Linux-Advocacy Digest #731, Volume #26 Sun, 28 May 00 19:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Serban-Mihai Popescu)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0 (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Saddest anti-Linux site on the web?
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Linux Fortress (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Robert Heininger)
Re: The Linux Fortress (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Saddest anti-Linux site on the web? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Linux Fortress ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: how to enter a bug report against linux? (Ray)
Re: Hey Pete Goodwin (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Ray)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (Stefan Ohlsson)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Scott Alfter)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Loren Petrich)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Scott Alfter)
Re: The Linux Fortress ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: The Linux Fortress (Ray)
Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers. (Bloody Viking)
Re: In Bellevue can buy Linux? (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Serban-Mihai Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 21:59:33 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No that is hat you are doing implying, by omission, your usual method,
> that a person can easily set up a printer under Linux but can't answer
> "ok" 4 times to do it under Windows.
>
> Sorry but you are dead wrong here.
It happens quite often that clicking "ok" 4 times in Windows will not
setup the thing properly. And if it doesn't, you're on your own.
I bought a Lexmark Optra 40. Under Linux, the printer was up in 0
seconds (OK, it does speak PostScript) and the installation of pup
(which is a simple GUI to do head cleaning, alignment and so on) took 1
minute, including compiling and installation.
Under Windoze (I have a vanilla Win95 setup), well, the Lexmark drivers
made the OS go crazy (it simply couldn't boot anymore). WTH should I
do? I still don't have a decent solution to this and I print using
another driver from HP. The problem is that I cannot use the fancy
Lexmark printer properties menu.
The bottom line is that you cannot simply say "4 OK clicks and here you
go" because YOU're the dead wrong here.
Serban
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: 28 May 2000 22:01:33 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 20:19:29 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>How do you configure a share with Samba. You edit the smb.conf file.
If you're a GUI bigot, you can use one of the several GUI
configurators.
>the directory, select Sharing... and pick the settings you want. This way
>is much more intuitive.
I didn't find it much faster to set up "intuitive windows" than
"counterintuitive Linux" in practice.
>PS. I've not tried Gnome. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt it offers
>anything like this, does it?
I believe Linuxconf has a samba config tool.
BTW I think you can also use a KDE tool for the samba service. You certainly
can configure the file manager as a samba browser.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Installing Linux Mandrake 7.0
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:01:51 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote in <8gru0f$134e$1
@Jupiter.mcs.net>:
>No, it is broken in your particular machine under lnx4win.
I see, it's my machines fault is it? Funny this works just fine under
Windows 98 SE.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Saddest anti-Linux site on the web?
Date: 28 May 2000 18:04:10 -0400
Dr. Strangelove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>Just take a look at this site, it is clearly the saddest anti-Linux
>site on the web, made by a 14 year old spotty geek:
>http://www.startnet-uk.com
...and, it appears to be running Linux.
--
Microsoft Windows. Beyond crappy. Beyond belief.
Microsoft Windows. It could be worse, but it'll take time.
Microsoft Windows. The problem for your problem.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:21:37 -0400
I have the same exact printer and it works perfectly under Windows 98.
Maybe you should try it under a reasonably current version of Windows. Or maybe
I should try it under a 5 year old version of Linux.
On Sun, 28 May 2000 21:59:33 GMT, Serban-Mihai Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> No that is hat you are doing implying, by omission, your usual method,
>> that a person can easily set up a printer under Linux but can't answer
>> "ok" 4 times to do it under Windows.
>>
>> Sorry but you are dead wrong here.
>
>It happens quite often that clicking "ok" 4 times in Windows will not
>setup the thing properly. And if it doesn't, you're on your own.
>
>I bought a Lexmark Optra 40. Under Linux, the printer was up in 0
>seconds (OK, it does speak PostScript) and the installation of pup
>(which is a simple GUI to do head cleaning, alignment and so on) took 1
>minute, including compiling and installation.
