Linux-Advocacy Digest #185, Volume #27 Mon, 19 Jun 00 11:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Number of Linux Users ("S Car")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows98 (Tim Kelley)
Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day (EdWIN)
Re: democracy? (Kari Pahula)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Craig Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Craig Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Craig Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Craig Kelley)
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Darren Winsper)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Joe Ragosta)
RE: Windows98 ("David Cancio")
RE: Boring ("David Cancio")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 12:59:01 GMT
RedHat 6.2. Installation wasn't the problem. Configuration was. I'm
setting up a webmall-type setup, so I was trying to figure out just how
to setup virtual hosts and secure them with SSL. Plus, I don't really
know that much about web servers in general, so a lot of the other stuff
took some getting used to also. (What does Options Indexes MultiViews,
etc, etc mean for example?)
I assume by BugHat, you're referring to RedHat. While the Linuxconf
DOES come with a page for Apache configuration, it doesn't work when you
go with Apache SSL. Don't know why exactly, but whenever I tried to
change something via Linuxconf, it would screw up the config file and
I'd get a bunch of syntax errors whenever I tried to start the server.
Eventually decided that the Linuxconf apache page was just plain broke,
and started working on it with a text editor instead.
And I agree. A lot of the stuff is very well documented and easy to
understand, but only the general networking type stuff. When I start
getting into that "Add Handler/Add Module" section(s) I start to get
lost.
> I'm not sure about his distro, but setting up Apache on Bughat
> should have been simply a matter of installing the distribution.
> Also, Bughat comes with a nice enough gui configurator for apache.
>
> Although, I'm still not entirely sure what someone would find
> difficult about a well documented configuration file. This is
> not exactly a Windows style INI file we're talking about.
>
> # Port: The port the standalone listens to. For ports < 1023, you will
> # need httpd to be run as root initially.
>
> Port 80
>
> # HostnameLookups: Log the names of clients or just their IP numbers
> # e.g. www.apache.org (on) or 204.62.129.132 (off)
> # The default is off because it'd be overall better for the net if
people
> # had to knowingly turn this feature on.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:19:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger
<roger@.> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 18:47:17 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
> wrote:
>
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roger
> ><roger@.> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 02:40:38 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such
> >> >> > dramatically
> >> >> > higher productivity level?
>
> >> >> I don't even try to. Then again I never experienced first hand a
> >> >> _dramatically_ higher productivity level.
>
> >> >Perhaps you haven't. But every published study says it's real. Too
> >> >bad
> >> >your little theory isn't consistent with that fact.
>
> >> And too bad Joe neglects to mention that none of these studies
> >> compares Mac OS with a * current * version of Windows.
> >>
> >> Wonder why that is?
>
> >Probably because the people who do the studies gave up.
> >
> >They did mountains of studies when Win3.1 was current. Same result. The
> >press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
> >
> >They did mountains of studies when Win95 was current. Same result. The
> >press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
>
> So, then you can point us all to, let's say, a dozen of these studies
> specifically comparing the 9x interface? Why did you not post
> pointers on your website? All I ever saw there was 3x...
They were there. I pointed them out many, many times.
Your inability to read isn't my problem.
I turned the site over to a csma regular and he'll be reposting it some
day (soon, I hope).
>
> >They did mountains of studies when WinNT 4.0 was current. Same result.
> >The press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
>
> Ditto -- a dozen here.
Yep. you chose to ignore all the studies then, so why should they print
new ones?
And why a dozen studies? You have no evidence, so even a single one
should be sufficient.
>
> >They apparently got tired of casting pearls before swine.
> >
> >But I notice that you STILL haven't provided a single study from any
> >time frame that supports your position.
>
> Of course, since I've not stated a position, this can hardly be
> considered extraordinary...
Your position is that Macs don't have better TCO--in spite of mountains
of evidence. Where's yours?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:05:15 GMT
I disagree. Centralized processing is a waste. You need to get a
monstrously powerful central server if you're going to be splitting up
the CPU horsepower between many people. It's easier and cheaper to just
let people have computers on the desktop. This is why mainframes failed
for the mostpart. They were big, hard to administer, ridiculously
expensive, and still too underpowered to do what was being asked. Now
we've got PC's that are steadily creeping toward 4-digit Mhz ratings,
there's no need for centralized processing anymore.
