Linux-Advocacy Digest #174, Volume #27 Sun, 18 Jun 00 22:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Dave Vandervies)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Ciaran)
Re: Coherency ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Debian (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: how do i change the system date? (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone (Terry Porter)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (tinman)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: democracy? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (tinman)
Re: No need to take sides ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or fantasy?
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Dave Vandervies)
Re: Linux newbie requires advice..... ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson))
Re: Boring ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Windoze user wants to get real OS! - send faq ("Gregory D. Horne")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Terry Porter)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users? ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server ("Colin R. Day")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 18 Jun 2000 23:46:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>>"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>I would suspect not. As for getting rid of vi, isn't that why
>we have emacs :-)?
>>
>>(must...control...fist...of...death...)
>>
>>s/emacs/vim/. Emacs is what we'd get if Micro$oft wrote GNU
>software.
>>
>
><Gasp>
>
>We emacs users have to put up with a lot of unfounded abuse from
>you funny little vi/vim users... but thats just plain nasty.
>
>Emacs is the editor that God would use.
That doesn't mean vi isn't better for us mortals.
dave
--
Dave Vandervies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
... <-- Grains of salt. Take as needed with above message.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
From: Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:39:36 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>>>"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I would suspect not. As for getting rid of vi, isn't that why
>>we have emacs :-)?
>>>
>>>(must...control...fist...of...death...)
>>>
>>>s/emacs/vim/. Emacs is what we'd get if Micro$oft wrote GNU
>>software.
>>>
>>
>><Gasp>
>>
>>We emacs users have to put up with a lot of unfounded abuse
from
>>you funny little vi/vim users... but thats just plain nasty.
>>
>>Emacs is the editor that God would use.
>
>That doesn't mean vi isn't better for us mortals.
Ah. For you mortals we have the VIPER vi emulation mode for
emacs :)
Cheers,
Ciaran
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Coherency
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:42:32 -0400
JEDIDIAH wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 13:25:20 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Having one icon format is absurd? That's probably why KDE is so bloted.
> >> It has to be abal to read every immage format out thear (except the
> >> pollitically incorrect once like GIF).
> >
> >That need not cause bloat. Linux already has the capability to let
> >almost any app read almost any image file. The pnm utils.
>
> ...it is not bloat to merely allow something like KDE to exploit
> facilities that were on the system long before it was. Infact,
> that would be the OPPOSITE of bloatware (code reuse).
>
> --
> ...However it is easier to dumb down a general
> interface than to add generality to a limited set of choices,...
> -Leslie Mikes-
Shouldn't that be Leslie Mikesell?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: Debian
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:44:00 GMT
On 16 Jun 2000 01:44:00 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: And Debian doesn't use RPM (which is an abomination before G-d.)
While I'll agree that dpkg has several very useful features that rpm lacks,
such as remove but leave configs, and diversions, but what exactly makes
RPM evil incarnate?
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite number of monkeys)
Subject: Re: how do i change the system date?
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:46:55 GMT
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000 06:49:57 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I want to change the system date of my linux machine.
: how do i do that?
I'm a fan of using rdate, rather than date.
rdate -s clock.timeserver.somewhere.org
To make the hardware clock reflect the system time:
hwclock --systohc
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 00:55:22 GMT
In article <8ijkeh$6pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like Jaz
> drives
> are treated like removable hard disks.
So much for consistency in Windows.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 19 Jun 2000 08:56:26 +0800
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:06:12 GMT, whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:49:40 GMT, whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>>>I've just returned from Perth, where I stopped to examine the increase in
>> Linux
>>>>books at Dymocks Technical Bookshop, one of the better equiped bookstores in
>>>>Perth Western Australia.
>>>>
>>>>Whilst looking thru the entire bookshelf now devoted to Linux (and Unix)
>>>>I noticed a huge set of boxed books marked "The Windows2000 Server Resource
>>>>Kit" priced at $299!
>>>>
>>>>Thats right Two Hundred and Ninety Nine dollars for the things Linux does for
>>
>>>>free, for **ZERO** dollars!
>>>>
>>>
>>>Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
>>>book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where?
>>You can read them from a $10 CD on your pc.
>>
>
>But that doesn't meet the specifications, now does it!
What specifications ?
There are none, apart from your own.
Can you get the the info contained in those books, off the net, for free ?
If you have to pay to be a "developer" its not free.
>
>>> The same printed Linux
>>>manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
>>I read info on my pc, I don't need a huge collection of proprietary books that
>>will be out of date in a couple of years.
>>
>
>But that doesn't meet the specifications, now does it!
There are none, apart from your own, unstated specifications.
>
>>Windows3000 ?
>
>Artichokes?
LarsonWintroll ?