>
>Under Windoze (I have a vanilla Win95 setup), well, the Lexmark drivers
>made the OS go crazy (it simply couldn't boot anymore). WTH should I
>do? I still don't have a decent solution to this and I print using
>another driver from HP. The problem is that I cannot use the fancy
>Lexmark printer properties menu.
>
>The bottom line is that you cannot simply say "4 OK clicks and here you
>go" because YOU're the dead wrong here.
>
>Serban
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: 28 May 2000 22:09:33 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 20:08:16 GMT, Pete Goodwin wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>It's so well documented it refers to files I was unable to find.
>
># You may wish to use password encryption. Please read
># ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt in the samba documentation.
># Do not enable this option unless you have read those documents
>
>I could not find any of ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt. If Linux
>had a halfway decent HELP system, maybe I would.
One doesn't use the "help system" on Linux, one simply looks up the files
then reads them. It sounds to me like part of the problem is that you're
not that familiar with Linux.
For example, either:
rpm -ql samba | grep ENCRYPT
or for the GUI-only crowd, pull out gnorpm, and click on the samba
package, and list the files.
BTW, I could rant all day about how hopelessly ineffective Microsoft's
"network troubleshooter" is ... the reason why the samba server gives
me less trouble than the client is that at least samba has some decent
docs.
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:11:48 GMT
On 28 May 2000 14:43:04 -0500,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> `Leslie Mikesell' wrote:
>Again, it is a recent
>change on Microsoft's side that makes the old documentation
>incorrect.
eh? What Microsoft documentation? Every time I use the Windows help system
(NT) I hit dead ends. "You Have Requested an Undocumented Feature. Contact
your System Administrator". Well, duh. . . I'm the one that's administering the
system and thats why I hit the road block only two levels deep into the help
menus!
$ du -hs /usr/doc
164M /usr/doc
That, my friends, is allot of documentation, and I have yet to run into dead
ends in that tree.
--
Robert Heininger [ Powered by: Linux 2.2.5-15 ]
Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Every time I get asked that question, someone wants to take me for a ride.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:13:13 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>How do you configure a share with Samba. You edit the smb.conf file.
>
>Yuppers, and it's simple to do, too. Requires one text editor and one
>brain.
See later.
>>How do you configure a share with Windows. Here's one way - right click
>>on the directory, select Sharing... and pick the settings you want.
>>This way is much more intuitive.
>
>This is so sadly limited. Tell me, how do you access a hidden share (a
>shared resource that is *not* in the "Network Neighborhood") using this
>method?
Go onto Explorer and type on the prompt line \\server\hidden.
>>Is KDE's kfm going to offer functionality like
>>this, or is the KDE desktop going to remain in the depths of the past
>>and still rely on config files?
>
>Oh. . I get it now. What you want is a free Windows Clone. Well, just in
>case you have not heard, Linux _IS_NOT_ Windows!
Oh please, like duh.
I'm not looking for a Windows clone, I'm trying to point out to you that
Linux/KDE has a few problems with 'ease of use'. The way I've described is
a more intuitive 'desktop object orientated' way of doing things.
The users sees an object in front of him, and he has access to all the
tools to do with that object there and then. He doesn't to go somewhere
else (where he would have to learn that 'Samba' is the right service to
twiddle with).
I'm sitting at the bottom of the Linux tree and shaking the base, yelling,
"HEY GUYS! WAKEUP!".
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Saddest anti-Linux site on the web?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:29:57 -0400
Evidently the chap speaks from experience.....
On 28 May 2000 18:04:10 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>Dr. Strangelove <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spewed this unto the Network:
>>Just take a look at this site, it is clearly the saddest anti-Linux
>>site on the web, made by a 14 year old spotty geek:
>
>>http://www.startnet-uk.com
>
>...and, it appears to be running Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 18:35:06 -0400
On Sun, 28 May 2000 22:13:13 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete
Goodwin) wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Robert Heininger) wrote in
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>>How do you configure a share with Samba. You edit the smb.conf file.
