Linux-Advocacy Digest #214, Volume #26 Sat, 22 Apr 00 03:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (SeaDragon)
Re: Linus Torvalds (Charlie Ebert)
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (SeaDragon)
Re: Windows2000 sale success.. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: which OS is best? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!! (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: Sell Me On Linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: which OS is best? (Jim Richardson)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:01:56 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 05:24:58 GMT,
SeaDragon, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Thu, 20 Apr 2000 20:39:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
>>Sun hardware...)
>
>Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
>a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
>
Must explain why they used linux on Alpha for the rendering on titanic.
>>MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
>
>Incorrect.
>
>If you want to talk about hardware vendor support, Microsoft has _many_
>more hardware vendors supporting it, and you have _much_ more choice in
>choosing a vendor for an MS system than you do for a Linux system. There
>are literally thousands of PC clone vendors, who support Microsoft. A
>tiny portion of them support Linux.
Um, you are referring to different resellers of the same architecture, not
to different architecture. Linux supports much more that just x86, Windows
doesn't. NT was at one time available and supported on Mips and Alpha,
but is not anymore. W9X has never been available on anything but x86, and
W2K is not avaialble on anything else either.
>Linux runs on more _architectures_ than Windows, but that is irrelevant:
>people are interested in what more vendors offer solutions, and clearly,
>Windows users have a _much_ bigger choice for hardware vendor.
>
>Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT, Rise,
>or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
>
All of which run Linux just fine...
>>Stable command structure (minimal retraining every time a new version is
>>released).
>
>1. A new Windows version is not released frequently. It appears that the
>flagship version is released every four years, and this does not warrant
>frequent expensive retraining as you suggest.
>
>2. Linux commands, especially with respect to administrative tools,
>vary drastically from version-to-version, and especially from
>Linux distribution-to-distribution.
That's because the tools themselves are different, but if you want net-cfg
on suse, cause you liked it on redhat, then install it, and it works fine.
Some things like YAST for SuSE or Lothar on Mandrake are probably a bit more
tied into the distro. That's called choice. We (Linux) have it, you (M$) don't.
(at least on that OS)
>
>3. The documentation for this "stable command structure" is less than
>stable and wildly out-dated in some cases. On more than one occasion
>I have followed instructions in what were purported to be up-to-date
>HOWTO files on up-to-date distributions, and have been greeted with
>all kinds of errors since the tools have changed since the HOWTO was
>written (two or three weeks ago).
This is infact a prob sometimes. Because of the rapid pace of change. It will
smooth out, usenet and other online sources are good for info/help
>4. Linux training locks you into Linux; I have met many a person
>who learned Linux and was mystified when using a Sun or HP machine
>(so moving from Unix flavor to Linux to Unix flavor costs mega-bucks
>in retraining).
Funny, I have no prob. Nor has anyone else I know.
>>Runs the most common Internet apps (sendmail, Apache...).
>
>Yes - sendmail - the application which singlehandedly brought down
>the internet in 1987. A program which I REALLY want running on
>my servers. I am so jealous...
1) If you think sendmail hasn't changed, use something else, like postfix,
smail, qmail etc.
2) Why didn't you respond to apache? the only webserver that has increasing
market share, unlike IIS.
>>Proven remote management.
>
>Proven to suck. When you disconnect from your remote session, and
>then reconnect to it, does Linux even bring you back to your previous
>session or does it restart, losing your old work? It does the latter,
>even though almost every OS built since 1970 (including Windows) does the
>former. Another example of Linux slipping further and further behind the
>technology curve.
>
Depends on what it is you are connecting/reconnecting. Telnet? no, Webmin?
yes. (well actually, it returns you to the same state as you left it. ) If you
are using X remotely, then it depends on your X environment to do so. Gnome
and KDE do, others don't. Use what you like.
>>Large number of file systems supported.
>
>Ah yes. Exactly which filesystem do you need to read on Windows that
>you can't? This would improve your daily productivity in what way?
