Christmas in 1993. It took quite a bit of scraping together of cash, but they felt it would be useful for education and schoolwork. No Internet access, since that hadn't come into fashion yet. Even though I had no idea how to use it, I gravitated toward it. My mother bought a book called _DOS 6 Secrets_, and I absorbed every page. I stumbled quite a bit (I still remember the epiphany when I finally realized why the CTTY NUL command from an example of a .BAT virus would lock up the computer when typed at the command line), but I quickly became a fairly proficient batch file writer. QBasic would have blown my mind had I known how to use it. I signed up for computer programming classes in high school as soon as they were offered, and quickly snapped up both QBasic and Turbo Pascal. Entranced
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #31Tue, 9 Jan 01 01:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Where can I get good info on setting up Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Matt Soltysiak")
Re: kernel problems ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: KDE Hell ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux *has* the EDGE! ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Could only... (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Linux a non-starter at CES (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... (Craig Kelley)
Re: kernel problems (.)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (.)
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? (Charlie Ebert)
Re: You and Microsoft... ("Tom Wilson")
$$$ MAKE A LOT OF MONEY EASY $$$ ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why does Win2k always fail in running time? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Where can I get good info on setting up Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:53:39 GMT
On 9 Jan 2001 00:48:58 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ken
Philbrick) wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (ZHN) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Where can I get good info on setting up Linux?
Yep! Where? I have a 750 mhz athlon, nvidia 64 mother
have a cd_rw and a DVD can I set up linux under these circumstances on
this machine?
Your machine should work very well with Linux. I'm not sure about the DVD,
though, seeing how I do not watch movies. Try http://linuxdoc.org for
help, it's the home of the Linux Documentation Project, pretty much the
central source for Linux documentation. As for what distribution you
should use, i would suggest Mandrake for your first time, but once you get
familiar with the system, move onto something better (Debian, Slackware).
Here is the Linux Installation HOWTO, from the Linux Documentation Project:
http://linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Installation-HOWTO/index.html
That should get you started.
Good luck with your Linux adventure :-)
Ken
Yea it's an adventure for sure. BTW your DVD will not work, legally,
anyway and if you are into any sort of multimedia forget Linsux.
But then again, try it (Mandrake 7.2) and make sure and come back and
tell us all how "great" it is.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the to reply.
--
From: "Matt Soltysiak" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Why does Win2k always fail in running time?
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 05:00:46 GMT
I've noticed that a lot of Windows advocates/users/kids are spreading
enormous bullshit regarding Windows 2000's stability. Here's my tests on
Win2k and true _FACT_ about this nice, bloated operating system.
Windows 2000 has failed me more times in 3 to 7 months than any other
operating system I've used, including Windows NT server, for 4 years. It's
amazing.
Here are some of the common failures:
1.)If I change an IP address in Win2k, order to join another network in
another city, Windows 2000, upon boot up, crashes and pops up a nice blue
screen with kernel and panic errors all over the place (you all know what
that is). Just to change the IP address!!! Now, I do this all the time
with Win 98 or Unix, and I never had problems like this.
2.) If I copy a few files, Windows 2000 will simply lock up and nothing
happens. At first, I thought it was just the slow byte-to-byte algorithms
MS uses, so I decide to wait a few minutes...but, alas, it locked up cold,
and I reboot.
3.) When printing a document in Windows 2000 Professional, it simply locks
up solid. This is with MS Office 2000. Just to print a document!!!
Windows 2000 Server and Advanced Server fix these problems, however.
4.) Simply running an FTP server for a week with Windows 2000 Server/IIS
5.0, locks up my machine. Only a week uptime!!! And this has happened more
than once. Windows 2000 Advanced server lasted only a month. Just for an
FTP server. Average users, 10 - 20 a week!!! That's nothing compared to
modern Unices.
5.) When writing an assembly program in order to interface with an external
card reader (using an ATMEL microcontroller), Windows 2000 locks up, upon
program execution. Now, this was my fault, and I corrected the bug. But an
operating system SHOULD NOT lock up when doing this. Normally, I write this
shit for DOS, and everything is A-OK. Even windows 98 works with the
reader!!
6.) Then there's some games I like to play (Unreal Tournament), and windows
2000 locks up, as usual... Though it's a driver issue.
Now, I have tried to be patient with Windows 2000, and I've tried to give
this shit more than one chance, hoping that maybe Service pack 1 would fix
these problems, etc. But it always fails me - always. I can't afford shit
like that, and nor can many people.
