Linux-Advocacy Digest #233, Volume #27 Wed, 21 Jun 00 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Ed Reppert)
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Ed Reppert)
Re: Boring ("Brian E Boothe")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (Joe Ragosta)
Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about. (Ed Reppert)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Windows98 ("James")
Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager (Jeff Szarka)
Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Jeff Szarka)
Re: The MEDIA this year! (Jeff Szarka)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("John W. Stevens")
Re: W2K BSOD's documented *not* to be hardware (Was: lack of goals. ("Hoobajoob")
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes (JEDIDIAH)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:03:03 -0600
Tiberious wrote:
>
> So I post a true account of an installation of some hardware and
> software, and how it is so superior under Windows than under Linux, if
> it can even be done under Linux and this is the result:
>
> 1. The hardware is called crap. Hmmm that's an interesting comment from
> a group of people that seem to like to extoll the virtues of running
> linux on 486 machines.
486 Machines are not, by definition, crap.
They're just slow.
> The hardware works fine under Windows and none of
> it is Win* hardware.
You're wrong. You did indeed buy Windows hardware.
Even in this posting, you admit that there is hardware that Windows will
not support.
> 2.I'm called an idiot for not knowing how to manipulate files and data
> types.
Of course. Installation is an administrators job. An administrator
must have a bare minimum amount of training. Anybody who attempts to do
a job that they are not properly trained for, is responsbile for the
outcome.
> Sure...... Maybe Linux users have to do that
User does not equal Administrator.
> but under Windows
> point and click and it works.
Under Linux, point and click works to.
> Fax from your scanner program, links added
> to menues, just general ease of use. No searching around to convert some
> file to the correct format needed.
Linux is not a faxing or scanning program. I thought you were talking
about Windows vs. Linux, not application A vs. application B . . . ?
As for adding "links" to menus, I assume that that isn't what you
actually mean.
Adding new entries to menus, however, is trivial under WindowMaker.
Double Click on WPrefs, click on "Edit the menu", then add or delete to
your hearts content.
And no, no "searching" or "converting" is neccessary.
> 3. Semantic games are played on the word superior.
On both sides. "Point and Click" is not "superior" to the CLI.
It's just different.
> Well in this case it
> works great under Windows, and in fact I can walk into any computer
> supermarket chain store and pick up virtually ANY piece of hardware or
> software and assuming it is not for Mac, or one of the 10 odd pieces of
> Linux garbage they actually stock, it will work under Windows.
Wrong. The huge number of Windows hardware horror stories prove that
you are exaggerating greatly.
Talk to any systems integrator, and they, too, will admit that you have
to be relatively careful about what hardware you stick in the box, if
you want a working result.
> This same result would have been obtained with just about any
> combination of hardware and software purchased from the local Compusa.
No, it wouldn't. I had to fix far to many of my friends systems to
believe that.
> So the conclusion is that Linux is in trouble. It can't configure and
> setup even the most simple form of off the shelf hardware and software.
>
> Tell me, what do you have to compare to Winfax?
mgetty+sendfax
I've used it. I love it. It is *FAR* *FAR* *FAR superior to any
Windows faxing system I've ever seen on a home Windows machine.
> Sane?
You don't know what you are talking about, do you? SANE has nothing to
do with faxing.
> You're kidding right?
You're the one who wrote it . . . so you're the one who made himself
look ignorant or duplicitous.
> Try the 2 side by side, current versions that is,
No thanks. I don't want to take giant step backwards, nor do I want to
have to replace any of my hardware.
> Sorry but Linux loses yet again.
If Linux chased you away, it didn't loose . . .
> I'll be happy to walk into Staples or BestBuy or comp usa with a Linonut
> any day and have them pick out their hardware (SCSI scanners or PS
> printers $$$$, excepting the retired and now obsolete Lexmark Optra) and
> include software. Install all on Win systems and Linux systems and have
> independent 3rd party people test them and see which one costs less
> overall and which one has more features and is superior and which one is
> easier to install.
Of course, you're not serious, but I volunteer for this . . .
> I can pick out my selections blindfolded.......
. . . and you will get what you deserve (intermittent bugs, crashes,
poor network and modem performance, weird interference problems, popping
or cracking sounds in your audio, etc. etc. etc.)
> Linux WILL LOSE EVERY TIME
No it won't. With an installed base more than three times the size of
the MacOS, Linux is well on its way to being a major force in the
computer industry.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:17:48 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:40:31 -0600, John W. Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
>>
>> Which one?
>>
>> The task scheduler in something like Version 7 is completely different
>> from the one in Solaris, which is completely different from the one in
>> QNX.
>
>Old tech . . . modern Unices have much more powerful (and, of course,
>much more complicated) scheduling systems.
