Linux-Advocacy Digest #673, Volume #26 Wed, 24 May 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Jim Richardson)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (win4win)
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome (JEDIDIAH)
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Tholen invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?)
("Joe Malloy")
Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how to configure corel linux boot to GUI? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Font deuglification ?? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux good choice for home desktop. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 10:52:24 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 24 May 2000 01:45:51 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 23 May 2000 15:14:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>
>> >I agree that MS put up a very weak defense, and in fact dropped the ball
>on
>> >things they should have prevailed on. One reason might be that MS
>> >intentionally set it up to be overturned.
>>
>> Wouldn't it have been easier to just win in the first place? It would
>> certainly be a lot less expensive.
>
>Microsoft may have gotten the idea that the judge was biased against them,
>and that they had no hope of getting a fair trial.
then they should have filed for a recusal or a mistrial.
>
>> It could be, you know, that they put up a weak defense because that's all
>> they had. Just maybe.
>
>Time will tell.
Of course, time is the ultimate solvent, and M$ can't revise history later
with court records the way they can with their websites.
--
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]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 20:44:50 -0500
On Thu, 25 May 2000 01:20:06 GMT, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On 24 May 2000 21:49:10 GMT, jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > > Hmm.. interesting. Windows requires a different version of himem.sys
>> >> than
>> >> > > the DOS version. That means you are replacing windows distribution
>> >> files
>> >> > > with OS/2 versions in order to make it work, which is not what was
>> >> claimed
>> >> > > (that retail unmodified Windows 3.1 ran in a VDM).
>> >> >
>> >> > Himem.sys was a part of DOS, not Win3.1. Try again.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, it is. But Windows shipped a different version, and when you install
>> >> Windows, it changes your config.sys to point to the version in the windows
>> >> directory.
>> >>
>> >> Try again.
>> >
>> >So how come even this morning I was able to run a shop-bought copy of
>> >Windows 3.1 in an OS/2 (Warp 3) VDM without even knowing at that point
>> >about the himem.sys file that was supposed to have been changed?
>> >
>> >Karel Jansens
>> >jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
>>
>> An OS/2 user! I thought they'd all died off. Anyway, I wanted to let
>> the group know that I installed Warp 4 on my machine the other day
>> (i810, someodd-brand ethernet with OS2 drivers(!!), unsupported sound
>> (C-Media 8770? Not 8330; I found those drivers at Hobbes), and C533.
>>
>> I can't stand it. It's slow, crashed every time I turned around
>> (really! The mouse would move and work, but there was no response
>> from the desktop or the keyboard's ctrl-esc, tho c-a-d did reset the
>> machine correctly), and geez, the driver and fixpack upgrade process
>> is a -nightmare-.
>
>This is what I like to call the Inverse McCoy Syndrome. Whenever an OS/2 user
>mentions that they had some difficulties with some flavor of Windows, David
>McCoy would charge forward and declare how coincidental it is that OS/2 users
>always have such "bad luck" when running Windows, insinuating that they are
>exaggerating or entirely fabricating stories of their troubles, or that they
>are incompetant users. Well, it seems a Windows user is having some "bad
>luck" with OS/2 now.
>
>What I found particularly strange is how you refer to the fixpack process as
>awkward and annoying. Have you done an RSU installation? That's the
>smoothest type of system update I've ever seen in my life. You browse on over
>to IBM's site, find the fixpack, click on it, walk away, and a few minutes
>later, your system is up to date. "(boggle!)"
Except for the minor problem(which I spelled out above) that:
To *get* the damned fixpack you've got to get to IBM's WWW site. To
get there, you need a modern browser, because I had horrendous errors
and "Type .NSF isn't known; save to disk?" errors when I tried with
WebExplorer 1.2 (which IBM includes). However, to get that modern
browser (Netscape 4.61, which I could navigate to on IBM's WWW site,
after 5 minutes of searching - grumble) you need FixPack 5. However,
to get FixPack 5, you need to be able to navigate on IBM's WWW site.