Now, as to usual application support and desktop usage, windows does kick
as
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #29 Thu, 28 Sep 00 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Chris
Sherlock)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Roberto
Alsina)
Linux Deployment Tools ("J.Smith")
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 21:57:05 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Richard wrote:
Chris Sherlock wrote:
User need *some* understanding of fileheirachy to be able to use a
computer effectively! Yes, that's right, even in Windows and even on
Apple computers. Filesystems were *made* to make life a bit easier.
Can
you imagine the chaos that would ensue with people's organisation if
they could only store their files in ONE directory?
To be able to open files a user needs to be able to navigate through
the
file hierachy. While I don't hold these people in contempt, and I
certainly don't deride them!, I do not have as much respect for them
as
I would other users. All it means is that they have not learned how
to
use the tool that they *need* to use properly.
Maybe. However, the file hierarchy is not simple or elegant
and isn't as easy to learn as one might think. You need to
know global (usually arbitrary and irrelevant) information
to successfully navigate a tree. If you start at the root
in a Unix system, you'll have to know that the system has
separate areas for users and programs. If you don't, you
have to know that '..' goes "up" for some reason.
I guess that we have a difference of opinion here. I do find the Linux
filesystem to be very simple and elegant - from an administration point
of view anyway.
It is very difficult in Unix to show the interrelationships
between things and most people never bother. In a lattice
structure, it is much easier to create layouts with multiple
points of view that all make sense.
I truly don't know anything about "lattice structures". What are you
talking about when you mention them?
The key difference is that it is programmers' *jobs* to write good
software and it *isn't* users' jobs to put up with bad software.
At the same time, however, surely it is the job of the user to:
a. learn how to use the application to at least a tolerable degree,
and
b. provide feedback to help the programmer to write better code
With a. you need to learn at least the very basics of the O/S and
it's
environment and with b. it is the responsibility of the coder to
respond
and give the user a way to communicate over the program.
Yes. But different environments can make a huge difference.
Users have to learn to not get lost in a building, but they'll
easily get lost if all doors only go one way and if every
decision at the beginning of their journey will have severe
consequences even after they've gone through two dozen rooms
deeper into the building. Imagine the chaos in a workplace if
you had to retrace all of your steps to switch from Customer
Support of Product X to Research of Product X because the
company had partitioned the workplace into Human and Technical.
And partitioning everything along product lines wouldn't help
either, it would just mean that researchers could never talk
to each other!
This happens in a lot of companies :) Seriously, a good GUI can make all
the difference for users. This is why I really like GNOME and KDE.
Interesting... when I first looked at your post I thought that this
looked like a stupid idea, now that I've dug into it a bit more I
can
see this may have some merit! The only thing would be that the
storing
of constantly changing data would be a bit of a performance
bottleneck.
Maybe I've missed something here (if I have, don't flame me! just
point
out to me what I'm missing)
:-) I wouldn't have done that; there's a world of difference between
someone who has questions and someone who's already made up their
mind.
This is what newsgroups are here for! Discussion.
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #28 Thu, 10 Aug 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: And the winner is... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish. (Mike Marion)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Are Linux people illiterate? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Gutenberg (Richard)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: And the winner is...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:39:13 GMT
The funniest part is that a joke has been played on ya'll for over 1.5
years, and the trap has just been sprung recently. The bait was taken,
"Hook Line and Sinker" and still, nobody has figured it out.
Claire
On 10 Aug 2000 21:49:11 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:16:55 +1000, Slava Pestov wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Mikey
Actually, as far as I can tell, Tim Palmer posts from a different IP.
So it's not Steve.
Besides, Steve's got a distinctive style of drivel that's visible a mile
away. Usually a lot of whings about "fonts, soundcards, printers
and winmodems", and something about how you need an "expensive postscript
printer" to run Linux.
Tim Palmer has his own unique style of sorry drivel.
--
From: Mike Marion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows ME $59.99..Good Bye Linux. .Thanks for the fish.
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 23:16:54 GMT
A transfinite number of monkeys wrote:
Oh, *LiveWare*.
Oh yeah... sorry. :/
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc.
"Linux and other OSS advocates are making a progressively more credible
argument that OSS software is at least as robust -- if not more -- than
commercial alternatives." - Microsoft lamenting Open Source Software in
the
"Halloween Document"
--
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.software.licensing
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 10 Aug 2000 16:27:03 -0700
If calling functions in supporting libraries, plugins, operating
systems, bios roms, etc. is ever interpreted as making a
program a derived work of those other bits of code the entire
concept of program ownership is going to change.
