Linux-Advocacy Digest #558, Volume #26 Wed, 17 May 00 12:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Desktop use, office apps (Tim Koklas)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Illya Vaes)
Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: I have 4's and 5's in a Bind. ("Brian")
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!) (abraxas)
Linux on an NT nework? ("Clay Jones")
Re: Desktop use, office apps ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (abraxas)
Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux ("Foogar")
Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tim Koklas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:18:49 GMT
Now, that's the first time I hear someone claim that Word is crap. But
again ... equal alternatives?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Word is an abomination. They should have quit in '94.
------------------------------
From: Illya Vaes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 16:19:50 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>Name a single non-consumable product that you can jump to a competor
>>>without a significant cost.
>If you buy a ford car, you can move to a Chevy, but it will still cost you
>a lot of money.
You know *very well* that the "significant cost" is (always) meant to be
associated costs _above and beyond_ the price of the product you're switching
to itself, "Mr." "Funkenbusch".
Nobody complains that switching from one OS to another forces you to actually
*buy* the second OS (apart from the usual "I-copy-every-program-in- sight"
type of people so prevalent in the MS world), it's about having to retrain
every user, buying new "incompatible" applications and other nuisances caused
mostly by planned obsolence and lock-in strategies of MS.
As was _literally_ said by Craig Kelley, who you were "responding" to with the
first line.
Taking your car response: you don't have to retrain everybody and relicense
them at hefty fees to drive the Chevy you bought instead of the Ford, and you
can fill'er up with the same gas at the same gas station.
You've lost your touch, this wasn't even remotely believable...
--
Illya Vaes ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385 Not speaking for anyone but myself
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Top 10 Reasons to use Linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:16:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) wrote:
> 10. You can't afford a real Unix system such as Solaris.
I do have enough money to buy a real Unix system but I am smart enough
to know I don't have to waste it to get an OS far better than ANY MS os.
>
> 9. You have no friends and no life, so spending all day building
> kernels is actually a step up.
Hey, just because your only friend is the recorded voice from the MS
tech support line saying "Your call is important to us, please continue
holding" does not mean that Linux users have the same problems getting
friends. Althoug I use Linux, I have plenty of "friends" who call asking
for help fixing this or that MS OS problem.
>
> 8. The Internet isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so who cares
> if I can't connect to my ISP.
That is symply a user error problem. I use Linux and I am connected to
the internet with NO problem. Just because YOU can't use a computer,
does not mean I can't.
>
> 7. You have a weird sexual fetish for pot bellied penguins.
Total fiction. Resorting to such pathetic troll is NOTHING but childish.
>
> 6. Your father committed suicide during the 80's stock market crash
> by leaping form the 15'Th story and the mere mention of the word
> "window" causes you to break down and cry.
Just because YOUR father tried to do it by jumping our of the window of
your one story house....
>
> 5. You secretly hate your friends and family for not recognising your
> obvious genius and recommending Linux to them is your way of
> extracting revenge.
MY friends and Family DO recognise my Genius.
>
> 4. You hate yourself and as a child you hated your mother.
Naw, It's you I hate.
>
> 3. Your one and only girlfriend became infatuated with Bill Gates and
> ran away to Redmond.
and dashed all your dreams of having billy for yourself.
>
> 2. The school bully who gave you a wedgy while you were making eyes at
> the only female computer geek in your class is an avid Windows user.
Sorry, I was the bully that did it to you. Causing you to drop out of
school, leaving you so uneducated that you NEED an OS that does not
require reading (who wrote this for you any way?)
>
> And the number one reason for using Linux...
>
> 1. You actually enjoy having a pineapple shoved up your arse.
No, I don't infact I hated it. That is why I stopped using MS products.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Brian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.networking,alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: I have 4's and 5's in a Bind.
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 07:40:51 -0700
see Jabberwocky-HowTO
Matt wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>
>Any chance of a comprehensible explanation for these postings?
>
>Matt.
Best regards,
Brian
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:47:08 GMT
Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> DEVELOP EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY LEVEL SCHOOL
> If we can get Linux used in schools, it will have a good effect on
> general use in about 5 to 10 years from now.
I'm of two minds on this.
1. That was what Apple thought, and look where they are now.
2. That was what Apple thought, and it's kept them alive.
That said, 75% of Hamilton's computers are Macs, even though 85% of
the students who own computers have PCs.
