Linux-Advocacy Digest #167, Volume #26 Mon, 17 Apr 00 09:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: BSD & Linux (Tore Lund)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: Athlon ("Niall Wallace")
Re: uptime -> /dev/null ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: uptime -> /dev/null ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: uptime -> /dev/null (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: The truth is often painful... (Donal K. Fellows)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Truckasaurus)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Truckasaurus)
Re: Fix it with Source (Truckasaurus)
Re: LNUX below 30 (CG)
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (CG)
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! ("Tim Mayer")
Re: New Linux User Question (CG)
Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!! ("Rob Hughes")
Re: New Linux User Question ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert! (Marty)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.openbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.os.qnx
Subject: Re: BSD & Linux
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 09:53:29 +0200
Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>
> In that flamewar Linus asserted that microkernels are just a fad,
> and they're going to be slower than monolithic kernels.
>
> Personally, I am not sure about this. Have any of you guys tried QNX demo
> disk at http://qnx.com/iat/index.html ?
>
> They fit a kernel, networking, windowing system with a browser and
> dialer and a few misc. applications like a web server on one 1.44 floppy.
QNX seems to have been the most compact OS of them all ever since they
started. The only thing that's missing is an attempt to take over the
general desktop and/or server market.
The subject has been broached here before: there is a disturbing
tendency among certain people to make a good product and then lock it up
in a closet.
--
Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:16:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> mawa, do you consider shell scripting to be programming (say in Bash) ?
>
> Depends. If your shell script uses any kind of looping or branching
> construct, the answer is a resounding yes. Otherwise, it's not
> exactly programming.
All the scriptable[*] shells I've ever seen have some support for
conditional branches and loops. I've done some fairly amazing stuff
in MSDOS 3.3 (long time ago though...)
Donal.
[* Most GUI shells don't seem to be obviously scriptable. ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:19:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why should the definition of a program require it to stop?
Program != Algorithm. Algorithms must terminate, by their very
definition. Non-terminating programs are implementations of different
kinds of mathematical/logical[*] objects...
Donal.
[* Mathelogical? :^) ]
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:22:22 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Sascha Bohnenkamp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> IOW, again, HTML isn't "executed code" but simply a set of switches,
>> like command line switches/arguments.
> what about SQL?
What about it? (I don't know SQL well enough to know if it has enough
to be computational in itself. It might...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: "Niall Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.hadrware,comp.os.linux.questions
Subject: Re: Athlon
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:38:18 +0100
Is it true that AMD are to make a backwards comaptible 64bit chip that has
an X86 compatibility mode so that Windoze and other 32bit software can still
run while Intel are making their 64bit chip as a "have to replace
everything" chip.
If so then the Wintel monopoly is about to die.
Intel reckon that people won't want a 64-bit chip on their desktop, so thats
why games consoles are sold on the size of their processor, of course
someone is going to want a 64-bit Desktop computer not only does it mean
people can brag about having a much better computer than someone else they
can also still run their favorite stuff and won't have to go and get a new
distribution of OS for their new chip until they decide they need it.
Niall
snipped because I don't have a choice but to use Outlook express here.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:44:54 GMT
"Pedro Ballester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> So? Just because there is a patch out this week, it doesn't
>> mean that you need to apply it.
> No, but people usually do;
Do they? The most modern kernel I am using is 2.3.28; The machine I am
typing this on runs 2.1.103. Must ba atypical, then...
>anyway, security fixes are mandatory to be installed often.
And are usually not related to kernel patches at all, and thus don't
usually require reboots.
Oh, and be honest --- do all the Windows-using people you know install
security updates?
Bernie
--
The beginning of knowledge is the discovery of something we do
not understand
Frank Herbert
American science fiction author
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 10:44:55 GMT
Mike Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>About a year ago, I got to help (I was volunteered) to help with an
>IT asset inventory of the entire company. We had PCs all over the
>place in labs and offices that went back to early 386 machines.
>We're talking up to 10 years old. They use these boxes for testing
>phone systems and stuff. These are machines that are left on 24/7.
>I don't know a lot of people that still have PCs they bouth that long
>ago that still work. Sure, often they bought a new one (because the
>newer version of windows needed so much more power/memory) but often
>it was because they finally crapped out. Difference? The home PCs
>didn't get left on all the time.
Uhm, did your inventory include the 386 machines that did *not* make it
through those 10 years? I mean, *of course* the 386s that are still in
24/7 use at your company are reliable, otherwise they wouldn't still be in
use.