Basically, if you have FP13 on a CDROM or locally, or know how to find
it on an FTP site, you're fine. Then you just need a
decompression/installation utility for that FP (writing to floppies
doesn't cut it; sorry), then you need to get NS Nav. *THEN* you can
easily install the RSU software (manually? C'mon - get with the
program, IBM!) and away you go.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (win4win)
Subject: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:11:12 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sorry Unix/Linux geeks.. but Windows Wins.. I just installed Red Splat
Linux and really had to brush the dust off the Unix memories to get it
running. I'm so sure that your average user can wade through a Linux
install and deal with all those Unix-ie messages! Not. Windows has
NOTHING to fear until Linux can overcome its Unix-ness.
Phtttt.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:12:34 GMT
On Thu, 25 May 2000 02:11:12 GMT, win4win <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Sorry Unix/Linux geeks.. but Windows Wins.. I just installed Red Splat
>Linux and really had to brush the dust off the Unix memories to get it
>running. I'm so sure that your average user can wade through a Linux
Not bloody likely.
>install and deal with all those Unix-ie messages! Not. Windows has
>NOTHING to fear until Linux can overcome its Unix-ness.
>
>Phtttt.
>
>
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals.
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:23:07 GMT
They can't even get fonts to look decent on a screen, how the hell are
they going to accomplish what you ask for?
It looks like shit, it runs like shit...ooooopppss...
Must be Linux....
On Tue, 23 May 2000 22:24:07 -0700, "Boris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>How many years/decades before mentally retarded shit (so called Linux developers) will
>have such powerful tools at their disposal? All those crap-makers (samba, mamba,
>jumba,
>etc.) are 30(?) years behind Windows NT/2000 technology-wise.
>
>Boris
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:24:00 GMT
On 24 May 2000 10:09:18 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
So? My dads vintage model use's the same gasoline today that it used
80 years ago. Does that mean you would want to drive it around town
running errands?
>Hmmm, Linux runs multitasking/multiuser programs written 20 years
>ago - I have some of my own that are 15 years old now and all it
>takes is a recompile. And, they run just the same on a Sparc
>as under x86.
>
>Plus, Linux can run real DOS or the free emulator better than win9x
>if that is what you want.
No way no how....
>>Microsoft are smart in way you people will never understand.
>
>If taking your money makes them smart, then I guess they are smart.
You get what you DON'T pay for when you run Linux.
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen invoked - Thread now dead (was Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save
It?)
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 22:20:36 -0400
Tholen tholenates:
> > Oww! Tholen tholenates:
>
> Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
Asked, answered, answer willfully misconstrued, eh Tholen?
> >>> The Tholen tholens:
>
> >> Still using made-up words, eh Malloy?
>
> > Asked, answered
>
> Incorrect, Malloy.
Balderdash, Tholen.
> > and not-comprehended by Tholen.
>
> I can't comprehend what isn't there to comprehend, Malloy.
Heck, you can't comprehend what I put there for your delectation, Tholen.
> >>>>> We sic Tholen onto you.
>
> >>>> Who is "we"?
>
> >>> The *real* question is how sic [sic!] is Tholen?
>
> >> How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
>
> > Not nearly as ironic as the sic [sic] "induhvidual" who just typed that!
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who just wrote that.
Not nearly as ironic as the sic [sic] "induhvidual" who just typed that!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Advocacy or Mental Illness ?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:28:24 GMT
It's amazing how twisted the folks around here are. Linux is a stone
age system that quite frankly the public at large, at least in the
USA, has ignored and continues to ignore.
Think about it. Person goes into CompUSA with $100 and is confronted
with Windows for $89.00 and Linux for $29.00 or better yet for free.
Yet they go for Windows every time based on market share.
They can't even GIVE LINUX AWAY!!!!
Linux is for lusers. It best serves folks who like to fiddle and fuss
with their computers.
I stopped that routine 10 years ago.