Don't confuse English with Legal Jargon. Governments are free to
define words any way they want. Silliness is no impediment.
It appears that the statute's use of "preexisting" might have been
unnecessary or even erroneous, but it's there. But I don't see that it
matters much in this discussion. A work is not subject to copyright
until it is fixed in a tangible medium and at that time all parts
must be preexistant obviously. If any of those parts is a work in
itself, then the whole is derivative work, as I read the USC. (My
definition would be different, but that's another subject.)
One shouldn't read those definitions real closely and without
considering other things, because doing so would lead to
inconsistencies. (Reading USC17 over-literally would have it imply that
any joint work is a derivative work, which I'm sure would not be a
useful (or common) inference even if it's a logical one.)
(I'm not sure USC17 should have even used the concept of "derivative".
I'd think it good enough to just worry about joint works and
compilations. I'd think they should be treated the same, though I'm not
sure if they are. And one can't prepare or distribute a derivative
without copying so there's little need for explicit derivation rights.)
Implications of the above theory:
If you legally copy a GPLed library into any part of your computer to
get use of the library ("program" in Legal mumble, as used by the GPL)
and do the same with some "GPL incompatible" (partial) application that
will use the library, then you can legally run the code as long as
feeding both codes through the CPU isn't considered an infringement. I
think it can't, since that copying will be considered necessary for the
use of each "program".
What you can't do is distribute a copy of a work formed by combining
the library and the application. I.E., static linking is a no-on;
dynamic linking is OK. Note that it is widely believed that the GPL
allows local use of modifications and derivatives if not distributed,
but even if that is not the case, either one of GPL sections 1 and 2
allow dynamic linking as I've described it above; dyna
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 07:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux. ("Ferdinand V. Mendoza")
Re: Windows98 (Tim Palmer)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Palmer)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies (Tim
Palmer)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies (Tim
Palmer)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Tim Palmer)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Palmer)
Re: What UNIX is good for. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Something wrong with linux :-( (mark)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. (mark)
Re: slashdot ("Joseph T. Adams")
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Comparing Windows NT and UNIX System Management
Date: 26 Jun 2000 05:31:37 -0400
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 20:17:33 -0400, Colin R. Day [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cihl wrote:
Tim Palmer wrote:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/bin/nts/ntsysman.exe
What's the point of this? It's a dead link.
But he spelled it correctly! This could be the start of something!
Yeah. He discovered how to cut and paste.
Colin Day
--
From: "Ferdinand V. Mendoza" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: I've got reiserfs. Drestin, now bash Linux.
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:30:38 +0400
KLH wrote:
The only problem with your theory is that it doesn't make any sense.
Reiserfs was developed by a company. Perhaps some voluntary development but
I wouldn't wager that there was much.
You lose with your wager. Boot Mandrake 7.1 and it will tell you "sponsored
by"SUSE, MP3.com and whoever else.
And saying that it was developed under
limited resources is, well, duh. So was Windows 2000.
Limited resources, huh. With all their billions? Limited resources?You must be
blind.
And could you please quit putting a dollar sign in the abbreviation of
Microsoft!
NO!
Ferdinand
--
From: Tim Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 26 Jun 2000 06:28:54 -0500
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:24:02 -0500, Tim Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James wrote:
See my post above. Most importantly :
a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support management (not
just a desktop function).
at this point linux already has better hardware detection and
support than windows - for the hardware that has drivers. The
kernel sees it at boot and loads the module. No hassling with
stupid driver installation. How much easier do you want it to
be?
So how is the proletrareit doing you STOOPID COMMY!
I've never had to "install" hardware in linux as in windows.
I've never spent hours trying to set up an ethernet card in linux
as I have in windows.
Try settling up a PCI Plug-and-Play modem. Stoopid commy.
And if you have never had to spend hours
setting up hardware in windows then you just haven't worked with
it enough - it has nothing to do with how much you know.
b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
appearance).
KDE at least has windows beaten into the dirt here, with the
exception of true type fonts which are fairly easy to install. It
takes about 1 minute to get all your windows fonts in linux.
And about 2 hours to rede the Font Deglication HOWTO.
KDE and GNOME both are vastly superior interface over windows'
explorer. Everyone says it's a "copy of windows" but I really
find that absurd. They don't look anything like windows to me,
and neither acts like windows in any way imaginable.
Yeah. The Icon's are all funny-looking and there titals cut each other off and the
screen flickers.
The windows UI is in my opinion one of the WORST user
interfaces. It's klunky, limiting, and full of stupid features
that get in your way. I don't see why anyone would want to
imitate it.
c) Improvements to X (speed, presentation, etc).