>Do you really find that sneakernet is faster than 1 GB ethernet?
NTFS via Win95? NFS? ReiserFS? Who's talking about sneaker net?
>>Multiple User interfaces, you can pick the on
>>the fits YOUR needs. Can run with OUT a GUI to save resources.
>
>Ah, yes. Today everybody is running 1 BIPS machines with 1 GB RAM,
>and you are concerned about the entire 1 MIPS and 2 MB RAM of overhead
>that the GUI costs? Come back and play when you solve the more
>fundamental speedpaths in Linux (like using a textfile for large
>databases), which Windows solved about 10 years ago.
1) Not all desktops are the same, the new net appliances will benefit from
low overhead and customizable OS choices.
2) In what way does Linux use a textfile as a large database?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:37:08 GMT
On 21 Apr 2000 07:28:15 GMT, Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
>>>Sun hardware...)
>
>> Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
>> a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
>
>Howso? When one buys Alpha or an IBM mainframe one has a purpose for it
>that will benefit from the architecture. If linux supports that benefit
>also why nog run it (eg. Compaq released CCC for Linux, so why should I
>by Tru64?).
But Linux doesn't come close to supporting all of the features of the
Alpha systems. For example, its MP support is not nearly as scalable as
Tru64, and it doesn't have the distaster tolerance of VMS. If you want
something for numerical computing, Linux on Alpha may be acceptable
(though Intel probably has a much better price/performance) but it
doesn't cut it for serious enterprise app's
Moreover, there is a _serious_ dearth of applications for Alpha/Linux.
Netscape isn't even available in native form (only as Tru64 binary -
along with which you must run the Tru64 libraries). Granted, this is
only applicable for desktop systems, and nobody would be foolish enough
to say that Alpha/Linux is a contender in that market.
I run Alpha/Linux at home (in fact, I am composing this message on my
Alpha/Linux machine).
>>>MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
>
>> Incorrect.
>
>No it's not. MS only supports x86 for their current OS.
Not Intel x86 as the original poster claimed. There are at least five
vendors of x86 processors which Windows will run on.
>> Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT, Rise,
>> or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
>
>With the same drwabacks or worse than the original Intel.
Like what?
The only architecture other than PPC which has a mobile implementation?
By far the best price/performance ratio in the industry?
By leaps and bounds the most applications available and optimized for
it?
Integer performance the top in the industry?
Extremely inexpensive systems available on every street corner?
What exactly do you see as the limitation of x86?
>>>Proven remote management.
>
>> Proven to suck. When you disconnect from your remote session, and
>> then reconnect to it, does Linux even bring you back to your previous
>> session or does it restart, losing your old work? It does the latter,
>> even though almost every OS built since 1970 (including Windows) does the
>> former. Another example of Linux slipping further and further behind the
>> technology curve.
>
>What do you mean with this? Desktops like KDE "remember" open
>applications on you're previous logout and will restart them. An other
>usefull tool is probably screen. You can detach you're screen-session
>on logout and reattach it on login. All programs running in it will
>continue to run between logins.
With the more serious operating systems, you can log out then reattach
to your session without interrupting your programs. All serious operating
systems have this feature built-in. Linux does not because it is a toy.
"screen" only works for text applications not X apps.
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linus Torvalds
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:42:07 GMT
JoeX1029 wrote:
>
> "hard working companies like microsoft" Lemme tell you something asshole,
> microsoft's products crash continually, cost way too much and have way too much
> shitty programming. How is Linux the downfall of the software industry?? My
> Win95 box (P200, 16mb ram, 2g hd....) crashes all the time. Last week it went
> down 8 times just rebooting. My linux box (486/66 8mb ram 12g hd...) only
> reboots when i issue the command. It hasn't crashed on me yet. BTW, if you
> couldn't tell already, Microsoft is DONE!!! Finished!! Hope your shares drop
> even more...
Let me just add this. Linux is not a company nor corporation.
If Microsoft paid somebody to set a bomb off in the Linux plant, they'd
spend
along time finding the building.
