Linux-Advocacy Digest #338, Volume #26 Tue, 2 May 00 12:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Webferret search engine on linux. (Yns)
Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000 (Darren Winsper)
Re: A need for better installation programs (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! ("Rich C")
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (JEDIDIAH)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Government to break up Microsoft (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux from a Windows perspective (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 16:13:34 +0100
From: Yns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: uk.comp.os.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Webferret search engine on linux.
Hello folks,
I am a new Linux user wondering if there is a good internet search tool
under linux. I'm used to using webferret (www.ferretsoft.com)
under Windows (puh!) - it's great. I don't like searching via sites
like lycos etc.
Can anyone recommend a good tool?
Thank you in advance.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Subject: Re: Web page rendering Linux (KDE) vs. windows 2000
Date: 2 May 2000 15:16:26 GMT
On Mon, 1 May 2000 14:30:05 +0200, Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was the Sun, 30 Apr 2000 03:05:48 -0400...
> ...and Jim Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [FUD and lies]
> > The Gnome browser Express is poor (does it even attempt to render a
> > table???).
>
> Express has died a looong time ago. You should go and checkout
> Nautilus' built-in Web browser.
Or just embed Mozilla/Geckio in it, which Chris Blizzard managed to do
recently.
BTW, how stable is Nautilus? I'd like to try it out, but don't feel
like putting up with a file manager that crashes every 5 minutes.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: A need for better installation programs
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:17:49 GMT
On Tue, 02 May 2000 09:48:08 -0500, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Mike wrote:
>
>> The abuse she received from the local Linux community was befitting a witch
>> trial. It just wasn't possible that anyone with more than two brain cells
>> could possible have trouble installing the OS from heaven.
>>
>> It was disgusting, no matter which side you're on.
The person could have been a genuine idiot. There are lots of people
that have no business trying to install ANY OS. That's what DOS OEMs
and LUG installfests are for. The journalist would have been serving
her public far better by fully exploring the available options and
being straight with people.
>>
>> A year later, what's changed? They're either Microsoft stooges or stupid?
>>
>> Why, given your attitude, would anyone ever want to install Linux?
>>
>> Does it _ever_ occur to _anyone_ here that _advocacy_ is something besides
>> condescending ridicule?
>>
>> Are you _sure_ the publicity disaster was what the magazine wrote? Or was it
>> what the Linux zealots said afterwards?
>
>Blah. Every linux distribution comes with a manual. The manual
>tells you how to install packages via GnoRPM or Kpackage. Both
>of these programs are superior to the windows way of doing
>things, which is flat out insane (install sheild).
>
>What else do they want?
Yeah, GnoRPM actually WORKS these days and manages to install things
without crashing. It likely beats the HELL out of trolling the web
and manually downloading and installing things from the point of
view of the novice end user that doesn't want to have to learn
anything.
Yes, some Windows users are infact confounded by the very notion of
downloading something: nevermind installing it.
[deletia]
Make a foolproof system and they will make a better fool.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 10:20:40 -0400
Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VV%O4.2245$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Real Windows code??? DOS-based shit on Linux...that would go over like a
> > cement cloud.
> >
>
> The Win32 subsystem has nothing in particular to do with DOS (it exists on
> both 9.x and NT). Windows doesn't need DOS to run Win32 applications.
And
> there are already Win32 subsystems for Unix using MS licensed code (from
> Bristol and Mainsoft) and they've been available for years.
The Virtual Machine Manager, the device that allows Windows to
multitask windows (and DOS) programs is the thing that crashes
most often on my system. If you don't believe that there is DOS code
in Win9x, just oepn up the System Information app and see how many
16 bit drivers and other chunks of code are loaded.
>
> > >
> > > You want to run Office (or other Win32 apps) on Linux? Fine, but you
> > gotta
> > > buy yourself a copy of WDE which--surprise!--has the same OEM pricing
as
> > > Windows 9.x.
> >
> > Why? It probably ALREADY runs under WINE. (Has anyone tried it?)
> >
>
> If Windows already ran as well under Linux/WINE as under Windows, there'd
be
> little point breaking up Microsoft so that the MS apps company will be
free
> to produce software for other operating systems, would there?