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Closed-mindedness and zeal... (was Re: Things Linux can't do!)
Date: 17 May 2000 14:52:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16 May 2000 03:41:46 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Stephen S. Edwards II <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>*snip a rational, well placed expository*
>>
>>> People like Charlie, and abraxas have stated that they believe themselves
>>> to be more intelligent simply because they are Linux users.
>>
>>I never stated that.
>>
>>Let me be very clear:
>>
>>I am more intelligent than a potential linux user who throws their hands
>>up in disgust the moment linux becomes 'difficult'.
> Sometimes it is best not to waste time on something you do not need.
The intelligent person does not pursue something that they do not need in
the first place. I have no problem with individuals who choose to *never*
try linux, I have problems with individuals who try it for a little while,
then become frustrated and blame their own ignorance and stupidity on
linux's 'brokenness'.
>>Linux is not difficult. Linux is easy.
> What do you mean by 'Linux'
I mean the operating system called linux.
> ? Do you mean installing, administering,
> managing files,
Yes.
> or just clicking on an app to make it run ? The skill
> level goes from minor to enormous.
Yes.
And the skill level is not whats in question here. I have no problem with
people who have a very low skill level with linux, so long as they make
an effort (if they admit that they have the desire to use it) to raise
their skill level.
>>The problem comes with individuals
>>approaching it in the same way that they approach windows--whether or not
>>windows is inferior, it is an entirely different beast, and the
>>intelligent person treats it accordingly.
> Depends what you are trying to do, The average person at home wants to
> access the net, email, and run a few consumer apps and games.
The average person at home does not need linux, and would do best to
stay far, far away from it. The most incredibly stupid of the bunch
are the ones who get caught up with all they hype, convince themselves
that they 'need linux' because of cleverly designed packaging, buy it,
and then blame LINUX for their own intellectual shortcomings when they
cant get it to work just like windows.
These people would be better off just sticking with windows.
> Windows is the best for them and it has a growth path all the way to
> professional level.
I've never made an argument against this.
> An intelligent person does not use a sledge hammer where a normal
> hammer will do. What possible reason would there be for the average
> user to use Linux, Crasy !!.
I didnt say there was.
> The only viable option to windows is an iMac.
Running linuxppc of course.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Clay Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Linux on an NT nework?
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 10:58:43 -0400
I'd like to switch to Linux on our NT network. I'll need to access NT file
shares and printers. Smbclient looks like it would eat into my
productivity.
Anyone else made this journey? I think it would be great to get a handbook
for doing this out there. Maybe there already is one.
Any help is much appreciated.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Desktop use, office apps
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 14:47:51 GMT
Applix 5.0 works just fine for me.
In article <8frqtk$cqh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
R. Christopher Harshman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to get flamed for this one, but here goes... I use Linux, I
> love Linux. All of our servers run Linux, and all are extremely
> responsive, reliable, etc. You've heard all this before.
>
> We are running Windows 9x and NT 4 Workstation on our lab workstation
> computers. These don't get used for a whole lot, mostly word
> processing, e-mail and web browsing. So when the complaints about
> Windows stability and configuration issues gathered critical mass, we
> investigated Linux.
>
> I'm something of an old hand in these waters, so I built what I
> considered to be a pretty trim system. We used RedHat 6.2 in custom
> mode, installing just what we needed (Navigator instead of
Communicator,
> IceWM instead of full-fledged GNOME or KDE, etc). Removed unnecessary
> entries from /etc/rc.d/rc*.d, trimmed /etc/inittab, installed custom
> kernels, etc.
>
> The problem: We cannot find office productivity software that fits our
> needs, and I was wondering why I had not heard more about the glaring
> problems that exist with the current offerings. In a nutshell:
>
> StarOffice
> Far too slow to load. We're using just the applications (launching
> `soffice staroffice.private:starwriter` for instance, to use just the
> word-processor without the desktop). Even on the fastest of our
> workstations, a Celeron 466 with a brand-new UDMA/66 hard drive, it
> takes almost a minute to load. Once loaded, it's more or less
> responsive enough to use, but the users we've had test the
configuration
> have universally complained about the wait.