>
>> A more interesting exercise would be for YOU to explain the VMS
>> scheduler, which is much more complex (it has THREE types of jobs:
>> real-time, batch, and interactive),
>
>Somewhat similiar to what HPUX supports.
>
>> and actually takes into account which
>> resources are available and schedules processes accordingly.
>
>*EVERY* operating system does this! (For God's sake, no OS will
>schedule a process to run when it is sleeping on a resource!)
Neither DOS and windoze 3.1 do, although the argument could be made that
neither is an OS.
------------------------------
From: Ed Reppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:16:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Palmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> See? Even UNIX users are confuesed by UNIX. This is the VI "shlel",
> which is reely an edditer
> but you still half to type commands just like a shell.
Yo, Tim! If you're so set on the idea of a GUI based single-user
computer, get a Mac!
And while you're at it, learn to spell. Or at least use a spell checker.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:15:42 -0400
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
>KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
Call it whatever you want... it's still a pathetic clone of the
Windows 9x style UI that's ugly and slow.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:14:09 -0600
John Bode wrote:
>
>
> Which is Linux's biggest weakness as far as conquering the desktop is
> concerned. Don't get me wrong, I've worked in a Unix environment for
> most of my career, and we've installed Linux on a box at home, and it's
> fun to have and play around with. But for a *large* portion of the
> consumer market, it will require more time to learn than people are
> willing to commit. Is it worth spending all that time if all you want
> to do is play games, surf the 'net, and write the occasional newsletter?
For the *USER*, Linux takes no more time to learn than Windows does.
Administration, of course, is a different bag of bolts.
The problem with most Linux/Windows comparisons, is that they are Apples
vs. Basketball kinds of comparisons, in that the Linux newbie equates
the process of installing Linux for the first time with that of simply
buying his pre-packaged, pre-installed, pre-configured Windows system.
Nerts!
> Also, the desktop market is going to undergo a sea change in the next
> few years. Internet appliances are becoming more common, and platforms
> like the PS2 will combine bitchin' games with network access.
Yep. The iMac rang the bell: info-applicances are what the vast
majority of people will soon be using.
> The
> desktop machine as we know and love it today may not be so common in the
> next few years. Desktop OSes may become irrelevant altogether.
>
> Or not.
'Course, Linux is not limited to the desktop. . .
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:20:16 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Yes, something like that. Except everyday people can set it up, use
> it, and work with it.
Oh, you mean . . . X! Ok.
> What other security is there besides XHost +hostname for limiting who
> can redirect your X server or plug into your X server?
There are three direct authentication systems: xhost, cookies, and
Kerberos.
Indirect protection could be developed through the use of a VPN, or for
those on a budget, SSL.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:23:52 -0600
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>> You mean like Unix has been doing with X since the 80's?
> >>
> >>Yes, something like that. Except everyday people can set it up, use
> >>it, and work with it.
> >
> > X has been that way for quite a while. The relevant parts of
> > the interface are all the same and rather derived from the
> > Apple original.
>
> X is just a protocol. Do you mean motif?
He means:
"What I see when I look at the screen attached to a Unix box."
That's what most Windows users mean when they say X ('cause some Unix
type said it, when asked how Unix suddenly aquired the pretty bit maps).
Most never realize that that program in the upper left hand corner of
the screen is actually running on the big server in the cage . . . it's
only displaying here.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Ed Reppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:25:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> and it's like Windows 1.0 <snicker>
Commodore, Fleet Training Group, San Diego: I understand you know how to
spell 'computer'.
Me, as a young LCDR on his staff: Er, yes, sir, I do.
Commodore: We have thirty of them. Figure out what to do with them.
Me, a bit later, to the chief who was showing me what we had: Chief, why
aren't all these boxes labelled "Windows 1.0" with the machines instead
of here in the closet?
Chief: Have you ever _seen_ Windows 1.0?
Me: No.
Chief: I have it installed on this one machine. Take a look.
Me: Oh! Now I understand.
Me, about a year later, to the VP for Federal Marketing of the Zenith
Corporation, which had bundled Windows 1.0 with the hardware they sold
the Navy (and the Air Force, and the Marines - it was a _big_
contract.): We got Windows 1.0 bundled with all the computers we bought,
but we never installed it.
VP: Yeah, I suppose I should apologize to the DoD for having included
that in the contract.
:-)
------------------------------
From: "Brian E Boothe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Boring
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:21:42 -0500
uhhh DUD YUK YUK i gotta a DVD plyer im high in tech PC NOW
i listin to there those MP3 FILES!! < freaking country bumbkin>
who the fuck would put a DVD player in there PC when i gotta 52"
wide screen for MOVIES!!!
and this damn wasting bandwidth shit is getting on my nerves
bucha kids bitching cause they cant get there little MP3's boo hoo
go back to the 70's and goto bbs land and kick down to 300 baud
then come back and then try to bitch!!!!!