The point of the breakup was to separate the OS from the Browser to end
Microsoft's monopoly of the browser market. Making an apps company that
could foray into other OSes is simply a side benefit for MS, not the
intention
of the DOJ recommendation.
>
> > >
> > > I suspect that if the breakup does happen and the pieces of Microsoft
> > start
> > > turning their attention to Linux, Linux fans may find they preferred
the
> > > good old days when Microsoft left the Linux market alone.
> > >
> > > Personally, I'd like to be able to buy WDE which would run Office and
> > other
> > > Win32 apps on top of the Linux kernel--but I suspect others here might
> > have
> > > different opinions.
> >
> > Yes, we do. For that, I still have Windows machines. Why reinvent the
> > [square] wheel?
> >
>
> I have dozens of Windows applications that do useful work for me and for
> which there is no Linux equivalent--nor is there likely to be any time
real
> soon. For example, I'm not holding my breath for the day my Marine
> Navigation software package is available in a Linux version (nor am I
really
> interested in re-buying it if there were such a version). I don't find
> switching back and forth between dual-boots or machines or running VMWare
as
> a particularly convenient or ideal solution.
So do I. Nor do I intend to use my Linux machines to run Windows apps.
Running an emulator of a crappy OS when you have the original crappy
OS is a worthless endeavor, and was the point of the above statement.
And this endeavor is especially worthless if the source of the crappy
emulator is Microsoft.
--
Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:20:27 GMT
On Tue, 2 May 2000 06:05:13 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8eltgi$7p0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Bad example. Car manufacturers provide tremendous incentives to the
>> >dealerships that sell the most product. The biggest or most aggressive
>> >dealerships will get the first crack at new/desirable models and withold
>> >product that the smaller dealers would like to have (but can't get).
>>
>> I thought the MS contracts did not deal with absolute volume but
>> the fact that windows had to be included with every sale. The
>> obvious early target would have been Novell since machines purchased
>> as Netware servers had no use for Windows.
>
>You thought wrong. Per processor liscenses ended something like 6 years
>ago. Microsoft has used volume pricing since then. The more copies of
...and rose again from the dead and were exposed by Nader.
Instead, this time the contracts were applied to entire branded
product lines instead of every unit sold. IOW: Microsoft found
a loophole and exploited it.
>windows you sell, the lower your cost. Thus, to keep margins as high as
>possible, you sell every system with Windows, or else you raise your price
>of Windows by offering choice, due to less volume.
>
>Novell may not need Windows, but it does need Dos (or at least it used to).
>You had to load Netware from a Dos command prompt.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:25:21 GMT
On Mon, 1 May 2000 23:03:45 -0700, btolder <btolder> wrote:
>
>"Nathan S. Grey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> low price and usability? Windows flunks both of those criteria
>> I rate MacOS the most usability (argue all you want, but remember, there
>are
>> people who buy macs because the mouse only has one button)
>> and Linux cost a heckuvalot less than Win98se
>
>Yeah, well, consumers want both at the same time. You can't expect them to
>buy one OS because it is friendly and another because it is cheap and that
>somehow they both meld into a superior offering.
>
>In 1995 Windows offered three clicks onto the Internet out of the box and
>ran on cheap hardware. Having both in 1995 was the magic. Meanwhile, we see
>Linux advocates with sigs such as "Looking for sane PPP docs?..." Doesn't
Getting on the net wasn't a 'three click process' for me in 1995.
(in Windows 95 with Sprynet)
>that give you the slightest clue that something is screwed up? In other
>words, Linux today can't even make something like PPP braindead
>simple--which Microsoft achieved in 1995.
Microsoft can't take the credit for that. This again is something
where all the 3rd parties are doing the work. Individual ISPs make
it easy for WinDOS users to connect to their service. Service
providers were doing the same thing with Trumpet before Microsoft
even acknowledged the Internet.
Plus, that's one little aspect of the system. It's also something
you should only have to set up ONCE. MS chose to get this part
'right' rather than ensuring that their OS would 'stay set up'.
So, it's a tradeoff.
Pain now, pain later...
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:30:10 GMT
On Tue, 02 May 2000 13:24:31 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >And if the "brand name vendor" isn't willing to sell the PC without
>Windows
>> >who would you blame?