> >
> >I see the future as thin clients using technology like Microsoft
> >Terminal Server. With a fast network (100BT, but soon gigabit
> >ethernet will be affordable) it becomes more and more difficult, for
>
> You mean like Unix has been doing with X since the 80's?
>
> [deletia]
> --
> If you know what you want done, it is quite often more useful
to
> tell the machine what you want it to do rather than merely
having
> the machine tell you what you are allowed to do.
> |||
> / | \
>
> Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "S Car" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 09:23:35 -0400
"WhyteWolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8ieb1u$a86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8idh7h$dha$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Davorin Mestric wrote:
> >
> >"WhyteWolf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> well that depends on how far you look ...
> >> NT had a 70% market share in 1997, that droped to 35% in 1999.
> >
> >i don't think this 70% number is correct. where did you get this from?
>
> From a magazine ... I don't really remeber which one ... either PC World
> or Linux Journal
> basicaly the quote was about how people were buying NT boxes
> by the mass because back then due to unstablity {I think
> SP3 wasn't out yet} and clusstering
>
I think the 70% you're referring to is on sales $$$ not on actual installed
base.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:15:14 GMT
Says who? You? Don't go making claims like this without having proof,
or at least a credible source to quote. Otherwise it's just hot air.
>
> Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such dramatically
> higher productivity level?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:20:03 GMT
Yeah! And we all know what a credible resource "they" is... "They" is
beyond reproach.
>
> Probably because the people who do the studies gave up.
>
> They did mountains of studies when Win3.1 was current. Same result.
The
> press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
>
> They did mountains of studies when Win95 was current. Same result. The
> press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored them).
>
> They did mountains of studies when WinNT 4.0 was current. Same result.
> The press and IS people around (not to mention Wintrolls) ignored
them).
>
> They apparently got tired of casting pearls before swine.
>
> But I notice that you STILL haven't provided a single study from any
> time frame that supports your position.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:23:28 GMT
And the Mac OS is cheaper to support? I'll tell you this: I don't have
to pay $75 for a damn printer cable...
> and since businesses are stupid, and don't mind losing money, they
keep
> using the darn OS anyway.
>
Nonsense. It's all in what you're familiar with.
> Moreover, The same operation are made in a totally intuitive and
superior
> way in the MacOS, even if they seem equivalent on both MacOS or
Windows
> [clicking on icons and menus] they are not, not by a long shot,
thereby
> dramatically improving their productivity.
>
> Ok, I'm tired, I'm going to bed.
>
> Paul 'Z' Ewande
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 08:42:16 -0500
David Cancio wrote:
> Why can't I use my hardware (Windows 98 targeted most of it) at full power ?
> Yeah, I know GNU/Linux does support most of the hardware, but a lot of
> vendors add nice features that are only available with Windows 98 drivers.
Your post really sounds like a thinly veiled troll.
Well, the first thing you don't mention while you're talking
about windows 98 being able to "drive your hardware at full
power" (whoa) is that WINDOWS DOESN'T FUCKING WORK.
How many times do you need to reinstall the piece of shit before
you realize that not everyone LIKES spending hours upon hours of
their time reinstalling software, being forced to look at ads,
constantly being asked stupid questions by the os, and having my
personal information sent out over the internet by half a dozen
crapware programs? I don't use windows for the same reasons I
don't spend all my time with with car salesmen, or stick my face
in a toilet. I find it very unpleasant.
In other words, using linux and windows are such entirely
different experiences that I can't even see why one would even be
tempted to ask this question. I would ask: If you've invested
the time and effort to learn linux / unix then why in hell would
you use windows?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Why We Should Be Nice To Windows Users -was- Neologism of the day
From: EdWIN <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,talk.bizarre
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 06:58:11 -0700
Hey Godzilla, where were you when Kong was here? Why is there
never a giant, monsterous, fire-breathing lizard around when you
need one?
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Kari Pahula <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: democracy?
Date: 19 Jun 2000 14:14:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc mmnnoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The US is very democratic. If a clear majority of people
>agreed on an issue there isn't a official or corporation that could
>stop them from making it law. There are limits to what commercials
>can convince people to do, and to want.
A majority agrees on an issue and does what? Elects a representative.
That's no democracy, that's elect-a-king! Even the most honest and
righteous get corrupted by the lack of accountability. Elections
every few years are a way too weak guarantee for their good behavior.
The SIGs will have plenty of time to do their magic, serving SIGs is
also the best way to get enough visibility to get elected.
Any such decisionmaking is also on a ridiculously high level. With so
many people, who cares if a few people get ignored.