When the Linux zealots start listening to what REAL people want(hint
compilers and editor wars need not apply) maybe, just maybe they will
gain market share, until then forget it
On Wed, 24 May 2000 12:52:41 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Full Name) wrote:
>On Tue, 23 May 2000 19:00:21 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>In short, Windows 9x is a disaster.
>>
>
>Win9x is what the consumers wanted. Even today people are still
>waiting for Win ME cause they want something that does what DOS did 20
>years ago. That's why Linux is in the toilet while Win 9x resides in
>the penthouse.
>
>Microsoft are smart in way you people will never understand.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: There is NO reason to use Linux...It just STINX
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:31:07 GMT
Sounds like you have already tried to install Linux. You seem to know
all of it's faults all too well.
Speak from experience do we?
On Tue, 23 May 2000 22:16:51 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Try Linux, that is all I ask. Try Suse, Caldera, Redhat,
>> Mandrake,Slackware, Corel, whatever, for yourself.
>>
>> Try it and compare it to the Windows that you now use. A current
>> edition of Windows, not Windows 95 or 98 without updates. This is a
>> favorite trick of the LinoScrews, to compare a current version of
>> Linux to an outdated version of Windows. Terry "The porter" Porter is
>> an expert at this method.
>>
>>
>> Try Linux, please try it. Decide for yourself. And then please come
>> back here and post your experiences with Linux.
>>
>>
>Wassa matter win-boy?
>-- Installataion problems?
>-- Too much text and not enough
> animated paper clips, dogs, etc...?
>-- Can't get your nic or sound card to work?
> ((sniff...sniffle)bwah-ha-ha-ha!)
>-- Mwhaaaaa...my cdrom is not detected!!
>-- 10101010101010101
> 10101010101010101
> 1010101010101010110
>Haahahahahahahaha!!
>-- Oh..and can't burn a cdrw? yahahahahahah!
>Forget linux. You're too advanced for an OS probably
>older than you (or your mentality).
>
>
>> If you like Linux, great, you have found a new life. If you hate
>> Linux, let us know why.
>>
>> Try Linux and see for yourself....
>>
>> Simon
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: how to configure corel linux boot to GUI?
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:32:15 GMT
And if it's not documented you are screwed...Typical Linoshit..Read
this read that read everything to accomplish which would normally be
an easy task.
Linux is a waste of time.
On 24 May 2000 07:08:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C.
Shradrakaii) wrote:
>>did any body know how to install corel linux to boot to GUI. When ever
>>i install corel linux, it boot to console every time. i try to
>>reinstall the corel linux, same problem appear.
>>
>>Can somebody help me PLEASSSSSSSSE, thanks.
>
>Look at the file /etc/inittab.
>
>If you're lucky, it's documented. There should be a line saying something like
>
>id:3:initdefault
>
>(It may be punctuated slightly differently, and the number may vary)
>
>The file may indicate which runlevel number starts X automatically (look for
>words like X or xdm or kdm), and replace the number in the 'initdefault' line
>(the '3' in my example) with its number.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:33:39 GMT
You have a brain dead operating system, not a brain dead printer.
Linux is braindead.
Your printer works fine under Windows...
On Wed, 24 May 2000 05:14:05 GMT, Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>I got a new black and white cartridge for an NEC Superscript 150C today. I
>also bought some (Winblows) cheque-cutting software. So, I installed the
>cheque-cut-ware in Winblows, and started playing with the printer. OK, in
>Winblows it works fine, and it will manufacture cheques. (cut checks)
>
>Next, I played with QBASIC and the printer again works fine.
>
>Now, the fun part. In DOS, I made a test text file (test.txt) and booted
>up Linux. Using good old LPR to print with, I got this output:
>
>Printing the DOS file in Linux, I get this:
>
>
>2
>3
>4
>5
>
>testing printer.
>
>Note that the DOS file has a 1 at the start which was not printed.
>
>When printing with LPR the Linux test.txt file, I get.... THIS!
>
>1
> 2
> 3
> 4
> 5
> test of printer.
