Linux-Advocacy Digest #737, Volume #25 Tue, 21 Mar 00 21:13:08 EST
Contents:
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or Linux
(Sal Denaro)
Re: An Illuminating Anecdote (david parsons)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("doc rogers")
Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux... (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Donovan Rebbechi)
They're here! (was Re: New Sait) ("Stephen S. Edwards II")
Re: How can use linux? debates (Osugi Sakae)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:16:11 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting abraxas from alt.destroy.microsoft; 20 Mar 2000 14:57:07 GMT
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Quoting 5X3 from alt.destroy.microsoft; 13 Mar 2000 18:27:31 GMT
>> [...]
>>>I have the same model gateway (well, the equivalent, its only about a
>>>year old) with all the fixins sitting at home on top of my stereo serving
>>>up MP3s. I had exactly zero problems installing windows on it (98
>>>and 2000). Everything was detected instantly.
>
>> These two statements are contradictory.
>
>No, they arent.
Thank you for the clarification. If your system did what his and my system
did not, they most obviously could not have been either "the same" or "the
equivalent", though it certainly could have been "similar".
Now, maybe I've got which models are under discussion at the moment confused,
and maybe I've got which operating systems are under discussion at the moment
confused, and maybe I've got which languages are under discussion at the
moment, or which universe we are in, confused. But it seems to me that if
Gateway says that all such models need special steps to install correctly, and
your saying that yours didn't, then either you're mistaken about not having
any problems with the install, or your computer was not the same as his.
Either way, your statements appear to be either contradictory or simply
pointless. Perhaps you'd honor me with more clarification as to which one it
is?
>>>But I do actually use windows for menial tasks--playing games and
>>>displaying cool visualization plug ins for mp3 players in my livingroom.
>>>Linux would certianly be overkill.
>
>> The last statement simply doesn't make any sense.
>>>
>
>Yes, it does.
I'm sorry, I'm the one that said it didn't make sense. Since it doesn't make
sense to me, the only real response would be "No, it doesn't", but that would
be ALMOST as stupid as your original response to my statement to begin with.
There certainly seems little sense in the statement "Linux would certainly be
overkill" in almost any context except possibly a discussion of embedded
systems (and then only barely).
>>>Even on my most "difficult" machine (pentium III, 3 IDE drives, two
>>>ethernet cards, aureal vortex2 sound, nvidia TNT2 video, 2 USB devices,
>>>etc.) windows98 is about an hour and a half install, but most of that
>>>is waiting for stuff to be pulled off the CD. Its simply not all that
>>>difficult.
>
>> Thanks for your data point. Installing Linux isn't all that difficult,
>> either. Get it?
>
>You really have no idea what hes advocating do you?
I have no idea what he's SAYING; he doesn't seem to be 'advocating' anything
except "I have no problems, therefore you're stupid".
>>>> Installing OS's is not my profession, not something I do every day, so
>>>> yes I do need a kind of "idiots-guide-to-setting-up-an-OS".
>>>
>>>Then listen to people who have more experience than you.
>
>> Better yet, listen to people who have even more experience than they do.
>
>You'd be well advised to do so, sir.
Ha. Give me one tiny speck of a reason to even begin to believe that you have
more experience than I do. Please.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:17:47 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting abraxas from alt.destroy.microsoft; 20 Mar 2000 15:43:41 GMT
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Oh, you're installing Win95 on a Gateway 2600 laptop. Well, I gotta tell you,
>> Norman, that you can't really blame Microsoft for all the problems with
>> Windows on laptops. Laptops are just funny beasts by nature; the difficulty
>> of building a real set of standards for laptop hardware makes driver problems
>> a fact of life for laptop owners.
>
>Solaris 2.5.1 works just fine on my sparcbook.
>
What do you know? An entirely inappropriate single data point concerning a
proprietary platform is offered as a useless contribution to a discussion on
PC hardware. Imagine.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:24:24 -0500
Sorry for the split posts. I'll just chop everything out up to the last
comment I was making.
> I'm not trying to give anyone shit for its own sake, I seriously have had
> experiences nothing like Norm is reporting or like you are defending.
Maybe
> all your experiences have been like Norm's. If nothing else, that
> fascinates me because of the discrepancy, and I'd be curious to try to
> discover why that discrepancy is the case.