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 5 days 13 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 20:57:51 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ijkeh$6pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like Jaz
> > drives
> > are treated like removable hard disks.
>
> So much for consistency in Windows.
Well, considering that the Jaz is a removable media HD, and the Zip a high
density floppy.....
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:00:24 -0400
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> They each have their drawbacks. The UNIX way is more obscure, until
> you understand what's going on -- the MacOS way can lead to whacky
> problems like strange names ("Please insert the disk named 'CA 5982'",
> huh?) or the volume-swapping problems (floppy in, floppy out, floppy
> in, floppy out -- I played that game quite often on my Macs) and
> writing AppleScripts which go to non-standard locations (ie, other
> than the extension folder and such names imported by the scriptable
> finder) can have fun problems; part of the reason AppleScript is such
> a pain is because of this convoluted naming system.
>
> Under unix, I can put in a multi-partion Zip disk and mount them to
> any place I like:
>
> /My Zip Disk/First Partition
> /My Zip Disk/Second Partition
>
Even if the partitions use different filesystems? Also, are there
multiple devices within a Zip drive, or does it use just one device?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:05:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <8ijkeh$6pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like Jaz
> > > drives
> > > are treated like removable hard disks.
> >
> > So much for consistency in Windows.
>
> Well, considering that the Jaz is a removable media HD, and the Zip a high
> density floppy.....
Huh?
Last time I checked, the Zip was a removable media device, too.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:04:31 -0400
Mike wrote:
> "David Steuber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >
> > [insane lunacy about companies murdering competitors snipped]
> >
> > Anyway, there is still the appellate process to go through. While all
> > that is going on, Microsoft has a chance to organize affairs so that a
> > break up won't hurt Bill Gates.
> >
> > Carnegie kept getting richer after Standard Oil was broken up.
>
> No reason why he shouldn't have. Carnegie had invested in oil, but sold his
> interests in the 1860's, before Standard Oil became a force in the industry.
> Carnegie's major wealth came from steel. He sold his interest to J.P. Morgan
> in 1901 for $480 million, making him the world's richest man.
Wasn't Rockefeller richer than that? He was the first billionaire (in US
dollars, anyway).
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:07:06 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> > Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <8ijkeh$6pp$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think Zips are treated like a big floppy disk, but things like Jaz
> > > > drives
> > > > are treated like removable hard disks.
> > >
> > > So much for consistency in Windows.
> >
> > Well, considering that the Jaz is a removable media HD, and the Zip a high
> > density floppy.....
>
> Huh?
>
> Last time I checked, the Zip was a removable media device, too.
So's a floppy....
--
______
tinman
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: No need to take sides
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:06:52 -0400
Timo Ely wrote:
> Man some of you zealots just don't know when the shut the hell up. FUCK
> LINUX FUCK WINDOWS and most of all... FUCK YOU!!!
Then why do you post to *.advocacy newsgroups?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:39:33 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That is a question, you do know what a Question mark means right? (Thats
> another question)
Please reread the thread before you continue on this way. You seem to be
confused as to who you are commuicating with. Quantum, you are like a
fighter pilot firing on his wingman and ignoring the enemy fighters who are
also firing on his wingman. Straighten up and fly right!
I stated that Windows is a sepperate entity from the operating systems that
the various versions of Windows runs on.
Jedidiah refuted my position.
You posted information that supplied evidence that supported my position and
your question was directed to Jedidiah.
I then posted an acknowlegement of your evidence. We, (you and myself), are
of the SAME opinion and position in this discussion.
You then posted a critisim of ME for not answer the question that you asked
of Jedidiah.
I posted a clairification of the situation.
You again posted another critisim of ME for not answering the question that
you asked of Jedidiah!
I am now again trying to explain the situation to you.
Get your bearings before you appear to be more of an idiot than you are
already appearing to be.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Claims of Windows supporting old applications are reflecting reality or
fantasy?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 17:45:18 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SXc35.8012$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:20:15 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >"JEDIDIAH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 23:35:00 -0700, Stephen Edwards
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
> > ><8ic211$htb$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > >> >
> > >> >>There are things that I have seen mentioned in these three news
> groups
> > >by
> > >> >>the supporters of the Microsoft Windows environment that I can not
> > >reconcile
> > >> >>with what I have experienced in reality, I would like to discuss
one
> of
> > >> >>them. Please note that I did not say the Windows operating system,
> > >since
> > >> >>there is no such beast. Windows, in all of its incarnations is
> nothing
> > >more
> > >> >>than a graphical environment that runs on an actual operating
system.
> > >>
> > >> This isn't quite correct.