That's why they call this OS the GHOST INSIDE!
It's a community effort, a world wide community effort.
IN-FACT, it's the worlds first JOINT project which has turned sucessful!
Think about that!
And since it's a community effort, you could compare it to the
government and it's
action. It wouldn't be a direct comparison as there are no taxes to
support Linux.
But say a government action such as what the corps of engineers do for
society today.
They build damn's and bridges and locks for waterways.
Now, corporations can build these things and make a profit!
And you could own stock in such things and make some cash!
But I don't hear anybody hollering, "SHOOT ALL THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AS
THEY ARE MAKING
MY
STOCK PRICE FALL."
Never mind the fact there are no companies and no stocks and therefore
no complaints.
Well,
If that philosophy and logic didn't work for you then let's get Paul
McCartney in here!
"LIVE AND LET DIE!"
Thank you Paul.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:47:14 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 17:30:12 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On 21 Apr 2000 14:09:59 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 16:02:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > There's NO reason to consult a single manpage for the installation
>>>
>>> Yes, there is if you want to do some pretty common things, which is
>>> what I'm talking about. NFS sharing, SMB sharing, both as client and
>>> server, require extensive MAN page reading.
>>
>>As a point of order, both SMB and NFS can be configured with the
>>graphical linuxconf tool. People who use linuxconf are best advised
>>to not touch their configuration files otherwise, but those that
>>manually edit files probably know what they're doing anyway...
>>
>>There is certainly no *need* to consult a man page to use these tools.
>
>I'll beg to differ. How many millions of chips would have to work at
>a keyboard for how many millions of years before one randomly typed
>"linuxconf"? WinXX's sharing is far, far easier.
>
Um, just scroll through the menus till you come to linuxconf?
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (SeaDragon)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:55:55 GMT
On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:50:21 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I find this interesting. One chooses x86/AMD/etc for cost. Once chooses
>Alpha, Sun, etc. for performance. If you go to the seti@home page, and
>look at statistics, the fastest damn machines are alphas. If I wanted to
>deploy a solution using Alpha then I would not choose Microsoft. Period.
You are extremely out of touch.
The fastest shipping CPU in integer performance currently (by far)
is the Pentium III. The I GHz model is a whopping 46.8 SPECint95.
The second fastest is HP 8600, which is at 42.6. Alpha is way behind
at 40.1 for the 667 MHz 21264 (which is not even shipping yet!). SPARC
isn't even on the roadmap. It is at 18.3 for the UltraSPARC II, well
less than half of Intel, HP, or Compaq.
>The argument about "vendors" and "architectures" is silly. How many x86
>vendors does one need. That's like saying buy a yugo instead of a BMW
>because there are 20 Yugo dealers in your state, as opposed to 1 BMW
>dealer. The x86 vendors are largely selling the same hardware. Who cares
>where one buys that crap?
Sounds to me like Intel and Compaq are the BMW's and Sun is the Yugo.
Do they have plans to change their pricing strategy accordingly?
>OK, now what, "speedpaths" "textfile for large databases?" What are you
>talking about? If you are referring to using small < 2k text files for
>system configuration you are confused. The only reason one would use a
>database for configuration over file system directories and text files
>would be to save machine cycles and (if your file system were poorly
>designed) disk space. You can't argue that efficiency is not important,
>so the Windows GUI does not matter, and then say something else is bad
>because it is inefficient. That is contradictory.
You don't understand. The speedpath incurred by text file databases is
_critical_ and greatly increases the overhead. In a text file database you
have to scan every single byte to get to the record you want, in a real
database, you just scan through index and go to the record you want in
O(1) time. You can do a lookup of a key in a databse in O(log n) of the
number of _keys_, but in a text file it will be O(n) of the number of
_bytes_ (which for Unix is on average about 80x the number of keys).
The overhead for a GUI is constant, and therefore is much more scalable.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows2000 sale success..
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 05:26:12 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"boat_goat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snippity] a few million units represents
> pretty much the entire installed base.