Bernie
--
All that is necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is
for enough good men to do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish-born Whig politician, 1729-97
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:31:29 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sascha Bohnenkamp wrote:
>>> If I write a .h file in C containing the following:
>>> int a;
>>> I give a property to a but not an algorithm (but in your view this .h file
>>> already contains an algorithm)
>> It gives an algorithm, the empty one (no joke)
>
> Urmmm . . . no, not really. The algorithm, in pseudo code, is something
> like:
>
> 1) Allocate sizeof(int) bytes of memory in the data segment.
> 2) Store 0 in this memory.
> 3) End
Is that really specified by the language definition? I've always
treated uninitialised variables as sources of unwanted randomness
(pessimistic, true, but it saves my ass...)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: uptime -> /dev/null
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:41:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've worked on marine diesels where the only time you shut it down, was to
> work on something that was moving :) Filters, oil, coolant, etc, all could
> be changed underway. Pistons you had to shut the engine down for. :)
I think it is only really surgeons that work on moving parts while
they're still going. The rest of us know our limitations... :^)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donal K. Fellows)
Subject: Re: The truth is often painful...
Date: 17 Apr 2000 10:50:09 GMT
In article <8d7g4r$q21$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
David Steinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Especially, I prefer bookmarks (links in one easily-edited HTML file) to
> Favourites (one two-line text file for each link in a directory tree, with
> order kept...where?).
IIRC, the order is kept in the registry. Beats me why they didn't
just put the whole of the favourites business in the registry - that
might be something that it was marginally suited to...
I like Netscrapes bookmarks toolbar, and I like the use of drag and
drop to put pages into it. I also like putting separators in menus to
separate out my regularly visited links from those that are just
occasionally useful.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- The small advantage of not having California being part of my country would
be overweighed by having California as a heavily-armed rabid weasel on our
borders. -- David Parsons <o r c @ p e l l . p o r t l a n d . o r . u s>
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:03:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Joe Kiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >
> > http://cbsnews.cbs.com/now/story/0,1597,183988-412,00.shtml
> >
> > Story about how Microsoft made it possible for Redmond and the U.S.
> > government to
> > spy on everybody who has a MICROSOFT OS!
> >
> > THEY CAN NOT BE TRUSTED ANYMORE!!
> >
> > OPEN SOURCE IS THE SAFEST!!!
> [snip]
>
> Looks like somebody got too excited. Did you wet your keyboard too?
> Anyway, this is old news. The story first broke last July, but nobody
> gave a fuck.
Well, duh, MS could have fooled me:
http: //www.computerworld.com/home/print.nsf/all/000414D5E2:
"04/14/2000"
(...)
"Microsoft just learned of this yesterday and immediately launched an
investigation. It is not Microsoft's policy to add any additional
information to its products."
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:04:52 GMT
In article <%pzK4.2487$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8deeb7$tdp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <HwoK4.1901$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Dirk Gently" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > With open sorce, you CAN hide a consperacy. It just means you
have
> > too have
> > > a lot more people in on it, and is therefore less likely to
suceed.
> >
> > That would be the lousiest conspiracy _ever_; everyone who wants to
know
> > about it can just read some lines of code - way to hide somthing,
dude!
>
> It's quite easy to "hide in plain sight". For instance, self-
modifying code
> could be implanted into the system which would be very difficult for
someone
> to notice in a casual perusal.
Yippee! Now I can write about my conspiracies, without revealing them!
Just what I've always wanted...
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Truckasaurus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fix it with Source
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 11:19:07 GMT
In article <qpPJ4.6258$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
> Despite the fact that I'm a lousy C programmer, I still like having
the
> source around. That's true even though most of the source is real
> obfuscated-looking to me. So, having the source is more or less like
> having a quality assurance thing in my case for the most part. My only
> limitation in using it is my own fault for not being better at
> programming. Anyone willing to give you the source is standing by
their
> work. Notice how MS does not want to reveal its secrets? It's all in
the
> source, for all (who can read it) to see.
The fact that I _can_ look at the source is valuable to me, not that it
means that I will ever do so (hopefully I'll be able to some time).
The things discussed in our parlament are also made publically available
(http://www.folketinget.dk/samling/19991/salen/b114_beh1_74_13_(nb).htm)
but I don't intend to read the stuff, just look at how boring they made
it...
The fact that anyone can look over their shoulder, and see what is
happening, will prevent them from abusing their power. That's the point.
And in this case, an MS employee abused his power, and even though it's
not "official MS Policy" it happened, and it exposed the user to damage.
Bad code in an open source environment lives the life of a snowball in
hell.
(...)
--
"It's the best $50 bucks I ever spent. I would have paid five
times that for what your 'New You' packet allowed me to do!!!"