------------------------------
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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:29:56 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:29:45 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Barry Thomas wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Sorry, but I'm sick of this kind of meaningless drivel.
> >> >
> >> > Tell me, what point is there in naming your volumes the *same*???
> >>
> >> Who said anything about *YOU* doing this?
> >>
> >> What, is it impossible for anybody else in the world to name one of
> >> their volumes the same as you've named one of yours?
> >>
> >> What happens when the two of you have to work together?
> >
> >On a Mac, the same thing as happens when your hard drives have different
> >names. No problems at all.
> >
> >What's so difficult about this?
>
> This rather implies that MacOS is not infact using the volume
> name as a unique identifier and that infact MacOS works much
> more like Unix or DOS in terms of filesystems an you are merely
> persuming the toplevel interface is how the underlying system
> works.
I don't know.
>From a user's perspective, it means that I can name my drives nearly
anything I want to name them and _it just works_.
------------------------------
From: Ed Reppert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 10 Linux "features" nobody cares about.
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:29:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 10. It's been ported to 16,000 different hardware plattforms that
> > alreaddy shipped with UNIX
> > to beagen with.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about.
Don't worry about it. Neither does he. :-)
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:27:59 -0600
Woofbert wrote:
>
>
> Well, it depends on what you're doing. If you're talking to a big
> corporate database, then you need a big corporate mainframe. If you're
> developing software, multimedia, or print; or pushing words and numbers
> around, then you need a desktop Linux box or a Mac.
. . . PLUS the big corporate mainframe. Been there, done that. The Mac
and Windows boxen were semi-intelligent terminals that eventually dumped
all of their data on the big Unix server, which then ran the big,
combined job to put all the little pieces together.
> If you need to
> employ a bunch of help-desk people, then you needd to get everyone
> Windows boxes.
Strange . . . I wrote a help desk system than ran on Unix. No Windows
neccessary.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:33:25 +0200
See my post above. Most importantly :
a) Improved hardware detection, configuration, support & management (not
just a desktop function).
b) Improved desktop design, consistency, presentation (eg fonts,
appearance).
c) Improvements to X (speed, presentation, etc).
James
"Tim Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James wrote:
> >
> > David,
> >
> > Even though Win98 is a much more usable desktop in many respects
(including
> > games) than Linux it is, agreeably, highly unreliable. Therefore your
post
> > in this NG will have no credibility, even though it deserves some. In
the
> > company I work for we run Win95 on most desktops (some 20000+) and of
course
> > experience the usual problems - mostly users corrupting their own
systems.
> > The company will in the next 2-3 years upgrade all desktops and backends
> > (from Novell & GroupWise) to W2k. Linux, with its limited and crude
desktop
> > apps, its complicated man-machine interface (for average users), is
simply
> > not an option.
>
> If all the apps you need are available in linux than linux is a
> far better choice than any version of windows. The problem is
> application availability. The UI available for linux are far
> better than windows and give the administrator a greater amount
> of control.
>
> The wintrolls keep repeating this lie that windows "has a better
> desktop" even though it is blatantly false ... when you press
> them then you see what the problem always was: linux doesn't
> have this program, doesn't run this game ... this has nothing to
> do with windows being a "better desktop".
>
> What features does the windows GUI have that you would like to
> see in, say, KDE?
>
> > Linux is for tinkering. W2k is for work.
>
> Oh bullshit
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Stupid idiots that think KDE is a Window Manager
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:31:19 -0400
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 02:07:00 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
>
>KDE is _NOT_ a window manager.
Another thing pops to my mind as soon as I hit send on my last
message... Notice how there is no argument that KDE (whatever the fuck
it is) is a pathetic Windows 9x style UI clone that is ugly and slow.
You should really write a flame e-mail to whoever writes the
installers for Linux distro's since many call KDE a window manager.
It's the Linux way...
Flame first, think latter. Anyone up for some Mindcraft quotes? Those
are my favorite. The "cum guzzling queen" one still makes me laugh.
Linux. I'm really starting to value it. It's just such a joke to
everyone but Linux users. It's not a bad product at all but when you
start TELLING users they will use it and love it and push it on the
markets where it belongs least it will fail. It's the same exact
problem MS had with Win CE.
Linux... Who do you want to flame today?
I think I like the Microsoft solgan better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 21 Jun 2000 20:36:15 GMT
In article <8iqb5m$m27$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8iq176$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>RMS is a pretty good example of a fluff-headed stalinist
>You're claiming Stallman doesn't believe in democracy?
>That seems unlikely. Would you please give a reference?