Yes, there is a limit to commercials' efficiency, but it is nonzero,
or nobody would even bother to try them. Don't underestimate their
effect, either. People can make rational choices based only on the
information they have, they are not omniscient. Commercials aren't
the only thing which matters, either, if the "official" newssources
all agree on an issue.
>Your kind of comment always comes from somebody upset because they
>can't get their personal agenda put into law.
Rather, they want to have no laws or other people to meddle with their
lives. Laws are something you want always to have other people to
live with, "you" never need laws yourself to tell you how to live. I
would call it a paradox.
I wouldn't myself want to get involved in the elections game, I have
no intention to pretend to know what's good for others, I can only
speak for myself.
>groups' block 'progress.' But really it is the activists own failure
>to convince other citizens just like themselves that they are right.
With what money will the poor try to convince other citizens?
>Sure it's frustrating that other people don't want what you do, but
>it beats the alternative of accepting a dictator in hopes of getting
>one that agrees with you.
Uh, that's exactly what you do currently. That's what being a
representative is all about.
>It is so easy to get along very well in the US. Just get up each
>morning, do a job competently, and you will be basically fine. You
As long as you don't mind to be pushed around by your boss...
>can get by with little or no initiative. Or you can do more and get
>more.
But some people have much more capacity to do more, it's not merely up
to how much a person wants change.
>The whiners never clearly articulate their vision, only that they don't
>like this and they don't like that. Of course they cannot point to
>an actual example of a role model state. How could they ever be so
>negative if they read about what life was like in the past. Just like
>the hippies, hating society yet surviving as parasites on its back
>all the while.
Decide on policy on local level, with direct democracy. Vote and have
a rough consensus; without consensus people have no longer a reason to
play along, and you end up with a tyranny of the majority. Appoint
delegates for large scale matters, mandate dictated by the local
community. Any conclusions of the delegates' negotations on
above-community level are only advisory, local communities decide on
how to implement them.
Don't bother to blaim people for their dependency on a system, they
seldom have a choice. They have every right to want it to change and
hate it, even if they need it currently. I would rather call the real
beneficiaries of the system parasites, the ones which absolutely love
it.
>Yes there are horrible problems but you are throwing out the baby with
>the bath water. It is not all bad.
Umm, I'll go back to code, I thought this NG was about linux...
Followups set to c.o.l.a only.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:48:28 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
tinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.....
Isn't part of that - in Windows - because of seeing the BIOS in the
drives on bootup.
Depending on configuration, and if I turn the scan for BIOS off on
certain drives, I will get a ZIP drive to look like a hard drive,
and can and have booted from it.
When the ZIP is seen as the first device in the scan it comes up
as the 80 device and is assigend drive letter C:
In the Win world you can also set both the ZIP and the JAZ to be
non-removeable. I got my first ZIP early on when there was a 2 to 3
month wait. Setting the devices as non-removeable is neccesary is
you wish to install certain MS compononents on them. However I spend
90% of my time in the *IX and networking arena.
--
Bill Vermillion bv @ wjv.com
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jun 2000 08:27:56 -0600
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > "Sam Morris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:ABJ25.3969$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > My real question is why do we Windows users have to put up with the
> old,
> > > > outdated, kludgey and quite honestly crap system of identifying
> volumes by
> > > > drive letter that Windows STILL uses? Legacy apps be damned, the
> longer
> > > it's
> > > > left the way it is, the harder it will be to switch to a vaguely more
> > > modern
> > > > system.
> > >
> > > Because when you move up to NT or Win2k and can set the drive letters
> > > yourself, it becomes just like the Mac system, albeit with only one
> letter
> > > volume names.
> >
> > I dare you to change the drive that your system root resides on to a
> > different letter.
>
> What do I win if it works ? :D
Don't worry. It won't. I've tried it. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jun 2000 08:33:11 -0600
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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?
Yes. The first one could be an HPFS filesystem, and the second one a
VFAT32 (Windows 98) filesystem.
> Also, are there
> multiple devices within a Zip drive, or does it use just one device?
Not unless you want there to be (ie, loopback). Anything can be a
device, and many devices can be combined into a single, logical
device.