>
My bad. Didn't read completely the original post, lumped server and
workstation figures together. That number well over ten million by
now. Compaq alone shipped four million units of NT4WS by end of last
year.
Now sales figures are no longer abysmal. They're disasterous. What one
may imply from your figures is MSFT has already sold virtually all of
W2K product that they're ever going to sell into existing market.
BTW, MSFT just reported a new kind of record earnings for this quarter.
Zero.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:07:07 -0500
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:47:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
wrote:
>>>There is certainly no *need* to consult a man page to use these tools.
>>
>>I'll beg to differ. How many millions of chips would have to work at
>>a keyboard for how many millions of years before one randomly typed
>>"linuxconf"? WinXX's sharing is far, far easier.
>
>Um, just scroll through the menus till you come to linuxconf?
Which is more likely to happen - right clicking on a drive or other
object and seeing sharing, or finding LinuxConf in the menu (amongst
dozens of other items), navigating through several other submenus to
find the appropriate entries, and somehow getting it all working from
there?
C'mon...let's be real here.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 02:20:50 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MICROSOFT IS FINISHED!!!
Jim Richardson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2000 02:59:45 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> man diff
or man cmp
--
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Ed C.
====== 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] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:27:58 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:37:08 GMT,
SeaDragon, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On 21 Apr 2000 07:28:15 GMT, Daniel Tryba <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>SeaDragon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Runs on more hardware (IBM mainframes, Dec Alphas-64bit, apple hardware,
>>>>Sun hardware...)
>>
>>> Buying an IBM or an Alpha to run Linux is about as smart as buying
>>> a Porsche to drive around in first gear.
>>
>>Howso? When one buys Alpha or an IBM mainframe one has a purpose for it
>>that will benefit from the architecture. If linux supports that benefit
>>also why nog run it (eg. Compaq released CCC for Linux, so why should I
>>by Tru64?).
>
>But Linux doesn't come close to supporting all of the features of the
>Alpha systems. For example, its MP support is not nearly as scalable as
>Tru64, and it doesn't have the distaster tolerance of VMS. If you want
>something for numerical computing, Linux on Alpha may be acceptable
>(though Intel probably has a much better price/performance) but it
>doesn't cut it for serious enterprise app's
>
>Moreover, there is a _serious_ dearth of applications for Alpha/Linux.
>Netscape isn't even available in native form (only as Tru64 binary -
>along with which you must run the Tru64 libraries). Granted, this is
>only applicable for desktop systems, and nobody would be foolish enough
>to say that Alpha/Linux is a contender in that market.
All the open source apps, including mozilla, are available. Gimp, etc.
>
>I run Alpha/Linux at home (in fact, I am composing this message on my
>Alpha/Linux machine).
>
>>>>MS is limited to Intel x86 -- MacOS to apple.
>>
>>> Incorrect.
>>
>>No it's not. MS only supports x86 for their current OS.
>
>Not Intel x86 as the original poster claimed. There are at least five
>vendors of x86 processors which Windows will run on.
>
As will Linux. They (the various x86 clones) are clones after all. Same
architecture.
>>> Don't like Intel? Then support a vendor who sells AMD, Cyrix, IDT, Rise,
>>> or one of the multitude of the IA-32 clones available.
>>
>>With the same drwabacks or worse than the original Intel.
>
>Like what?
>
>The only architecture other than PPC which has a mobile implementation?
pedant point, but Sparc and Strongarm are both available in mobile units.
(at least sparc used to be, haven't seen a sparc book in a while. )
Not to mention of course the M68K derivatives running palm pilots and
pda's. Hitachi's S3s etc.
>
>By far the best price/performance ratio in the industry?
>
>By leaps and bounds the most applications available and optimized for
>it?
>
>Integer performance the top in the industry?
>
>Extremely inexpensive systems available on every street corner?
>
>What exactly do you see as the limitation of x86?
No handhelds for one.
>>>>Proven remote management.