>>
>> Nader and IBM clearly placed that sort of blame at the feet of Microsoft.
>
>Yet he went ahead a signed the contract with Microsoft. He was fully aware
>that Windows95 is the only "game" in town and IBM would've been dead in the
That pretty much establishes the monopoly situation, boob.
IBM was forced to alter their behaivor due to price discrimation
from Microsoft. It wasn't that IBM chose not to offer a marginal
other choice due to some economic consideration of their own, but
Microsoft bullied them.
Microsoft having enough marketshare to do that doesn't disprove
Microsoft of being a Monopoly or prove anything in particular
about the quality of the monoply product.
>water if they don't have that contract. Microsoft didn't need IBM to sell
>their OS, which put IBM between the rock and the hard place.
>
>>
>> In a market where nearly every other component of the system is a matter
>of
>> choice: lack of choice in one particular area really stands out.
>
>Was it lack of choice or lack of interest in other systems? The majority of
You know damn well what IBM stated in this regard.
[deletia]
You're just misrepresenting the situation on the off chance that
no one can call you out on it. Adding another choice to an OEM
dropbox does not pose an extreme problem for OEMs. That's what
they do and what they are good at.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: 2 May 2000 10:19:03 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 May 2000 10:28:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff
>Lane) wrote:
>
>>
>>The ideal personal computer system has yet to appear. All we know at the
>>moment is the current systems suck. The only way to discover the best is
>>try the rest.
>
>By "we" I assume you mean Lunix advocates who refuse to learn how to
>set up and maintain a reliable Win95/98 system.
>
>At my last job all of the clients ran Win95/98 (with the exception of
>two NT boxes). There were more than 70 client PC's.
>
>Each day we processed students, marked exams, organised lectures and
>performed important research. Each year PhD students completed their
>theses and honours students met their deadlines. All on Win95/98
>clients.
Did you let the users install their own software? Were there
any restrictions on which combinations of software could be
loaded on any particular box?
>Our user down time across the 70 machines was negligible.
How long did it take to come up with the rules about
usr-installed programs? Do you think your rules are
acceptable for everyone?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Government to break up Microsoft
Date: 2 May 2000 10:41:19 -0500
In article <XwyP4.4034$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8eltgi$7p0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Bad example. Car manufacturers provide tremendous incentives to the
>> >dealerships that sell the most product. The biggest or most aggressive
>> >dealerships will get the first crack at new/desirable models and withold
>> >product that the smaller dealers would like to have (but can't get).
>>
>> I thought the MS contracts did not deal with absolute volume but
>> the fact that windows had to be included with every sale. The
>> obvious early target would have been Novell since machines purchased
>> as Netware servers had no use for Windows.
>
>You thought wrong. Per processor liscenses ended something like 6 years
>ago. Microsoft has used volume pricing since then. The more copies of
>windows you sell, the lower your cost. Thus, to keep margins as high as
>possible, you sell every system with Windows, or else you raise your price
>of Windows by offering choice, due to less volume.
Are you saying that there was no requirement to include Windows
with every complete system sold? Is everyone else misinformed
about this? What about the restrictions against refunds/returns
on unwanted bundled items?
>Novell may not need Windows, but it does need Dos (or at least it used to).
>You had to load Netware from a Dos command prompt.
And your point is?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 15:53:45 GMT
On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:13:19 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 02 May 2000 03:02:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 02 May 2000 02:32:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>First off, Linux is a great operating system and given the proper
>>>venue it is a good choice.
>>>
>>>However, to believe for a moment that Linux could replace, or even
>>>co-exist with Windows in the home environment is a pipe dream fantasy
>>>of the Linux zealots.
>>>
>>>As an example I offer up the home networking problem. The reality, and
>>>it is a good one, is that home networking is becoming a big reality.
>>>Families with children are competing with each other for internet
>>>time, printers, scanners and so forth. Most new home construction
>>>includes pre-wired Cat 5 cable as an option.
>>>
>>>Anyway how is a home network with internet connection sharing, printer
>>>sharing, scanner sharing and firewall set up easily under Linux?
>>>
>>>Answer; it isn't.