If you are really concerned with being factual, and not just with trashing
MS because you hate them for whatever reason, I don't see why you wouldn't
participate in this.
> > 1) Intentional confusion between the concepts of installing an OS and
> being a
> > PC integrator
If anyone was blurring "installing an OS" it was Norm. He brought up all
sorts of things that aren't technically a part of installation.
If we do the experiment, however, we'll first arrive at a common definition
of things like "installing the OS."
> > 2) Intentional cheating of the mass public by Microsoft, accomplished
> through
> > '1)' and a host of other illegal and/or anti-competitive activities.
I didn't catch, maybe because I'm splitting the post (I accidentally sent
the first one too early), what this has to do with installing Windows.
> > >> TELEPATH MODEM
> > >> XJ5560 with Cellular and x2 Technology
> > >> Installation Disk
> > >Technically, installing the modem isn't installing the OS.
> > Neither is installing the video card drivers or Internet Explorer;
what's
> your
> > point?
My point is that explaining configuration as Norm was doing isn't giving an
account of installing the OS. Norm implied, at least, that it was.
> > >In any event,
> > >that must be a modem that is newer than Win95?
> > Which Win95?
Whichever one came with his machine. He didn't specify which version he
had, but specified that it was Win95.
> > > If so, was it the modem that
> > >came with the machine?
> > Yes, why?
Wait--do you have an identical machine? Just curious how you know this.
> > >There's a couple big problems here:
> > >(1) Why is Gateway selling you a machine with a modem that is newer
than
> the
> > >OS?
> > So now everybody is supposed to stop making new hardware until
> >Microsoft
> says
> > its OK?
Good point.
> > >It should have had whatever OS came out after the modem, unless the
> > >modem came out _right_ after the OS release and MS didn't know that it
> was
> > >about to come out and would need a different driver, and
> > What have you been smoking?
Nothing for awhile. I was smoking a pipe with various Nat Sherman tobaccos
not too long ago, though.
> > >(2) If this is the modem that came with the machine, why isn't the
driver
> > >install on the Gateway Rescue Disk? It's supposed to be.
> > Strike that; nobody gets that stupid from smoking. You better rush to
the
> > hospital and have your stomach pumped.
Again, I've never installed from a Rescue Disk that didn't have the drivers.
Maybe you have. I certainly can't claim to have reinstalled Windows from
every Rescue Disk/hardware combination in existence.
It is curious that you've had so much experience and never had drivers on a
Rescue Disk, though.
> > >> EtherDisk Version 5.3 (DOS 1.44 MB)
> > >> EtherLink III PC Card Adapter
> > >Networking stuff isn't technically part of the OS install either,
> especially
> > >a Win95 install.
> > You know, for an MS dweeb, you don't seem to have a very good handle >on
> the
> > Corporate Line.
Some of us can like MS _and_ Linux, BeOS, FreeBSD, etc.
> > > If you're installing WinNT workstation or something, it
> > >would be more arguable that networking is part of the OS install.
> > So now whether or not something is part of an OS install depends on what
> OS
> > you're installing? Make up your mind, would you?
Why would depending on the OS in question be "not making up your mind?"
Is this an argument that there must be an immovable definition of OS
independent of any particular one? I want to hear the rest of the argument.
I don't really think it would be possible to make such an argument, but go
ahead and try. (note: look up nominalism and universalism before stating
the argument just to save some time)
> > >If you've
> > >installed both, you'd know what I mean.
> > I've installed both. I have no idea what you mean.
Well, how bout that experiment?
> > >> 5. Press F2 during bootup to invoke setup.
> > >Or--"take out all cards, connect the floppy, stick the boot floppy and
> > >Gateway Rescue CD/Win95 CD in and turn the machine on."
> > All right, I'm not going to do this again.
Okay. I won't either.
> > >I don't understand why you have to go to BIOS after you boot. You
> shouldn't
> > >have to. I've installed Windows on hundreds of machines (and yes, on a
> few
> > >of them it seems like a hundred times) and I've never had to go to BIOS
> > >right away.
> > What do you know; something outside your experience. How novel. I
> >wonder
> > just how many of those hundreds of installs were on late model laptops?