>>
>>Yuppers, and it's simple to do, too. Requires one text editor and one
>>brain.
>
>See later.
>
>>>How do you configure a share with Windows. Here's one way - right click
>>>on the directory, select Sharing... and pick the settings you want.
>>>This way is much more intuitive.
>>
>>This is so sadly limited. Tell me, how do you access a hidden share (a
>>shared resource that is *not* in the "Network Neighborhood") using this
>>method?
>
>Go onto Explorer and type on the prompt line \\server\hidden.
You beat me to it. Ignoramus Linokooks always trying to dig up some oddball
situation to make Linux look good.
>>>Is KDE's kfm going to offer functionality like
>>>this, or is the KDE desktop going to remain in the depths of the past
>>>and still rely on config files?
>>
>>Oh. . I get it now. What you want is a free Windows Clone. Well, just in
>>case you have not heard, Linux _IS_NOT_ Windows!
>
>Oh please, like duh.
>
>I'm not looking for a Windows clone, I'm trying to point out to you that
>Linux/KDE has a few problems with 'ease of use'. The way I've described is
>a more intuitive 'desktop object orientated' way of doing things.
You had better look elsewhere because Linux is about mishmash. A collection of
half abortive utilities that have half assed documention.
>The users sees an object in front of him, and he has access to all the
>tools to do with that object there and then. He doesn't to go somewhere
>else (where he would have to learn that 'Samba' is the right service to
>twiddle with).
With Linux you are always going somewhere else. Usually in circles due to it's
lack of user friendlines.
KDE and Gnome are nothing more than half assed attempts at trying to copy
WIndows. Linux is better off in the cli world, where it DOES have an advantage.
>I'm sitting at the bottom of the Linux tree and shaking the base, yelling,
>"HEY GUYS! WAKEUP!".
They are all deaf so they can't hear you....
They are also blind from looking at those shitty looking fonts they love and
cherish.
>Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: how to enter a bug report against linux?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:26:20 GMT
On 28 May 2000 03:43:14 -0700, sonit@hcthit <sonit@hcthit> wrote:
>>
>>If this is how you act out in the real world I feel sorry for you. Grow up.
>>
>
>Well, you were an idiot actually. Nothing wrong with calling an
>idiot an idiot. Any one who claims a mailing list can act as a bug
>tracking software must be a very stupied person.
^^^^^^^
Irony is a wonderful thing.
That doesn't change the fact that the kernel mailing list DOES act as a bug
tracking system. You may argue that it isn't well suited for that task but
how can you argue that it is not, in fact, used in that way?
>
>btw, freebsd have a good bug tracking system, Linux can learn from
>that.
Freebsd & Linux follow significantly development models and thus have
different needs for bug tracking. One advantage of using a mailing list for
bug tracking is that it allows search engines such as deja to tie together
the development of various related projects (sane, alsa, apm, etc) in a way
that would be difficult with traditional bug tracking systems.
--
Ray
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Hey Pete Goodwin
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:28:01 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Dude, stop for a minute and take a look at the trap you are falling
>into. For some reason, it doesn't matter, you are trying to run Linux,
>the supposedly superior system.
I never believed Linux was superior, nor do I believe Windows is. They are
different, and have different uses. I have an old PC which I'm running
Linux on because I can, and it acts as an excellent file server for me.
Also it doesn't suffer from the shutdown bug of Windows 98 SE and I can
login into it.
Does that make Linux superior - no of course not, it just suits the need I
have for it for now.
>You are having troubles, just like virtually everybody who makes the
>same mistake. That's why Windows is still number one and they can't even
>give Linux away.
If I keep shaking the Linux tree and telling them what I think is wrong,
may the message will sink in.
>You are trying in your mind to justify running Linux for some reason or
>another. Maybe you hate Microsoft, experienced dll hell with an older
>version of Windows, maybe you just want free software, it really doesn't
>matter as the result will be the same. You will waste your life away
>tinkering and reading documentation when you could easily perform the
>same tasks under WIndows will little effort.