>
> WordPerfect Office Suite 2000
> WAY too slow in operation. I read somewhere about their using WINE as
> an abstraction layer, and Windows code running on top of this. This
> offers an explanation, but not a solution. I thought Corel was
serious
> about Linux; why then this half-hearted attempt that is, for the most
> part, unusable? None of our testers would put up with the sluggish
> response they got from WP:2000.
>
> Applix 5.0
> Rough around the edges, enough so that users complained. Also, a big
> problem is that it won't import or export MS Office file formats
> properly. We're in a very hetrogenous environment, and like it or
not,
> MS Office file format compatibility is a must, at least enough that
> formatting carries across. But at least it's fast enough to be
usable.
>
> Word Perfect 8
> This one Corel got right; it's a little slower than the equivalent
> hardware and software on Windows (Word Perfect 8 running on NT 4
> Workstation SP5 with Intel's bus mastering IDE drivers) but still very
> usable. However, file format compatibility is an issue.
>
> For Linux to succeed on the desktop, it needs an office package that
is
> polished, professional, compatible, usable, and ideally fast.
>
> I'm continually frustrated by Linux on the desktop, in all honesty.
Not
> just the fit-and-finish user interface elements that are being worked
on
> by the various projects (GNOME, Eazel, etc). But the speed of the OS.
> Launching Netscape Communicator takes much longer under Linux than it
> does under Windows, on the same box. Ditto for office applications.
> For all the vaunted speed of Linux (running in command line mode),
when
> you saddle it with X and ask it to do the things Windows users do
daily,
> it doesn't seem to be able to keep up. This is my experience from my
> personal workstation (PIII-450, 160MB RAM, UDMA/66 drives) down to the
> lowest configuration still in use in our labs (Compaq Prolinea 466,
> 486DX2/66, 32MB RAM, 420MB IDE drives - they run Windows 95a nimbly,
but
> Linux with X is painfully slow).
>
> Flames are inevitable, but I'm hoping for some constructive feedback.
> Suggestions on configuration issues that I might have overlooked,
> assurances that this is a known problem that is not being ignored,
> anything that might suggest that Linux is or will soon be a viable
> desktop OS, given the shortcomings discussed herein.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Chris Harshman
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:01:04 GMT
Mongoose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I was thinking, maybe not just servers and stuff, but an application
> that windows users have but linux doesn't. Something that would give
> windows users more of an incentive to move to linux, or help them
> migrate to linux.
The way I see it, Linux needs the following, at minimum, before it can
be a legitimate competitor to Windows:
1. A streamlined, easy install process;
2. An office suite roughly as functional as Office, and at least as
easy to use;
3. A GUI package installation mechanism that's as easy to use as
InstallShield (trivial if we get a file manager for GNOME or KDE); and
4. A GUI interface to the most common configuration files.
In order to beat Windows, client-side, we need:
1. A GUI interface to *all* configuration files;
2. Integration of all Linux documentation into a centralized,
searchable help center;
3. A DirectX-like platform for hardware-accelerated devices, not
necessarily at the kernel level;
4. Abstraction of many protocols and features, ala ODBC (which I hate
because it never works, not because it's a bad idea); and
4. A "killer app." Unfortately, the odds of this being in the office
suite are about zero, as MS has far too much of an edge on this
front. The GIMP, with a few unique features, may have the
potential to get there.
Linux has survived largely because its only real competitor,
reliability- and performance-wise, was NT, which few "regular" people
liked because it runs about as many Windows programs as Linux. But
with Windows 2000 out, suddenly the "mainstream" Windows is comparably
stable and feature-laden. I think that, unless Linux starts playing
catch-up in a big way, we're going to be relegated to the niche market
we've been, until recently, exclusively a part of.
I suppose that now I'm going to have to get Linux running again so I
can put my programming hours where my mouth is. (Reason I'm not using
it now? The fucking Aureal Vortex 2 drivers are (a) non-free; and (b)
unusably poor.)
--
Eric P. McCoy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
non-combatant, n. A dead Quaker.
- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: 17 May 2000 15:06:47 GMT
Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> b) Instant error feedback. The mount point exists whether or not the
>> device is mounted. If you forget to mount the device, you copy files to
>> some directory, because the system is too stupid to know that you
>> wanted to copy to a device, not a directory.