>>>
>>>Oh sure you can play with Samba if you happen to not have a
>>>Win-printer and assuming you are able to figure out how to set it up
>>>it might work ok. You can play with ip masquerading and ip-chains and
>>
>> Samba comes out of the box sharing the local printers, so this
>> is PURE FUD. If a printer is supported in some fashion by the
>> server machine, a shiny happy gui applet will help you set it up.
>
>
>Right...As long as you get the password option correct (encrypted?)
...a point and click process if you use the shiny happy
configuration tool.
Otherwise, you look for "encrypt" in the 'cryptic configuration
file'. Either method is not really brain busting for those of
us that actually have them (brains that is).
>and you can figure out what workgroups and users should be allowed to
>use it. And figure out where to input all of this crap, even using
>swat, and Maybe, just maybe it might work.
If you can't manage to give your clients and your servers the
same workgroup, I'm not convinced you wouldn't be lost using
Windows. This falls under the heading 'basic concepts' that
need to be understood regardless of the interface.
>
>SUPPORTING printer sharing, and making it actually WORK are two
>different animals.
No, you are just an ignorant non-user trying to spew someone
else's bad 3rd hand gossip.
>
>>>so forth, entering all kinds of crap in text files and so forth.
>>
>> ...and this is fundementally different from wading through
>> dialog boxes and entering text then, just how? Besides,
>> samba comes with a shiny happy tool for the server side
>> configuration. So, the claim that one must dibble with text
>> files in order to configure samba is more PURE FUD. Others
>> gui configurators for samba abound as well.
>
>
>How is it different?
>
>YOU must be kidding...How about CHECKING ONE BOX...ONE FSKING BOX..
>The only place wading applies is under Linux...
You've got to find the box first. You can't even succintly
describe the process in question. Whereas, any of us could
hand you a script to automate the entire process and all
you would have to do is paste it/run it.
>
>>>That is of course assuming you know what to enter. How many times in
>>>the Linux help system do you see "ask your system administrator"
>>>mentioned?
>>
>> That's the problem with home networking in general. The mother-
>> in-law that can't work with a fully preconfigured Windows scanning
>> solution will be equally as lost in either OS.
>
>
>
>Wrong..Put the CD in the drive and it works...Netgear, Linksys,
>HomeNetwork, Brown Box and so forth..They just simply work.
No. It does not work this way with Linksys. I just did a Win98
upgrade for someone. Win98 BOTCHED the autodetection of an
LNE100TX. It just left a disabled dunsel device in place.
Your 'solution' also assumes that the driver disk is still
around. If not, then things can get hairy quick. There are
plenty of things you seem to take for granted that are not
at all necessarily trivial for all those 'other' Windows
users.
You're WORSE than many of us in what we assume people should know.
>
>Try it sometime, you'll be amazed.
>>>So who is the sys admin of a home network??
>>>
>>>Know how you do all of the above with Windows 98se or Win2k?
>>>Select internet connection sharing in help and the wizard does it all
>>>for you.
>>
>> ...assuming you know what to look for. If you know that, then you
>> are likely saavy enough to deal with smb.conf. Of course you
>> wouldn't necessarily have to.
>
>How about help? It's in the main menue....
...forcing the user to consult documentation is a sure sign your
GUI has failed. That and it's a 'luxury' you wouldn't allow if
this were all going on under Unix.
>
>
>>>
>>>Download ZoneAlarm for free and it works without a single amount of
>>>input required by the user to configure it.
>>>
>>>It simply asks you if you want a particular task to be allowed to take
>>>place (Realplayer accessing the internet as an example).
>>
>> ...assuming that the developer covered everything...
>
>Whats so hard to cover? A service tries to access a port and the
Everything. Things change. You might want more services available
in the future or less. New exploits crop up. New clients get
released.
Here, it's not even obvious if the user is aware of the basic
security policy styles, why they might want to use one over
the other and whether or not they are willing to take the
tradeoff.
Otherwise, things could give the false impression of being broken
and confuse the end user. Predicting all possible outcomes is no
small burden on the developer. Usually there are failures of some
kind in this respect.
>program let's you know.
>
>BTW it is a real eye opener when you run it the first time. Most users
>will be horrified what ports are wide open and how many times they are
>being probed.