> It
> > seems you would be simply lucky if they were and you'd never had to
> configure
> > your BIOS to get the install to work.
Possibly. Sounds about time for that experiment again.
> > T. Max Devlin
> > Manager of Research & Educational Services
And as a manager of research I'd think that you'd really be game for it !
:-)
--doc
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:22:30 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 21 Mar 2000 03:58:58 GMT
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2000 09:39:34 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
[...]
>>Oh, you're installing Win95 on a Gateway 2600 laptop.
>
>No, he's not. A Gateway 2300XL Solo was the platform specified. Our
>regular readers are not surprized that Max pretty much starts off in
>demonstrable error...
Oh, FOAD, roger. I've seen at least three different numbers thrown around;
your 2300XL makes four, being one I haven't seen in the discussion yet. Since
I had a 2600, I assumed that to be the correct model, and the '2400' and other
numbers I saw (apparently from the same poster) I took to be typos. Kind of
like when they put a third digit at the beginning of your IQ.
>>Well, I gotta tell you,
>>Norman, that you can't really blame Microsoft for all the problems with
>>Windows on laptops. Laptops are just funny beasts by nature; the difficulty
>>of building a real set of standards for laptop hardware makes driver problems
>>a fact of life for laptop owners. It would be nice if we had a standard OS to
>>provide some needed consistency, of course, and since we don't, we can blame
>>Microsoft, but that's one of the more general ways in which Microsoft has
>>cheated consumers, manufacturers, and suppliers. I don't think we're going to
>>get very far with Roger if we require such comprehensive thinking. (I don't
>>think we're going to get very far with Roger at all, but that's because he
>>won't provide any original discussion or go away; he's just here for amusement
>>value anyway.)
>
>Says the master of truth by assertion. For example, MS does not have
>a standard OS which will work on this laptop. Why? <Max> Because I
>said so! </Max>
No, because the word "standard" doesn't apply to proprietary software. Duh.
>IOW,
IOW, exactly what I said, not your trollish misinterpretations. Don't have
time right now, Rog. Maybe later I'll shame you till I'm bored, like usual.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sal Denaro)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why not Darwin AND Linux rather than Darwin OR Linux? (was Re: Darwin or
Linux
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 00:57:58 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 22:17:23 GMT, Mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Not on my side of the Rio Grande ;-)
>Socialism is still big on the other side of the rio grande. Tis no
>wonder why poverty and illiteracy are rampant in latin america.
Socialism is still big in Europe. Want to compare math and science
score on either side of the Atlantic? How about on either side of
the Pacific?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Salvatore Denaro
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: An Illuminating Anecdote
Date: 21 Mar 2000 16:32:13 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Terry Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>For example, the Microsoft C Compiler, which is a Windows application,
>and by your claim is programmed using careless software engineering
>by programmers who do not know what they are doing using primitive
>development tools, produces code which is demonstrably approximately
>20% faster than GCC, which is a Unix programmed and developed using
>Unix principles. How do you explain this?
Because Microsoft is a cathedral-style programming house full of
scarily competent programmers. When MS wants to eat a market, they
can become the most focussed software house on this planet.
GCC also came from a cathedral-style programming house, but they'd
already eaten their market and had fallen into the sloppy monopoly
mode that Microsoft also is very good at doing.
Unless Redhat makes a big push to get gcc onto Windows as a standard
programming component, expect msc to become more like gcc over the
next 4-5 years.
____
david parsons \bi/ Too bad MS isn't doing Linux work :-(
\/
------------------------------
From: "doc rogers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 20:38:54 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> One doesn't re-install Windows on a Gateway 2600 without getting
experience
> with that specific task. When that knowledge conflicts with your generic
> knowledge of this "sort of thing", you would be wise to bow to the
expertise
> of the one with the particular experience.
Again, if that actually happened to be the "necessary" procedure for
installing Windows on a Gateway 2600--which, no, at least I have no
experience with (I don't know about Roger--then my initial reaction is that
I'd stay away from Gateway laptops.
> One of my pet peeves with One Microsoft Way is how it convinces people
that
> they know how computers work because they think they know how Windows
works.