>>
> Not on my system:
> ls /mnt/cdrom
> ls: /mnt/cdrom: No such file or directory
> Insert CD
> ls /mnt/cdrom
> COPYING RPM-PGP-KEY TRANS.TBL doc images rr_moved
> README RedHat boot.cat dosutils misc
I love redhat.
Yes, redhat and derivatives assume that if you put a CD into the
CDROM on your system, that you want it mounted right then and there
in /mnt and /mnt only. Its actually a handy way of doing things.
But the reasoning stands with pretty much all other devices.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Foogar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.development,comp.os.linux.development.apps,comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Need ideas for university funded project for linux
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:46:21 -0500
Reply-To: "Foogar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Something like an app that would randomly crash? Windows could be replaced
by that!
--
========================================
to reply via email, send to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Mongoose" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| I was thinking, maybe not just servers and stuff, but an application
| that windows users have but linux doesn't. Something that would give
| windows users more of an incentive to move to linux, or help them
| migrate to linux.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: progamming models, unix vs Windows
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:02:50 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I have been programming for a long time, over 25 years,
> almost 20 years professionally.
I'm about the same. I was programming when Bill Gates was
scolding dealers for copying his $500/copy punched paper tape
version of MITS BASIC. It didn't matter that the competitors
were only charging about $25/copy.
> The brief fad we call micro computers,
> i.e. CPUs that, today, would not
> even be used in many embedded applications.
> The Z-80, 8080, 8086(88)
> were all so underpowered that so
> many short cuts had to be made.
> The single tasking paradigms, etc.
> They have all affected how we develop
> programs today.
Very true. both Bill Gates and Gary Kildall had programmed
on RT-11 and tried to emulate that user interface.
CP/M-80 didn't even have hierarchal file systems. Ironically,
Cromemco ZDOS was quite UNIX-like, as was OS-9, but without
good memory management, it had the same problems that
Microsoft Windows had with multithreading. Race conditions,
deadlocks, and pointer corruption created some big problems
for both ZDOS and OS-9/6809.
> Look at Windows. This is a prime example
> of an environment where micro
> computer paradigms that have survived,
> not because they are better, but
> it is what people have gotten used to.
Actually, part of the problem is that Microsoft
didn't get multitasking right until Windows 2000,
and even then it's a kludge between threads and
processes which has been nicknamed "fabrics".
What this ultimately means is that it is still
far too expensive to create an application based
on stand-alone components, each in their own
process (IE DCOM). Once this happens, we
may see a whole new breed of VBScript based
applications that call DCOM server components
and deliver them to standard DCOM client/gui
interfaces. Unfortunately, even VB programs
must be compiled and linked - meaning no
source code and no huge body of source
based application tools.
Microsoft considers it's "components" to
be library calls (COM objects) that can be
Linked together by corporations (Primarily
Microsoft) to create huge monolithic
applications. For load balancing,
these calls can be fed to remote systems
by calling DCOM instead of COM. Essentially,
your calling a DLL which makes RPC calls
to the remote library. The application
programmer is barely aware of the change,
but the administrators become very aware.
The fundamental distinction of Microsoft
platforms is that applications must perform
a huge portion of the "Operating System"
functions, either through library calls
(static, DLL, or DCOM) or through application
functions. MSMQ is a half-step in the right
direction, but falls far short of System V
Interprocess communications, local-domain
sockets, and pipelines, including named pipes.
Even simple sockets through localhost tend
to increase the overhead substantially.
UNIX is a comprimize between the traditional
MS-DOS style monoliths, and the Smalltalk-80
system in which each instance of each object
was supposed to be self-contained and passed
messages to each other as independent entities.
UNIX provides a rich library of libarary
calls and GUI toolkits, but it also provides
a rich library of self-contained processes
which recieve input in their standard input
and send output to their standard output. This
allows the ability to chain together multiple objects,
and to wire the "request" stream of a GUI to the
standard input, and the standard output of the stream
application to the "reply" stream of the GUI.
Also, the availability of a number of scripting
languages and incremental compilers or configured
interpreters can provide very high performance
with ease of customization.
> Just to name one: drive letters.
> Why does one need drive letters?
Both Gary Kildall, the author of CP/M, and Bill Gates,
and Paul Allen were programming on RT-11 before they
started working on microcomputers. RT-11 had drive
letters.
Keep in mind that CP/M had drive letters and these
could be extended by adding a "users". QDOS, based
on an earlier version of CP/M and licensed for
embedded systems, didn't have the user extension.