I don't hate Microsoft. I am aware of all the problems I've had with
Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 98 SE and 2000. I'm also aware of the devious things
done by Microsoft in the name of 'innovation' and is now paying for it with
a court case against them (which I hope they lose).
One things Windows still doesn't do right is drag and drop - on Windows
2000 they've changed it again! ARGH!
In any case my Linux server is up and running. That took about an hour.
That's all I need from it.
My other system is dual bootable and I can use either Linux or Windows.
With it I plan to see just what the difference is between the two systems
from a GUI perspective, then come here and shake up the Linux tree again.
I'm waiting for Borland's Kylix, the Linux port of Delphi, my favourite
(non-Microsoft) development package for GUI's on Windows.
>Take a good look at how much extra work is required just to do mundane
>tasks under Linux. You could do this stuff under Windows with your eyes
>closed because WIndows has a good, unified help system unlike Linux
>which is a scattered collection of half written documentation.
Well, maybe if the help was better, maybe that would be a start in the
right direction?
>It only gets worse as you finally get the beast installed. You will be
>hooked into a loop of constant upgrading, patches and incompatibilities.
Funny, that sounds like DLL hell to me. And yes, I've experienced it on
Windows 95/98. Are you saying you've never fallen foul of OLEPRO32.DLL or
OLEAUT32.DLL on Windows 95? Or COMCTL32.DLL on Windows 95/98 etc. and
beyond?
>Gnome libs, kde libs, qt libs libc etc. You will soon discover that
>Linux is the hard way of doing things. There is always some disjointed
>utility to do what you want but everything is scattered all over the
>place. Tried Email and news yet? How about a firewall? Multimedia? Want
>to turn that high end video card into a loser? Try Linux. Games? look
>again. KDE and Gnome run as slow as molasses. Try selecting a directory
>with a lot of files (/dev will do) and see how long kfm takes to stop
>churning. Now try the same thing under Windows. Instantaneous. How about
>moving WIndows, re sizing and so forth. Sluggish under Linux, fast as
>can be under WIndows.
Can't answer this one, as its not my intended use of Linux.
>Linux is for tinkerers. It is the Gilbert Erector Set of operating
>systems.You get to build it as you go along. Kind of like a "Do it
>Yourself Parachute" only there are no instructions on how to assemble
>it. Remember the Gilbert Erector Set? You spent all day building some
>stupid dump truck only to have the kid next door bring over his nice
>shiny Tonka dump truck which made yours look like a joke.
S'funny, I am a tinkerer. "Gilbert Erector" must be an american thing.
Never heard of it here in the UK.
>Same thing with Linux. Linux is the Gilbert and Windows the Tonka.
I know what Tonka is, but the Gilbert name is lost on me.
>Sponge says Linux is a complete waste of time. I have Windows 2000 up
>and running here at Sponge Central and it rocks. Try a real operating
>system and stop wasting your time asking questions of the Lusers in this
>group. They will just attack you and call you an idiot for not knowing.
>I think half of them are full of crap anyhow.
Oh I don't mind the name calling. If anyone resorts to insults, then
they've lost already haven't they? There are some posters here who are very
knowledgeable though.
Pete
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:30:11 GMT
On 28 May 2000 11:52:00 GMT, rj friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>It has long been a contention of mine that the only people
>in the computing world who aren't absolutely repulsed by MS
>are the suckers and those who rely on the suckers to earn
>their silver. Thanks for helping me bear that out.
No, those of us who earn our living supporting both M$ and non-M$ systems
are every bit as repulsed by M$ as everyone else.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefan Ohlsson)
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: Stefan Ohlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 29 May 2000 00:35:21 +0100
budgie wrote:
>The ONLY way that a 1994 product could handle the format of a 1997
>product is if there were no advancement.
>
That is wrong. Ever heard of the IFF-format, buddy? That's a very good
example of a file format that is very easily extendable and still enables
old software reading the relevant parts.