> Nothing personal, pook, but the value of having "installed Windows on
hundreds
> of PCs" isn't really a lot when it comes to knowing what you're talking
about.
If what you're talking about is "installing Windows" then you would know
what you're talking about. And installing Windows on hundreds of machines
would make your experience of installing Windows count for more in terms of
what is involved with installing Windows generically, as a typical
procedure, then installing Windows on one machine.
> >Because you dont know what youre doing. Stop pretending that you do.
> No, you don't know what you're talking about. Call Gateway. And believe
me,
> NOBODY grills a tech support jockey like I do;
Now that's hard to believe ;-/
>much of this procedure *sounds*
> like voodoo, I know. But that's the point, dammit.
Well, it sounds like voodoo because at least relative to typical Windows
installs, it is voodoo. If that happens to be the case with that particular
Gateway machine, why is it?
> >You should have done more thinking and more research before you bought >
>the machine in the firstplace. Your current situation is due completely
> >to your own ignorance.
> When all else fails, blame the guy for having the problem. Typically MS
> quackery.
It's sounding more like a Gateway problem though.
> This is the kind of bullshit that enables MS to do such a piss-poor
> job for so much money and still blame all the problems on somebody else.
> The only reason this issue is Gateway's fault is because they signed the
damn
> per-processor agreements so they could make money selling PCs to begin
>with.
--doc
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: I'm back!!! with reasons why U shouldn't use Linux...
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:14:51 GMT
On Wed, 22 Mar 2000 01:49:07 +0100, Davorin Mestric <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> yes, but linux advocates (i don't have those crashes) only have windows
>crashes periodically, but windows is always faster. :)
Even that isn't true exactly. Sometimes Windows is faster.
Other times Windows is slower... then slower... then
slower still and you then either decide to recycle the
bugger or let it die on it's own.
>
>Bastian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> NT. It's now Linux. The performance difference I feel in the end user
>> >> role is that Linux is faster ( printing and net surfing especially - I
>> >> get average 2.5 times faster )
>> >
>> >
>> >however, sometimes not fast enough to move a mouse. no problems in
>windows
>> >there.
>> >
>>
>> Windows sometimes isn't even fast enough to display the crtl-alt-del
>window,
>> and thus gives me a bluescreen. And I guess M$ should have paid more
>attention
>> to creating a stable and usable OS than implementing a perfectly scheduled
>> mouse driver.
>
>
>
>
--
So long as Apple uses Quicktime to effectively |||
make web based video 'Windows only' Club, / | \
Apple is no less monopolistic than Microsoft.
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
Date: 22 Mar 2000 01:47:55 GMT
On 21 Mar 2000 10:10:40 +0300, Victor Wagner wrote:
>: It's also worht mentioning that some great projects ( eg: QT and KDE )
>: originated on Linux.
>
>It is perfect example of low-quality program in my opinion.
IMO, QT is certainly not "low quality". What is "low quality" about it ?
And what superior alternatives to QT / KDE have been developed on BSD ?
>Just one example:
>
>Open root shell, set hard limits to process memory size to some
>resonable values, say 32Mb, su to non-privileged account and run
>following command
>
>perl -e '$a = " "x 60*1024*1024; print length($a),"\n"'
You want parentheses around 60*1024*1024. Let's give it a shot !
ruffbruff# ulimit -v 32000
ruffbruff# ulimit -a
cpu time (seconds) unlimited
file size (blocks) unlimited
data seg size (kbytes) unlimited
stack size (kbytes) 8192
core file size (blocks) 0
resident set size (kbytes) unlimited
processes 2048
file descriptors 1024
locked-in-memory size (kb) unlimited
virtual memory size (kb) 32000
ruffbruff# perl -e '$a = " "x (60*1024*1024); print length($a),"\n"'
Out of memory!
ruffbruff#
>crashes, you'll not be able to log in and fix things. So, one bug in
>user mod_perl script can break your system down.
Speak for yourself. My system is still going just fine.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: They're here! (was Re: New Sait)
Date: 22 Mar 2000 01:49:42 GMT
Shvager Roman Victorovich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: ���� ���� ����. ��� ������������ ������������ ��� � ���.
: ������� ���� ���������� ���� ������� � ����������� ��� �����������.