-- K. Waterbury, CA
Martin A. Boegelund.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
Subject: Re: LNUX below 30
Date: 17 Apr 2000 08:34:40 EDT
On Sat, 15 Apr 2000 16:07:28 -0300, "Francis Van Aeken"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Niall Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8d9pih$km8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> For years Goodyear were the only team making tyres for F1 racing, then
>> suddenly Bridgestone decided to join in (Parent of Firestone), and the tyres
>> got better and better very suddenly why because Goodyear needed to keep
>> providing tyres to keep up their profile, then suddenly they quit leaving
>> Bridgestone on their own, and the tyre development stopped.
>
>Did Bridgestone need government control? No, they had a superior product.
>
>If you want to compete with MS is the short run, make an OS that is 100%
>compatible with Windows applications, 100% bugfree and a lot cheaper
>than Windows (and faster too, yes, that'd be nice).
>
you guys don't get it, do you?
F-1 racing cars didn't come with goodyear tires pre-installed, and
bridgestone didn't have to convince racers to throw away the goodyear
tires and buy bridgestone tires.
and yet, that's exactly what I had to do on the last computer I
bought. Paid for windows, never booted it, and installed linux.
windows dominates the market because it comes preinstalled in
[virtually] all pc's sold.
if consumers had to chose and buy, and install on their own, I'll bet
the market would look a lot different.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Date: 17 Apr 2000 08:36:35 EDT
I find it hard to hide open sores.
On Sun, 16 Apr 2000 19:29:43 GMT, "Dirk Gently"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>With open sorce, you CAN hide a consperacy. It just means you have too have
>a lot more people in on it, and is therefore less likely to suceed.
------------------------------
From: "Tim Mayer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 08:35:14 -0400
"Steve Ballantyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <aTuK4.43338$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Steve Ballantyne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <jArK4.43241$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Tim Mayer"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
...
> > >
> > > QNX? Too bad the applications I used back then weren't available on
> > > UNIX. Or did it not occur to you that I might be interested in
> > > printing
> > > documents from particular applications, rather than just "printing' in
> > > general? The arrogance of PC fanatics and their determination to push
> >
> > You don't understand what I'm saying. The "PRINT.EXE" utility would
> > install a print spooler available to all DOS applications.
>
> DOS? UNIX? Make up your mind which you're trying to tell us we should
> all have been using.
I gave you two examples to disprove your assertion that the Mac had it first
and was exceptional. Since when is this confusing?
> > It uses a timer tick
> > to steal CPU cycles and dump information from a buffer to a printer.
Pretty
> > simple, and I'm not sure why this spooling thing is such a big deal.
>
> Weren't you the one who raised the issue in the first place?
No, I simply asked a question about how the Mac behaves when rendering a
print job.
> > For
> > multi-tasking, well a number of options existed to add multi-tasking to
> > DOS -- DR DOS for instance. I'm not certain of the time, but they sure
> > were close to 1990.
>
> Right -- well after Macintosh Multifinder.
Whatever. It has little bearing on the state of Mac OS today and the
advantages of multiple instances when using a system that supports PMT.
> > > one hardware platform on the rest of us, regardless of how we prefer
to
> > > work, is something that's persisted from the 80s to the present.
> >
> > Huh? Now that's hilarious. ONE PC PLATFORM? Really!
> >
>
> Yes really -- much the same crap from multiple manufacturers, all
> running operating systems that don't do what users want. Well, except
> for computer geek users, that is. The slow progress of Windows towards
> something more closely approximating a Macintosh shows how poorly PCs
> and Windows have met the needs of most users, compared to the Macintosh.
Perhaps the Mac and it's OS has evolved slowly, but Windows and PC's
certainly have not. Just look how long did it took Apple to adopt all the
standards from the PC industry. Today a Mac is closer to a PC than ever
before, and it's because it has to be able to keep up to the rapid pace of
the Wintel market.
> >
> > It's also intriguing that you dwell on the past; the good old Mac days.
> > What's wrong, does the Mac of today not meet your expectations?
> >
> Today's Macs are the best ever. Well built, fast, expandable -- even
> inexpensive.
Today's Mac's are the best ever, but why would you expect them to not be.
They do use new technology, which in itself makes them better. You don't
think that their better because they now use UDMA 66 drives, PCI, AGP,
USB... That's odd, these are all PC developed. But if using PC technology
makes them better, then...