The most notable software using it today is Lightwave. LW has certinly become
more advanced...
>The biggest limitation of
>Wintel systems is the designers' perceived need to maintain backward
>compatibility.
>
I'd say it's their (most notably MS) negligence to NOT maintain
backward comatibility.
>While I like B/C I also recognise it is like running
>the marathon towing a caravan. If new features are going to be
>introduced then there will inevitably be a need to modify or extend
>the file format.
>
Extend, yes. But extending a file format does not necessarily make it
unreadable to old software.
>That's the price of progress. That's reality.
>
Broken software due to file format changes is the price of stupidity,
nothing else.
/Stefan
--
[ Stefan Ohlsson ] � http://www.mds.mdh.se/~dal95son/ � [ ICQ# 17519554 ]
Deacon Frost: You may wake up one day and find yourself extinct.
/Blade
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Alfter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:37:16 GMT
In article <8gpo0c$i35$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Alfter) writes:
>>In article <8gp3mu$c1r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>Oh, that reminds me --- I have a postscript printer. I have a postscript
>>>file. How do I get one to print on the other *under Windows*?
>
>>"copy foo.ps lpt1:" in a DOS box (or in DOS mode) works for me.
>
>OK, next question: I have a PCL5 printer, and a PCL5 file. How do I get one
>to print on the other *under Windows*?
There are DOS and Win9x versions of Ghostscript; their use is about the same
as under Linux/*BSD/etc. Binaries are available, or you might be able to
roll your own from source with Cygwin or something similar.
(I suppose having access to PostScript-compatible printers at home (Lexmark
Optra Color 40) and at work (Lexmark Optra S 2420) has spoiled me a bit. :-)
In the past, though, I've used Ghostscript on everything from an HP DeskJet
682C down to an old Apple Imagewriter...mainly under Linux and SunOS, though
I've used some of the older versions under DOS as well.)
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (salfter at (yo no quiero spam) delphi dot com)
\_^_/ http://salfter.dyndns.org
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
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: 28 May 2000 22:40:01 GMT
In article <J8gY4.9130$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Leslie Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8grkus$2d5b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Any competition is better than none, but it has to be on a level
>> where you can actually replace one component with another vendor's
>> product without destroying your entire setup.
>Certainly the history of this industry suggests that this is *not* the
>case; typically the succesful competitors are *not* those that
>make a snap-in replacement, but those with something new
>and *different*. ...
I don't find that very convincing -- the whole computer industry
has had a superabundance of backwards compatibility, suggesting that
successful competitors have often made "snap-in replacements".
Consider freeware Unixes vs. payware Unixes -- Linux and the
BSD's have been moving in on the payware x86 Unixes and even the payware
Alpha Unix (Tru64).
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Alfter)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 22:47:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Serban-Mihai Popescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I bought a Lexmark Optra 40. Under Linux, the printer was up in 0
>seconds (OK, it does speak PostScript) and the installation of pup
>(which is a simple GUI to do head cleaning, alignment and so on) took 1
>minute, including compiling and installation.
>
>Under Windoze (I have a vanilla Win95 setup), well, the Lexmark drivers
>made the OS go crazy (it simply couldn't boot anymore). WTH should I
>do? I still don't have a decent solution to this and I print using
>another driver from HP. The problem is that I cannot use the fancy
>Lexmark printer properties menu.
I've also noticed this, only under Win98. The driver Lexmark provides works
OK for most programs, but printing to it from IE5 causes a GPF (usually in
GDI.EXE) and printing to it from TurboTax 99 yielded a bunch of blank pages.
Installing the LaserJet 4 driver supplied with Win98 allowed me to print
from these programs, but only in B&W (since the LaserJet 4 is not a color
printer). I received email from Lexmark recently indicating that a new
driver is available, but I haven't tried it yet.
(The printer works like a champ under Linux, though. I have it shared
through Samba so that Win98 (running under VMware) can print to it as well.