You can even create a file, and mount that file as a device -- this is
very common for CD ISO-9660 image files:
/mnt/db2/redhat/6.2/iso/redhat-6.2-srpms.iso
580122 580122 0 100% /mnt/db2/redhat/6.2/SRPMS
/mnt/db2/redhat/6.2/iso/redhat-6.2-doc.iso
594576 594576 0 100% /mnt/db2/redhat/6.2/doc
In this case, our local server allows the user to download the ISO
image of the RedHat 6.2 sources or documentation, and it also mounts
those images itself so that one could download a specific file from
within the image.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jun 2000 08:34:44 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) writes:
> 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.....
There is no difference.
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 19 Jun 2000 08:37:57 -0600
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So you can partition a floppy disk under MacOS ?
You can under Linux:
Command (m for help): p
Disk /dev/fd0: 2 heads, 18 sectors, 80 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 36 * 512 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/fd0p1 1 40 711 b Win95 FAT32
/dev/fd0p2 41 80 720 83 Linux
Not that you'd ever want to. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Darren Winsper)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 19 Jun 2000 14:43:27 GMT
On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 21:07:06 -0400, tinman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
> Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Huh?
> >
> > Last time I checked, the Zip was a removable media device, too.
>
> So's a floppy....
That would make the Jaz a floppy too. Still, it doesn't bother me, I
can partition my Zip disks to my heart's content under Linux.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano) - ICQ #8899775
Stellar Legacy project member - http://www.stellarlegacy.tsx.org
DVD boycotts. Are you doing your bit?
This message was typed before a live studio audience.
------------------------------
From: Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:43:34 GMT
In article <8il6cp$gg7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Says who? You? Don't go making claims like this without having proof,
> or at least a credible source to quote. Otherwise it's just hot air.
>
> >
> > Then how do you explain the fact that Mac users have such dramatically
> > higher productivity level?
>
>
I've been providing highly credible, independent third party sources for
at least 5 years.
But I see _you_ haven't provided any evidence to support your
position......
------------------------------
From: "David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Windows98
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:33:13 GMT
> Your post really sounds like a thinly veiled troll.
May be your opinion.
> Well, the first thing you don't mention while you're talking
> about windows 98 being able to "drive your hardware at full
> power" (whoa) is that WINDOWS DOESN'T FUCKING WORK.
Obviously you are wrong. It does work. It fails a lot of times, but
indeed
it does work, and given that you're as a unbrainned zealot, let me say to
you
that it even does (when it does not fail) some things better and faster than
any GNU/Linux available equivalent.
> How many times do you need to reinstall the piece of shit before
> you realize that not everyone LIKES spending hours upon hours of
> their time reinstalling software
Oh ! Do not discover America, I know I have to reinstall it, anyway, you
can do it less often if you take care. Anyway, I did not say it had not to
be reinstalled.
> being forced to look at ads,
> constantly being asked stupid questions by the os
No comments. I do not even know which ads or stupid question you do
refer to. May be Microsoft logo ? Tell me a distro that does not put its
logo on the system (to my knowledge, SuSE, Mandrake or Redhat do, and
so does Debian). Stupid questions ? Such as ?
> and having my
> personal information sent out over the internet by half a dozen
> crapware programs?
That is not a OS matter. That is programs one. Anyway, if you can't avoid
it
then you are not a too advanced GNU/Linux user ...
> I don't use windows for the same reasons I
> don't spend all my time with with car salesmen, or stick my face
> in a toilet. I find it very unpleasant.
I did not say I enjoy, just that for most home users, good or bad, it is
what
exists today. Don't you agree ?
> In other words, using linux and windows are such entirely
> different experiences that I can't even see why one would even be
> tempted to ask this question.
Never say they are equal experiences.
> I would ask: If you've invested
> the time and effort to learn linux / unix then why in hell would
> you use windows?
Let's say time, because the effort for me is not too big. If you've
invested
the time to read my post, you should have got it. Most home users would
feel limited today if they used GNU/Linux as their only desktop OS.
------------------------------
From: "David Cancio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: RE: Boring
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000 14:38:32 GMT
> > No surround sound.
> I have that.
Easy to set up ?
> > No coppy-protected DVD.
> I have that.
Easy to set up ? Non beta software ? (or even alpha)
> > No SBLive support.
> I have that.
It was time :)
> > Limmited video support
> I have several ways to watch a video, dozens and dozens...
Yeah, but no one as quick as in Windows ... be honest.
> > It cant evan play DVDs. You call that the _future_?
> Yes you can. I am.
UDF support is not final version. Not to talk about DVD players.
Why the Hell can't one advocate trying to be honest at the same time ?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