>
>Obviously I have one brain-dead printer! Even funnier, before I fired up
>that cheque-cut-ware, any attempt to print from Linux just resulted in
>formfeeding a blank page!
>
>I guess I'll have to play around with C like how I once played around with
>a Commodore's BASIC to hack a printer, like to find the graphics character
>whereby the next byte is printed as binary with the ons and offs to make
>graphics.
>
>What does DOS use as a newline? Certainly not what UNIX uses as a newline
>character in the original binary. I guess since I don't have money to
>blow, I'll have to make this near-paperweight of a printer work.
>
>Don't you just love brain-dead printers?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Font deuglification ??
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:35:15 GMT
And you never will find it. Linux looks ugly and like shit comapred to
Windows.
It is the dirty ugly secret, among others, of Linux.
Do your eyes a favor and run an operating system that at least looks
decent.
I would suggest Mac.
On Thu, 25 May 2000 01:45:21 +1000, "Steve Budak"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Howdy, I can't seem to find the howto for font deuglification in RedHat
>Linux 6.2
>I know I have it (or have seen it somewhere) but can't find it for the life
>of me.
>Anybody know a site where it might be located ?
>I need to get the fonts to look a little better in Netscape and the like.
>Thanks.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why my company will NOT use Linux
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:37:59 GMT
Excellent post. My suggestion is to try Linux in some small deployment
and see what happens.
It won't take long for you to make a decision.
On Wed, 24 May 2000 17:09:35 GMT, David Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I have been following this thread with some interest. We are an all
>Microsoft shop. We run NT servers for file and print sharing services,
>dhcp, and the ususal server duties, Exchange for email, IIS for web
>serving, SMS for inventory control/administrative duties. Our clients
>run Win98SE. We have had problems on the client side with 98SE with
>stability and quirks. However, we have had nothing but rock solid
>performance from the NT servers.
>
>I have been intrigued with the possibilites that Linux can provide, so
>on several different occasions I have installed various flavors of
>Linux (SUSE, Caldera, and RedHat). The installations have all gone
>very well, but once the installations were complete, I was left
>thinking," Now what?" I too installed StarOffice and some other apps
>(the Gimp - nice package, and tried to install Screem and WebMaker, but
>failed due to a lack of Linux installation methods?). Maybe not much
>of an evaluation, but I'm leaning toward this conclusion ... Linux
>offers a stable environment with fairly easy installations and some
>nice software. However, we have NO experience with supporting Linux
>systems. I suppose that we could transistion some things to Linux (IIS
>could go to Apache), but there are some things that I don't think for
>which a Linux counterpart exists (i.e. the back office components and
>other groupware related software). Basically, I couldn't really see
>the need to completely change our model when it works for us very
>well. Therefore, I don't support our transition to Linux as a platform
>for our servers.
>
>I will allow that Win98SE is a problem for many client machines.
>However, IN THE ENTERPRISE, I don't think I could support Linux as a
>client OS in the same manner that our users have become accustomed.
>Additionally, I agree with Matt's characterizations that end-users need
>to have an easier-to-use interface. I think there's a lesson here.
>Charlie, you may think Linux is just the most intuitive thing ever.
>I've heard Mac users claim the same thing. You are not yet in the
>majority. In my evaluation, I had to work too hard to accomplish easy
>tasks. Could that be corrected through proper training and
>acclimitization ... probably. However, I don't have the luxury of
>either training or time. Then there's still the problem of providing
>all of the services ....
>
>I make these decisions, I think, in a sane and fair way. We have a lot
>invested in our system and more importantly, our system works for us.
>I probably would never have posted here, except for the venom that was
>being spewed toward the heretic who wasn't embracing Linux. Clearly,
>he could not know what he was talking about if he didn't like Linux?
>All I am saying is that there are areas where each OS can succeed. Why
>punch somebody about the head simply because they don't agree with you?
>Linux doesn't work in our environment - it may work better for others
>in different environments. That's an individual choice.
>
>I'm happy to agree to disagree - just lose the anger toward Windows
>users, please. What we do is not brain surgery. Nobody dies. All I'm
>saying is put some perspective on this. It's not worth the anger.