Hmmm... I think I saw this language on the side of a UFO that flew over me
on my last camping trip, but I might be mistaken.
My guess is, it's a message for Mark S. Bilk and Derek Currie, saying:
"Enough of the BlackHelicopterTheories(tm)! Return to the homeworld... we
have to discuss your lack of regard for protocol!"
[XFiles theme...]
Duh-nuh-nuh-nuh, nuh-nuh-nuh, nuh-nuh-nuh, nuh-nuh; DUNT! DUnt! Dunt! dunt.
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| = :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
| | you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._| -- Lieutenant Commander Data
------------------------------
Subject: Re: How can use linux? debates
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 17:56:22 -0800
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED],net wrote:
>That is because they are generally socially inferior folks and
Linux
>is their last claim to fame so to speak.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
>Try it for yourself and come back in an hour and let us know.
Ok, it is a day later, but if you are suggesting that I try
linux, don't worry. I already am using it - almost a year now.
Love it. Only thing I miss is HomeSite. Benefits outweigh the
drawbacks.
>
>Free is a word that strikes up an interest in everyone, be it
Linux
>supporter or Windows supporter. Problem is that with Linux you
really
>do get what you DON'T pay for. Again try it for yourself and
come back
>and comment.
Again, I am already using it and love it. I disagree with your
assertion that you get what you pay for. That might have been
true in the past (maybe) for some things, but I don't think it
is necessarily true for software in the internet age.
>To Linux supporters easy=bloat. They have no conception of
easy, nor
>pleasing to the eye nor state of the art. They find exception
with all
>of the above because it boils down to sour grapes. Mac has it.
Windows
>has it. Sun and IBM have it and Linux is still trying.
Please don't tell me that Win98 is state of the art. That is a
bad joke. Easy is a subjective term. For me, MS's version of
easy does equal bloat. Checkout Bruce Schneier's recent
Cryptogram newsletter (www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-
0003.html) -
"The original Windows NT (also 1992) had 4 million lines of
code; NT 4.0 (1996) has 16.5 million. In 1998, Windows NT 5.0
was estimated to have 20 million lines of code; by the time it
was renamed Windows 2000 (in 1999) it had between 35 million and
60 million lines of code, depending on who you believe. (As
points of comparison, Solaris has held pretty stable at about 7
to 8 million lines of code for the last few releases, and Linux,
even with the addition of X Windows and Apache, is still under 5
million lines of code.)"
Sounds pretty bloated to me. BTW, he was talking about security
problems with so much code, not just bashing the size.
>
>While Linux desktops may look like Windows and some say are
better, it
>all boils down to applications that normal folks want and Linux
dies
>here.
Well, which is it? Above you implied that linux isn't easy to
use and now you are saying that while it might be easy to use,
it doesn't have the apps. Is it easy to use or not? (Rhetorical
question - I know that it is easy to use and in fact the kde
desktop environment is better than the windows desktop
environment.)
Applications are coming. Corel just announced that Wordperfect
Office will be shipping (soon? now?). That and / or Applixware
and / or Star Office are all good choices.
What software, specifically, is missing? (No fair
saying "HomeSite" since I already mentioned it above.)
>To a normal non geek user CLI is a non issue. Nobody in this
group
>could care less about a command line. Applications. Think
applications
>and you will look to Windows or Mac.
Nobody in what group? This newsgroup? I am here and I care. But
you are right that normal users don't like the command line. My
point was that after using linux, I had a new found respect for
the power of the command line.
Trivial example - how do you, in Windows, get a listing (as a
text file) of all the files in a directory and its sub-
directories? Can this even be done in windows? With a command
line (even under ms-dos) it is simple.
>Nobody is against choice including me. Linux is just such a poor
>choice for average Joe's like me.
>
>Steve
>
Average Joe? In another thread, someone with your name and email
address displayed a pretty good knowledge of hardware and
operating systems (specifically older systems used by businesses
in the pre-windows days). I wonder just how average your
knowledge of computers is.
I think anyone who knows about newsgroups and can figure out how
to set up their software to read and post to newsgroups is
computer-literate enough to figure out linux (at least the
easier distros like corel and caldera).
--
Osugi Sakae
Doh! That should have been "Who can use linux? debates".
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