With an upgrade to 36 megs of RAM, it'll spool any print job as quickly as
the computer can send them and then free up the computer to go on to other
things while it grinds away. Now I just need to hook my GS to it somehow
and see how its LaserWriter driver will work with it...must find a
serial-to-parallel converter, or maybe an AppleTalk interface for one of the
Linux boxen...)
_/_
/ v \
(IIGS( Scott Alfter (salfter at (yo no quiero spam) delphi dot com)
\_^_/ http://salfter.dyndns.org
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: 28 May 2000 22:52:32 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I could not find any of ENCRYPTION.txt, Win95.txt and WinNT.txt. If Linux
: had a halfway decent HELP system, maybe I would.
Samba and Linux are not the same thing; they are different and mostly
unrelated products. Samba is free software that runs on many
different operating systems, not just Linux, and Linux is a free
operating system that runs many different kinds of system and user
software, not just Samba.
You may have purchased a "Linux" distribution that contained Samba as
a convenience to you - most if not all distributions do - along with
hundreds or thousands of other pieces of Linux-compatible software.
However, that does not mean that everything, or anything, in that
distribution is part of Linux.
If you're looking for Samba documentation, look in the Samba
distribution. It is there as of last time I looked (circa 2.06). If
you're looking for Linux documentation, look with Linux. Your
distribution may contain both but if it does not, www.linuxdoc.org
contains pointers to each, as well as a great deal of other
information that anyone new to Linux really needs to have available.
Joe
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ray)
Subject: Re: The Linux Fortress
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:00:08 GMT
On Sun, 28 May 2000 20:09:41 GMT, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>GUI != more advanced.
>
>GUI = more easy to use (except in Linux case)
I guess that depends on your background. I learned to read and type long
before I'd ever seen a mouse. If you can't read & type then your use for a
PC is probably fairly limited.
--
Ray
------------------------------
From: Bloody Viking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Fun with Brain Dead Printers.
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 23:04:19 GMT
Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Sure you can, lots of busineses still use them. How else do you print to
: multi-part forms?
Oh, yeah, I forgot about that one. Only a dot-matrix can print through the
triplicate type forms.
A funny tidbit of postal history involves these forms which came in pads.
You'd use carbon paper to fill out the form to request a day off. But if a
pad of the forms was left out, a worker would steal it. Later, the
management tried using computer software, and that resulted in
"counterfeit" versions of the form. Now these forms are in triplicate
format. That means no carbon paper is needed, but it also means that a
"Live and Die in L.A." version is too difficult to manufacture. The
original version of these "3971" forms would be easier to manufacture in a
"Live and Die in L.A." version than the new version. I have a bunch of the
Live and Die in L.A. version of the computer style of the form.
During the heyday of the computer style of the form, each unit would end
up with a manufacturer, and I was a premier manufacturer myself.
--
CAUTION: Email Spam Killer in use. Leave this line in your reply! 152680
First Law of Economics: You can't sell product to people without money.
4968238 bytes of spam mail deleted. http://www.wwa.com/~nospam/
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: In Bellevue can buy Linux?
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 19:02:53 -0400
Robert Nicholson wrote:
>
> OK yesterday I looked. I rang CompUSA and they told me RedHat was a
> discontinuted item and then I tried Barnes and Noble and they don't
> sell it.
>
> Why in this area is it impossible to find RedHat?
>
> Why doesn't B&N sell RedHat linux. I know Borders does but that's
> a trek from downtown Bellevue.
>
> I would expect Linux to be avaiable in this area quite easily and
> don't accept that it's unavailbility is anything more than
> just a coincidence.
I just checked the CompUSA web site, and they list RedHat.
In my area, almost anyplace even remotely linked to computers sells
Linux. BestBuy, CompUSA, most of the mom&pops, MicroCenter, and various
book stores all have it. I live in Boston, MA, so I guess that may have
a lot to do with it.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Have you noticed the way people's intelligence capabilities decline
sharply the minute they start waving guns around?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