> > >>
> > >> Unix is an actual operating system and X is a graphical shell
> > >> that runs on top of it. However WinDOS is a different sort of
> > >> beast. The "whole OS" does not exist in DOS. Most of the OS is
> > >> embedded into the GUI shell making the boundary between system
> > >> components murky and DOS itself crippled.
> > >>
> > >> They aren't quite comparable... Unix/X vs. DOS/Win.
> > >>
> > >If so much is imbedded in the GUI shell, why can I change that shell?
> > >LiteStep and the other available GUI replacements for Window 9x or NT
4.
> >
> > You're just replacing the top layer and doing it BADLY.
> >
> > Run LiteStep and you lose the explorer desktop.
> >
> All I reply too, was it CAN be done, there alot more than LiteStep out
> there for shell replacements. MJCR implied you couldn't replace Explorer
> because it was too tied to the OS layer.
>
>
Wrong, I was not the one who said that, Jedidiah was one of those who did
say it, in an effort to refute my position which appears to be you position
as well. Reread the thread and you will see that you are totally confused
as to who said what. Hold your fire, get your bearings and then fire at
will.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies)
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: 19 Jun 2000 00:44:45 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dave Vandervies) wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>Ciaran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>><Gasp>
>>>
>>>We emacs users have to put up with a lot of unfounded abuse
>from
>>>you funny little vi/vim users... but thats just plain nasty.
>>>
>>>Emacs is the editor that God would use.
>>
>>That doesn't mean vi isn't better for us mortals.
>
>Ah. For you mortals we have the VIPER vi emulation mode for
>emacs :)
Does that vi emulation mode include shrinking emacs to the size of a
typical vi binary? ;)
dave
--
Dave Vandervies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And this, too, shall pass away.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux newbie requires advice.....
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:09:45 -0400
"Alistair G. MacDonald" wrote:
> ...erm, why??
"man" is the command to see manual pages, so
man foo
will tell you about command foo, if there is a man page for it.
man man
shows you the man pages for the man command.
Also remember info.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: whistler@<blahblah>twcny.rr.com (Paul E. Larson)
Subject: Re: Windows2000 Server Resource Kit $299! Welcome to the twilight zone
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 01:10:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 22:06:12 GMT, whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 15:49:40 GMT, whistler@ <blahblah> wrote:
>>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, No-Spam wrote:
>>>>>I've just returned from Perth, where I stopped to examine the increase in
>>> Linux
>>>>>books at Dymocks Technical Bookshop, one of the better equiped bookstores
> in
>>>>>Perth Western Australia.
>>>>>
>>>>>Whilst looking thru the entire bookshelf now devoted to Linux (and Unix)
>>>>>I noticed a huge set of boxed books marked "The Windows2000 Server Resource
>>>>>Kit" priced at $299!
>>>>>
>>>>>Thats right Two Hundred and Ninety Nine dollars for the things Linux does
> for
>>>
>>>>>free, for **ZERO** dollars!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Really, you can get printed, specifically bound into a hard or soft covered
>>>>book, copies of Linux manuals for free, from where?
>>>You can read them from a $10 CD on your pc.
>>>
>>
>>But that doesn't meet the specifications, now does it!
>What specifications ?
No, there where the original specification as described by the comments.
1 - Free
2 - The similar documentation and software(in the same format) as contained in
the The Windows2000 Server Resource Kit but for Linux.
>There are none, apart from your own.
>
>Can you get the the info contained in those books, off the net, for free ?
>If you have to pay to be a "developer" its not free.
>
Most likely. But it doesn't really matter, since that was not part of the
original post. Remember, The Windows2000 Server Resource Kit is a bound copy
of documentation and reference material.
>>
>>>> The same printed Linux
>>>>manuals could be cheaper, or they could be more expensive in the aggregate.
>>>I read info on my pc, I don't need a huge collection of proprietary books
> that
>>>will be out of date in a couple of years.
>>>
>>
>>But that doesn't meet the specifications, now does it!
>There are none, apart from your own, unstated specifications.
>
Again read the original post for the specifications.
>>
>>>Windows3000 ?
>>
>>Artichokes?
>LarsonWintroll ?
>
I asked where you could obtain for free, as the original poster wrote, the
same things as contained in the The Windows2000 Server Resource Kit but for
Linux(ie. bound copies of certain documentation, reference material, and the
similar software).
Paul
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:12:54 -0400
Tim Palmer wrote:
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Mon, 12 Jun 2000, Jorge Cueto wrote:
> >>This newsgroup is starting to be bored ... I guess GNU/Linux has finally
> >>won and Windows advocates can't just debate anymore :-)
> >
> >
> >I think the real problem with advocacy is that Linux has won.
>
> Uhm, no. Not even close.
>
> >What is Microsoft going to do in the next 5 years but die.