>>
>>> Proven to suck. When you disconnect from your remote session, and
>>> then reconnect to it, does Linux even bring you back to your previous
>>> session or does it restart, losing your old work? It does the latter,
>>> even though almost every OS built since 1970 (including Windows) does the
>>> former. Another example of Linux slipping further and further behind the
>>> technology curve.
>>
>>What do you mean with this? Desktops like KDE "remember" open
>>applications on you're previous logout and will restart them. An other
>>usefull tool is probably screen. You can detach you're screen-session
>>on logout and reattach it on login. All programs running in it will
>>continue to run between logins.
>
>With the more serious operating systems, you can log out then reattach
>to your session without interrupting your programs. All serious operating
>systems have this feature built-in. Linux does not because it is a toy.
>"screen" only works for text applications not X apps.
>
How would you do this for windows? Say you are running photoshop over the
lan on a server, and some goofball unplugs your terminal, will NT or
W2K allow you to reattach to that photoshop process after a reboot?
You could do this with VNC for any platform supported. (which of course
includes NT and Linux, don't know about W2K)
But the point was remote management, which is an area that Linux far outstrips
windows in choice and ability. Webmin, linuxconf, telnet, the list is allmost
endless.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Subject: Re: Sell Me On Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:31:45 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:55:55 GMT,
SeaDragon, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Fri, 21 Apr 2000 07:50:21 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>OK, now what, "speedpaths" "textfile for large databases?" What are you
>>talking about? If you are referring to using small < 2k text files for
>>system configuration you are confused. The only reason one would use a
>>database for configuration over file system directories and text files
>>would be to save machine cycles and (if your file system were poorly
>>designed) disk space. You can't argue that efficiency is not important,
>>so the Windows GUI does not matter, and then say something else is bad
>>because it is inefficient. That is contradictory.
>
>You don't understand. The speedpath incurred by text file databases is
>_critical_ and greatly increases the overhead. In a text file database you
>have to scan every single byte to get to the record you want, in a real
>database, you just scan through index and go to the record you want in
>O(1) time. You can do a lookup of a key in a databse in O(log n) of the
>number of _keys_, but in a text file it will be O(n) of the number of
>_bytes_ (which for Unix is on average about 80x the number of keys).
>The overhead for a GUI is constant, and therefore is much more scalable.
>
What text database are you refering to?
If you are refering to the config files in /etc, they are not databases,
they are a bunch of discrete files, If you need to startup samba, you read
the samba.conf file, not the httpd.conf file. Unlike windows with the
registry which has to parse the entire (In many cases multiMbyte) file
inorder to start the app that only has one key in the reg.
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.flame.macintosh
Subject: Re: which OS is best?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 22 Apr 2000 06:36:38 GMT
On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 01:07:07 -0500,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>On Sat, 22 Apr 2000 04:47:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
>wrote:
>
>>>>There is certainly no *need* to consult a man page to use these tools.
>>>
>>>I'll beg to differ. How many millions of chips would have to work at
>>>a keyboard for how many millions of years before one randomly typed
>>>"linuxconf"? WinXX's sharing is far, far easier.
>>
>>Um, just scroll through the menus till you come to linuxconf?
>
>Which is more likely to happen - right clicking on a drive or other
>object and seeing sharing, or finding LinuxConf in the menu (amongst
>dozens of other items), navigating through several other submenus to
>find the appropriate entries, and somehow getting it all working from
>there?
>
>C'mon...let's be real here.
When my mom got her first computer, she didn't know that there was a diff
between the left and right mouse buttons, after all, as she said, the left
and right shift keys are the same, so are the left and right alt keys, (at
least in windows)
You were comparing to using the command line, I simply pointed out that
linuxconf was also available on the menu.
Under windows, simple things are easy. complex (or unusual) things are
damn near impossible. Under Linux, the simple is fairly easy, and the
complex, takes a few minutes with the docs.
So tell me, under windows, how do I export (share) a drive that someone
else is sharing with me? no-problemo with linux...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