>
>David
>
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Matt Soltysiak wrote:
>> >
>> > Ok, I think you're not understanding the whole picture. First off,
>why does
>> > Windows inhabit 80% of all modern computers in the world? That one
>is pretty
>> > easy. It's because Windows makes computers so damn accessible and
>easy, even
>> > to those who are hopeless in learning computers or understanding
>them
>> > half-way. Linux, like Unix, has never been good at making the
>computer user
>> > friendly - period. Don't refute that statement because you know
>it's true (or
>> > maybe not). Thus, it's only natural that Windows would dominate
>the PC
>> > market.
>>
>> It was the first Cheap OS. $65 would get your os from the store.
>> Why do people still drive fords! Remember Grandma and Grandpa talk
>> about their
>> model A. It's brand loyalty.
>>
>> But X windows, Gnome and KDE made the desktop as easy as Window's
>> itself.
>> There IS no serious training curve learning X.
>> There is NO mystery in running Linux.
>>
>> >
>> > Now, don't misunderstand me! I love Linux. I've been using it
>for 4 or 5
>> > years now. Great OS. I use mainly for programming and as a file
>ftp server.
>> > Never crashed on me once, unlike my win2k ftp box (stupid shit).
>But, there
>> > are times that even I get frustrated in Linux, to do the most
>simple things.
>> > It's awful. What takes a few clicks in Windows takes forever in
>Unix. It's a
>> > fact. But, oh well.
>>
>> No, it's not a fact either. Linux is frankly as easy to administer as
>> Windows is. Has been for 3-4 years now.
>>
>> >
>> > You should see the amout of software available for Windows: the
>most
>> > powerful CAD/CAM/CAE software (Protel, ORcad, Cadence); 3d, video
>editing,
>> > picture editing, motion editing, special effects (Like SoftIMAGE,
>Mia,
>> > Hudini); engineering tools/graphics (Pro/Engineer); programming
>IDE's all
>> > exist for the Windows market. And all of them are easy to use,
>easy to
>> > install. Why are they for Windows and not Unix? Because Windows
>is user
>> > friendly; 80% of the computer world understands Windows. That's
>why all the
>> > BEST corporate software exists in Windows, and always will for
>quite a long
>> > time.
>>
>> The reason abundant Windows software exists is because Windows is
>> abundant right now.
>>
>> >
>> > Unix does look ugly on the desktop compared to Windows for ppl
>using Windows:
>> > it's not user friendly, intuitive, or shrink wrapped. It's ugly. :)
>> >
>> > So there you have it... I hope you get the picture a little.
>> >
>>
>> I got your picture but your picture is miles from the truth.
>> Go spend just $45 of your hard earned cash and get a copy of Suse 6.4,
>> install it, then come back here and repeat those words you've just
>said!
>>
>> Charlie
>>
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux good choice for home desktop.
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:39:06 GMT
Sure it is, if you are a programmer geek. If you are normal, Linux is
worst choice you could possibly make for a desktop system.
I'd rather run a Commodore-64
On Wed, 24 May 2000 19:04:45 GMT, "Frank Rizzo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Psych!
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:47:15 GMT
On Wed, 24 May 2000 21:42:41 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) wrote:
>Here's a quick report on installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 on my main PC:
>
>PII-400MHz with 128MBytes of RAM, Riva TNT, AHA2940 SCSI, ESS Maestro
>2E, Netgear card, US Sportster Flash modem.
>
>Here are the things that failed to work:
>
>BST messed up - I had to reset the clock.
Minor.
>Sound does not work; I get buzzing from my ESS Maestro 2E. This is a PCI
>card in my system. Works on Windows 98 SE.
Who needs nasty sound anyway. You are running Linux, the premier
operating system. Sound is so far below your intellect level.
>Epson Stylus 640 Printer does not work, I get garbage. Works on Windows 98
>SE.