>
> The government can't do anything to them until the appeals proscess is over. By
>then, this whole
> UNIX revival thing will halve blone over.
>
> >
> >If people don't think the KDE is a better desktop than W2k then
> >what are they going to say when KDE2 is out soon?
> >
>
> That it sucks. Just like the KDE befor it. You can put Windos like environmant ontop
>of UNIX, but
> thats' still UNIX under theare,
Thank goodness, I like having a stable OS.
> and you can't get rid of the limmitations of UNIX except by getting
> rid of the UNIX. That is why UNIX+KDE fales now just like UNIX without it did, and
>UNIX+KDE2 will
> continnue to fale in the future.
What sort of limitations? No GPF's or BSOD's?
>
>
> Just face it: UNIX is the PAST. Leave it in the 1970s whear it belongs.
>
It's also the future.
>
> >I think the Microsoft community realizes that there is no competing with
> >Linux as the Linux community comes out with a new version roughly once
> >every 6-9 months.
>
> Yeah, and you accuse Windwos of making peopal upgrade.
>
But Linux companies don't charge as much, and one can upgrade
a few packages at a time?
>
> >This in comparison to Windows 2-4 year revisionary
> >history,,, with complete writeups from the ground floor up.
> >
> >Charlie
> >
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Gregory D. Horne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze user wants to get real OS! - send faq
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:10:18 -0500
You can start with http://www.croftj.net/~jam/, although some of the
specifics are slightly out of date the material nonetheless offers a good
introuduction to Linux. You should pick up a CD copy of Linux and
install it on your machine. I have used Caldera OpenLinux, Corel Linux,
and Debian GNU/Linux and each has their advantages. Corel and Caldera
are a breeze for the novice Linux user to install but be forewarned to
verify your hardware against the list Corel Linux supports. Debian
offers the most flexibility but may nit be the best choice for a novice.
There are other Linux distributions available but any of the
aforementioned should get you started with Linux (including GUI and
Internet connectivity). If you are looking for a FREE ISP which supports
Linux look into www.freewwweb.com - all you need do is register and then
grab the IP numbers they provide - no need to download the Windows
software or browser. With either Caldera or Corel you will be surfing
the WWW within 1 hour (all times are estimates and may vary according to
your requirements). By the way, Linux does not work with all Winmodems
so if possible get an ISA card not PCI or an external modem which always
(ahem!) works.
Good luck and welcome to the wonderful world of the penguin. ;-)
Jeff Hummer wrote:
> If there is a FAQ for this group, please send it. I'm really sick of
> windows, but don't know where to start with Linux.
> Thanks
> Jeff
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 19 Jun 2000 09:22:35 +0800
On 18 Jun 2000 18:12:05 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 18 Jun 2000 11:36:10 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin) writes:
>>And with Microsoft's new "No Windows CD" policy, they will need to
>>purchase a new license for Windows every time they get a new hard
>>drive or motherboard/processor/BIOS.
>
>They won't have to wait that long. They just have to wait for a
>corrupt Registry.
>
Or a Virus.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** To reach me, use [EMAIL PROTECTED] ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux, and has been
up 5 days 14 hours 53 minutes
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:23:37 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I think your wrong, about SUBST being missing for a bit, if you can
every
> figure out which version, I would be interested.
I traced down the problem, subst "went away" on me during the upgrade from
Dos 4.x to Dos 5.0. It was caused by the confusion between the subst.com
and subst.exe filenames. When it first reappeared, I don't know since I
have not used it since I first lost access to the command.
It is strange how the type of executables would variate even with the same
version number of Dos, depending on which OEM name it was delivered under.
In one organization which was using Dos 3.1, they had MS-Dos, PC-Dos,
NCR-Dos, HP-Dos, and Leading Edge Dos. They were all version 3.1 but many
of the standard utilities were delivered in com format on one Dos 3.1 and
exe format with another. For example, I remmeber that there were format.com
and format.exe all installed on different systems at the same time. It was
one of those executable style flipovers that killed subst for me.
So, I guess this is one of these cases were we are both right because of
different circumstances.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So where ARE all of these supposed Linux users?
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:34:32 -0400
"Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : The Linvocates have been spouting for sometime the "huge" number of
> : people leaving Windows and downloading/buying (shudder!) Linux
> : instead.
>
> : So where are all of these folks?
>
> In every important business in the world, for starters. Including
> Microsoft.
Is Microsoft an important business?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why X is better than Terminal Server
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:37:26 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 13:50:49 -0400, Gary Hallock
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Especially when it took me all of about 3 minutes to install true-type
> >fonts and now KDE can use them.
>
> They looked just as ugly for me.
So now you're the great art critic, huh?
Colin Day
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