Seems good enough to me, but your mileage may vary depending on
your version of X and your video card.
--
From: Tim Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: 26 Jun 2000 06:29:04 -0500
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:54:28 -0500, Tim Kelley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
James wrote:
David,
Even though Win98 is a much more usable desktop in many respects (including
games) than Linux it is, agreeably, highly unreliable. Therefore your post
in this NG will have no credibility, even though it deserves some. In the
company I work for we run Win95 on most desktops (some 2+) and of course
experience the usual problems - mostly users corrupting their own systems.
The company will in the next 2-3 years upgrade all desktops and backends
(from Novell GroupWise) to W2k. Linux, with its limited and crude desktop
ap
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344
Linux-Advocacy Digest #344, Volume #26Tue, 2 May 00 22:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Reservations about splitting up MS... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Is the PC era over? (JTK)
My question has still not been answered.Dance..Dance...Dance... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: So what is wrong with X? (mlw)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (Jen)
Re: Dinosaur Eat Blue Penguin? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS App. Spin-Off Company Logo Revealed? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 ("Bob May")
Re: Are we equal? (abraxas)
Re: Are we equal? (abraxas)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Ciaran)
Re: Is the PC era over? (abraxas)
Re: Dvorak calls Microsoft on 'innovation' (petilon)
Re: Sofware paztents and Micro$oft history (CAguy)
Re: Reservations about splitting up MS... (John Susie)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Reservations about splitting up MS...
Date: 3 May 2000 00:01:57 GMT
While it's nice to see Microsoft getting what they deserve (albeit from the
government rather than all the roadkill they've left behind them) - from a
Linux users' point of view, we might prefer to hope it doesn't get broken up
into smaller companies.
The problem is, if a baby-Microsoft was put in charge of maintaining future
versions of Windows without the various distractions their current OS division
is subject to, they might finally realise that they could make a much better OS
if they focused on simplest solutions to problems and put their effort into
getting everything to work properly before loading it up with pointless and
unnecessary features, layering bugs on top of bugs.
If this happened, Windows actually might become half decent. Not fully decent,
but robust and reliable enough for all but the most dedicated hardcore geek.
This would reduce the incentive to switch to Linux - afterall, we Linux users
do put up with a lot of crap for our choice, we just happen to think that the
benefits are worth it.
In the meantime, lets make sure the momentum continues - keep making Linux
easier for the wannebe-not-quite-there-yet-nerds who want to learn, and keep
improving the apps - I'm doing my bit, whenever I get the chance.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 00:27:28 GMT
On Tue, 2 May 2000 22:05:56 +0200, Mig Mig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK.. we now know youre an idiot since it actually is very easy. A collegue
of mine that never has touched Linux managed to get a machine on the net
without any problems - in Mandrake 7.0!
You Linvocates should really learn how to read better.
I didn't say get a linux machine "on the net" I said, set up a home
network, with a firewall, internet connection sharing.
Tell me your friend can do that as easily as running internet
connection sharing wizard under Windows or clicking on Zonealarm.
I doubt it...
--
From: JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the PC era over?
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 19:51:36 -0500
JEDIDIAH wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 2000 15:12:29 -0500, JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Chris Kelly wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[pearls of wisdom snipped]
I sure hope you're right, Petilon. Like Scott and Larry, I don't think
most people should have to bother with computing issues. Instead,
almost everyone should have an NC connected to a central server which
is managed by a team of white-lab-coat clad experts, who shall dole
out computing power only to those deemed worthy, just like in the good
ol' days.
The massive democratization of computing power over the last two
decades truly disgusts me. Windows98? Let them use a VT102!
Pfhht, yeah, I suppose if you're absolutely made of money! VT52 is good
enough for 'em. Hell, it's better than what they have in Red China!
There's certainly quite a bit of computing power that's wasted.
Quite a bit?!?! There's a HORRIFIC amout of computing power that's
wasted! So do your part to put it to good use:
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
However, that's not the real problem that's relevant to an end
user.
Amen brother. I don't know a single soul who thinks he has *too much*
computer power on his desk.
A general purpose kludge klone is a complex beast.
So's a car. But I'd rather drive than wait for the bus.
Get it, 'bus'? BAHHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHA!!
You still got it JTK, you still got it!
Multiplying them multiply your headaches.
I gotta put gas in my car too. Like the man said, if ya can't take the
heat...
'The People's Republic of Ellison'. Has a nice ring to it, dontcha
think?
"But if