Microsoft has been aware of the pressure from
UNIX since MS-DOS 1.1, and having been a UNIX
vendor themselves (Xenix) were aware of the
threat. For almost 18 years, Microsoft
has tried to feed the minimum possible features
from UNIX. Some of this may have been because
initially, IBM didn't want a multi-user multi-tasking
operating system that would threaten it's Series 1
(a minicomputer that was killed by CP/M networking)
System 36 (eventually implemented as a card on the PC/XT),
or even MVS.
IBM was threatened by MP/M, UNIX, and VMS, all of which
made it possible for multiple users to share a single machine,
and each of which could be connected to other CP/M PCs using
trivial networks. Even though the networking standards hadn't
been established, it was clear that the combination might
threaten the Mainframe market. In 1990, IBM overplayed OS/2,
and in 1991, IBM bet nearly all of their 4th quarter revenue
on MVS 4.0, charging as much as $6 million to upgrade machines
costing $5 million and depreciated to $2 million or more. There
were hardware upgrades and software upgrades, but when IT managers
were confronted with $30 million "upgrade" proposals, UNIX SMP
systems costing $50k to $250k seemed trivial. It literally created
a market for Oracle, Sybase, and Informix.
Today, IBM even provides a UNIX style interface for OS/390, and
they are embracing Linux. They are "riding the horse in the
direction it's going". For many years IBM tried to tell the
customer what they were going to buy. When Lou Gerstner arrived,
the focus shifted to finding out what the customer wants, providing
this as cost-effectively as possible, and delivering it with the
same level of quality and service as it gave to it's Mainframe
systems.
Microsoft became the new "IBM", trying to tell IT managers
that "We have the monopoly, therefore we are the standard".
IT managers went along because they trusted Microsoft. However,
the combination of the DOJ disclosures in the antitrust case,
a number of security leaks that were supposedly plugged and weren't,
and outbreaks of Melissa, ExploreZip, BubbleBoy, and LoveBug,
have been shifted that trust. Suddenly, with an estimated
$10 billion in damages caused by a trivial upgrade to the
Melissa virus, a hole that was supposedly plugged, and the
discovery that the originator also had the capability to
collect passwords from every computer infected by the virus,
suddenly changed IT Managers' perception of Microsoft.
> The only reason they exist is because
> DOS did not have a hierarchical file
> system until version 2.0. 2.0!!!
> do you believe it?
They promised Multitasking in 4.0 (because DR-DOS had
REAL multitasking by that time). They have minimally
delivered functional multitasking in Windows 2000.
> There are so many more of these '70's
> quick and dirty hacks, why do we
> continue to use them?
Because there are 500 million Microsoft based Personal
Computers and Microsoft still provides minimal backward
compatibility. The application that ran on Windows 3.1
has been recompiled and enhanced to run on NT, but still
opens "C:\a\b\c.d". The installation scripts still require
specific drives, and the few applications that are "well behaved"
enough to run under the NT version of MS-DOS emulator still
require drive names.
Windows 95/fat 32 still doesn't support real long-names. The
implementation of long-names is based on an alias file which is
used to translate long-names to 8.3 filenames. I think NTFS has
real long-names.
> Think about it. I'm sure you can come up with a few yourself.
> If you ask me, UNIX is a more logical "modern" way of
> designing programs.
Actually, Linux is the more "modern" paradigm. Linux has been
evolving much more rapidly and has resisted the balkanization
that plagued the UNIX community. While OpenGroup tries to exclude
Linux, more and more UNIX vendors are striving to be Linux compatible.
Linux combines the best features of UNIX (streams, processes, fast
context switching, and X11) with some of the best features of Windows
(friendly GUI interfaces for applications and administration, helps,
wizards, and hints). Linux also agreessively went after the
configurability of the PC in terms of hardware and software. There
are some peripherals that aren't supported, but more and more
OEMs and After-market vendors are discovering that Linux support
sells hardware. Even if users don't use Linux full-time, they
are insisting on the ability to run Linux at least some of the time.
> --
> Mohawk Software
> Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
> Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
> "We've got a blind date with destiny, and it looks like she ordered
the
> lobster"
>
--
Rex Ballard - Open Source Advocate, Internet
I/T Architect, MIS Director
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 60 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 1%/week!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