> If I'm interested in the past it's because for the last 16 years I've
> heard arrogant PC users tell me that the computer I want to use is a
> toy, is going away soon, is too easy to use, doesn't let you get at the
> hardware, does pointless stuff like multitasking, is going away soon,
> might be okay for sound and pretty pictures but isn't a real computer,
> is too expensive, is going away soon, uses that weird PostScript stuff,
> is going away soon, doesn't have proper parallel ports, is just a toy,
> is no good for games, doesn't multitask, is going away soon... and so
> on. Windroids have been around for years, and they're still spouting the
> same ignorant crap as ever.
>
> I'd like to read some worthwhile criticism of the Mac's faults, but this
> thread isn't it. The Mac would be better with preemptive multitasking?
> Hey, we know that; but even without PMT, the Mac still works better in
> the real world than PCs running Windows.
That's an interesting OPINION.
...
> > >
> > > You've never read anything about how the Mac OS does threading, have
> > > you?
> >
> > Only a little, but enough to understand that the programming model isn't
> > all
> > that different from 16 bit Windows.
>
> > Have you read anything about the Mac
> > OS yourself?
>
> As a long-time Mac user, I own copies of Inside Macintosh volumes 1 to
> VI. Of course all this stuff is way out of date now, and since I'm not
> planning on resuming system-level programming I doubt if I'll bother to
> catch up on current developments -- frankly, Macs now are so powerful
> that the things I wanted to do in the past can easily be done with
> scripting languages at adequate speed.
>
> However, I did stick with it long enough to note that many of the more
> tedious Mac-basher claims are already dealt with adequately by the
> system as it is now, if programmers are willing to use threading and
> stick to PPC instructions. Perhaps this is why Mac OS 9 works so very
> well.
>
> You think 16 bit Windows looks like the Mac programming model? That's
> funny, I thought much the same thing when I skimmed the book on
> developing for Windows included as a PDF file with the last copy of
> Codewarrior I bought. Now, which do you suppose came first? And who
> copied who?
The point is that Windows gave up on this technology back in 1995, and the
Mac did not.
> >If not, then why not just check out the Apple site, and download
> > Darwin 1.0 while your reading the wealth of technical information.
>
> Your patronising advice is ignored.
>
You may want to check it out anyway.
Tim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (CG)
Subject: Re: New Linux User Question
Date: 17 Apr 2000 08:48:23 EDT
If you can afford it, I'd recommend you install linux on a second
computer rather than do a dual boot. I've found with dual boots that
the boot-time is a big psychological barrier and discourages active
use of both o/s's. I use a switching box (Belkin Omni) that allows me
to use up to four computer with a single keyboard and monitor.
I've used a few RedHat installations, and they are fine. I've heard
good things about SUSE, and I'm going to give it a try for my next
installation.
On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 00:35:03 -0700, "Tobias Adrianse"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Thank you all for your input. Hearing more good then bad has given me more
>confidence in this decision. I appreciate Charlie and Donovan's input. I
>think the best thing for me to do would be to run 98 and Linux parrallel
>until I wean myself off altogether.
>
>Whats the best version Charlie? There seems to be so many. I heard red hat
>was good but these other posts suggest some I have never heard of.
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Rob Hughes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Detonators 5.14 UP!!!!!!!!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 07:52:46 -0500
Considering that MS had dick to do with these unreleased and possibly even
completely untested non-whql certified drivers, where the fuck do you get a
comment like that? You might want to try pulling your head out of your ass
before you try to read usenet messages next time.
"abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ddan8$1k8d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy TiMOiD <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The Win2k TNT2 drivers (5.14) are still sucky... 5 minutes after a
restart,
> > oooh look a lovely BSOD. damn huh.
>
> Indeed they are. They are absolutely the worst things ive ever seen.
>
> They also absolutely prohibit directX taking full console control (full
screen
> mode). They are a half-assed attempt at BEST.
>
> Thanks microsoft, for yet more innovative and world changing code.
>
>
>
>
> -----yttrx
>
====== 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: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: New Linux User Question
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 06:58:37 -0500
Rich C wrote:
> I gather from your post that you do not want to give up the Windows programs
> you currently use. Under these circumstances, you probably should stick with
> Windows for the time being.
Or set up a dual boot system. That's what many of us did to learn the basics
of Linux and find replacement applications before trying to wean ourselves off
Windows completely.
It took me two whole years before I scratched my Windows partition, but I think
for over a year I had only been rebooting to play commercial games.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Become a Windows Registry Expert!
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000 13:09:15 GMT
Jack Troughton wrote:
>
> BTW- I've read your mention of a new app coming from you using MGL...
> can you tell us some more about it? I'm curious... ;)
If all goes well, you'll find out in a day or two. ;-)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