Who needs nasty printing anyway. You are running Linux, the premier
operating system. Printing is so far below your intellect level
anyhow.
>NetGear network configured but does not work. Works on Windows 98 SE.
Who needs nasty networking anyway. You are running Linux, the premier
operating system. Networking is so far below your intellect level.
>LinuxConfig now is GUI (because I installed Gnome as well as KDE).
>
>Kppp works.
A miracle. Call the Pope, he needs to hear this one.
>Fonts look terrible (but they always did on X - where's font anti
>aliasing?)
You must be blind. All the Linonuts say they look fine. You are only
the 1 millionth person to say this.
Who needs good looking fonts anyway. You are running Linux, the
premier operating system. Good looking fonts are so far below your
intellect level. You mean you don't run green screen?
>Pete.
Welcome to Linux Pete. The operating system that so much less than the
others.
Why should you or anyone else put up with this crap?
Get the performance out of your hardware that you paid for.
You got what you didn't pay for...Sorry..You are in good company
though :)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:47:54 GMT
LIAR........
Check the setup groups and see how many folks complain about EXACTLY
what he did...
You are in denial...
On Thu, 25 May 2000 00:06:17 +0200, Mig Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I dont believe you.. We have done a dusin or so installs of Mandrake,
>Redhat and Corel on different machines and never encountered a problem.
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:48:25 GMT
Good advice...Try it and see..
On Wed, 24 May 2000 19:26:01 -0400, "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Here's a quick report on installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 on my main PC:
>>
>> PII-400MHz with 128MBytes of RAM, Riva TNT, AHA2940 SCSI, ESS Maestro
>> 2E, Netgear card, US Sportster Flash modem.
>>
>> Here are the things that failed to work:
>>
>> BST messed up - I had to reset the clock.
>>
>> Sound does not work; I get buzzing from my ESS Maestro 2E. This is a PCI
>> card in my system. Works on Windows 98 SE.
>
>Try running sndconfig from an xterm. My legacy soundblaster did not work on
>initial installation (RH6.2, which is similar to Mandrake I believe) but
>running this utility afterwards made it work fine. If not, try this:
>
>http://www.linhardware.com/db/dispproduct.php3?DISP?547#drivers
>
>>
>> Epson Stylus 640 Printer does not work, I get garbage. Works on Windows 98
>> SE.
>>
>Try here:
>
>http://www.picante.com/~gtaylor/pht/printer_list.cgi?make=Epson&format=full
>
>Scroll down to find your printer. You may have to upgrade some software as
>suggested in the comments, but it should work.
>
>> NetGear network configured but does not work. Works on Windows 98 SE.
>
>Define "does not work." Netgear products use the digital [forgot #] chipset,
>and the tulip driver. I've installed dozens of these and never had a
>problem. Since you say it is "configured", maybe you have another network
>problem, such as no DNS or hosts file, or if you're trying to talk to a
>windows box, maybe your samba is not set up properly.
>
>>
>> LinuxConfig now is GUI (because I installed Gnome as well as KDE).
>>
>> Kppp works.
>>
>> Fonts look terrible (but they always did on X - where's font anti
>> aliasing?)
>
>http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/mini/FDU.html
>
>>
>> Pete.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux will never progress beyond geekdome
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 02:50:57 GMT
Linux has the "suck-factor" to overcome.
Like the commercial says "Just one look, that's all it took"
And bye bye Linux.....
The more folks that try it the more pissed off users there are, who
tell other users, who tell other users and so forth.
Linux will be dead in 2 years unless it does something dramatic, and
that is highly unlikely.
I mean they can't even give the garbage away...
On Thu, 25 May 2000 02:11:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (win4win)
wrote:
>Sorry Unix/Linux geeks.. but Windows Wins.. I just installed Red Splat
>Linux and really had to brush the dust off the Unix memories to get it
>running. I'm so sure that your average user can wade through a Linux
>install and deal with all those Unix-ie messages! Not. Windows has
>NOTHING to fear until Linux can overcome its Unix-ness.
>
>Phtttt.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