>
>Linux?
>
>If you can figure it out maybe, but don't count on it.
...just do a web search on security tools or security practices.
There are even some with a shiny happy front end.
>
>ZoneAlarm is a great piece of software. It works, it is simple to use
>and it is free.
>Linux has NOTHING to compare. Nothing...
It's far more likely that there are Unix tools to which consumer
toys like ZoneAlarm don't compare.
>
>> Otherwise, you're back to square 0.
>>
>>>
>>>Resource sharing?
>>>
>>>Place a check in the sharing box...That's it..Wizard does it for you
>>>when you select "How do I share my printer"
>>>
>>>That's the way it should be.
>>>
>>>I spent 3 weeks trying to get a network working under Linux and
>>>finally gave up. And another thing, the default set up is a real
>>
>> I spent about 15 minutes my first time. Then again, I can
>> follow directions. Although, the net configurator in
>> Slackware did most of the work.
>
>
>Sure we believe you..
>
>Now why don't you wander over to the setup/network/hardware groups and
>help them all do the same. While your at it tell all those nice folks
I do this on a regular basis actually. I've even done onsite
support for really desperate types that stumble onto irc
Linux channels from time to time.
>running websites dedicated to explaining how to do all this that it is
>so simple they are not necessary..
Any ISP I've ever been on has had the same exact tutorials for
Windows users, and mebbe even Mac users (if supported). So, the
mere existence of such information doesn't necessarily prove
anything.
>
>I'm talking about all the above, not the basic ability to ping another
>ip address.
Any new user will have to be stepped through the whole process.
You're just delluding yourself if you think otherwise. Novices
aren't quite as 'equiped' with the innate knowledge of Windows
that you think they are.
>
>>>security risk even selecting Medium security under Mandrake. FTP,
>>>Telnet and other ports were wide open.
>>>
>>>Sorry Linux Zealots but you should read more of the the Linux
>>>install/set up groups to see how many folks have had it up to their
>>>ears with Linux and more will follow.
>>>
>>>Take off the rose colored glasses and look into the world of reality
>>>for a change. Linux is certainly improving, but it isn't even close to
>>>Windows.
>>>
>>>Windows is a much, much better choice.
>>
>> ...only if you want Ignoramuses in control of firewalls...
>The only ignoramuses are the "elite" idiots that believe their Linux
>software is better, easier to set up and more user friendly than the
>alternatives.
>
>You have proved nothing, as usual.
Powerful network tools can be really nasty thing in the wrong hands.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Linux from a Windows perspective
Date: 2 May 2000 10:52:37 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It works about the same for me as Win98 on a P133 with 32 Megs. Neither
>>one is spectacular, but X seems to work well on the Matrox card.
>
>Strange, it appears to me that Linux Mandrake running KDE on a P166 with
>32M runs slower than Windows 98 SE on the same machine.
What video card? The efficiency of the X drivers may be critical
on slow-CPU machines. Also, it probably depends on what you
are doing. I tend to run 5 or 6 xterms with telnet sessions
and a couple of netscape windows. Several small programs
like telnet running at the same time seems to work better
under Linux.
>>>As for X being able to run on other machines, that's not terrible
>>>useful when you have a network of just one machine (or the other more
>>>powerful machine is running Windows 98 SE!).
>>
>>Some people with old junk have lots of old junk...
>
>Please explain what you mean by that?
Just an observation. Some people never throw anything out even
after buying the next model, some people have old PCs because
their office (or a friend's) was throwing them out so they
take several.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: The Dream World of Linux Zealots
Date: Tue, 02 May 2000 16:04:35 GMT
On Tue, 02 May 2000 12:40:43 GMT, Full Name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 2 May 2000 10:28:41 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Geoff
>Lane) wrote:
>
>>
>>The ideal personal computer system has yet to appear. All we know at the
>>moment is the current systems suck. The only way to discover the best is
>>try the rest.
>
>By "we" I assume you mean Lunix advocates who refuse to learn how to
>set up and maintain a reliable Win95/98 system.
Why the fuck should and end user HAVE to.
[deletia]
That too is something end users should not tolerate.
--
|||
/ | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