Since there's been no proof given for this assertion, I did
a www.google.com search for `richard stallman communist', and
found two pages in which RMS states his political views.
Here are some excerpts:
An interview with Richard Stallman
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworldtoday/lwt-indepth7.html
...
LinuxWorld Today: I've heard you described as a socialist,
or a communist. Do politics enter into the Free Software
Foundation?
Richard Stallman: Politics do, but I'm not a socialist or
a communist.
LinuxWorld Today: How would you describe yourself?
Richard Stallman: Well, I guess I am a sort of combination
between a liberal and a leftist anarchist. I like to see
people working together, voluntarily, to solve the world's
problems. But, if we can't do that, I think we should get
the government involved to solve them.
The idea of democracy is that it enables the citizens in
general to put a check on the power of the richest, and
these days in America we are failing to use that tool,
which of course, leads to a harsh life for most people.
...
Anyway, the people who call me a communist are engaging in
Red-baiting. It's a standard thing. If anybody criticizes
something about what business is doing, at the present,
they get called a communist.
When people said, "Don't pour poison in the river," they
were called communists. But they didn't want to abolish
business. They wanted to abolish pouring poison into the
river. The free software movement is a lot like that. It's
a lot like the environmental movement because the goal is
not to abolish business, the goal is to end a certain kind
of pollution. But in this case, it's not pollution of the
air or the water, it's pollution of our social relationships.
When somebody says, here is this nice thing that you will
enjoy using but if you share it with your neighbor we'll
call you a pirate and put you in jail, they are polluting
society's most important resource, which is goodwill, the
willingness to cooperate with other people.
LinuxWorld Today: If I understand what you have said and
written previously, that was the impetus for you.
Richard Stallman: Yes, that is the reason why I decided to
dedicate my efforts to free software. To change an ugly
system. And I don't mean a computer system. I mean a
social system.
...
Free Software, Anyone? - Eat the State! (June 24, 1998)
http://www.eatthestate.org/02-41/FreeSoftwareAnyone.htm
...
From: Richard Stallman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Article about free software
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 1998 12:27 PM
I was happy to see your article about the free software
movement, but I'd like to correct a few details.
...
>Needless to say, RMS often is accused of being a communist
>(possibly true)
I'm used to occasional accusations of being a Communist,
but usually this is done by people who would rather argue
against Communism than against my actual views. But it's a
new experience to see someone who means me well by it.
It isn't accurate, though. I work on free software to give
software users freedom, which is nothing at all like Commun-
ism. I've been partly influenced by leftist Anarchism, by
the idea of a world in which people voluntarily arrange to
work together for the general good, but not at all by
Communism.
The best way to understand and explain my views is to com-
pare them with the environmental movement and the consumer
movement. They too aim to stop certain specific business
practices on the grounds that they hurt the public. When
proprietary software prohibits people from working together
and cooperating voluntarily, that pollutes the good will at
the root of society. I want to stop this kind of pollution.
--
Links To Reality
http://www.aliveness.com/msb.html
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:37:33 -0400
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:14:24 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>How about some sources?
www.newshub.com is a good site. A search for Linux leaves me with:
Corel Reports Loss Consistent With Warning Tech Investor 7:19am
Linux Bulks Up For High End Tech Investor 6:32am
Red Hat Loss Lower Than Expected Yahoo Business Summary 3:59pm
6/15/2000
Corel Needs More Cuts to Stay Afloat Yahoo Business Summary 11:20am
6/9/2000
TurboLinux to name new CEO amid layoffs News.com - Business 6:24pm
6/1/2000
TurboLinux layoffs another sign of cooling market FOX News 12:18pm
6/1/2000
The Microsoft Decision: Linux Community Exults Over Microsoft's Wet
Blanket Yahoo Finance Mac 5:45pm 6/7/2000
Corel Awash in Red Ink PC World 6:33am
Not to say there were not positive stories. There were a number of
them. The point is... the media is treating Linux like a back office
OS run by a bunch of Microsoft haters that is barely staying afloat in
the market.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The MEDIA this year!
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:40:07 -0400
On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 18:54:07 -0700, Salvador Peralta
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>*sigh* Here's some links...
They're all from one publication... I wouldn't exactly call that "THE"
media.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:36:42 -0600
Roger wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 13:19:52 GMT, someone claiming to be Joe Ragosta
> wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> Nor is your lack of ability to support your claim mine. I say again:
> plenty of studies vs. 3.x
>
> None vs. 9x
>
> Please feel free to post an URL which proves me wrong.
I've seen his "studies". As discussed at the time, those "studies" had
questionable methodology, did not in fact "study" TCO (the T, Joe,
stands for Total), and did not prove what he claims they proved.
'Course, this is a no-win argument, since evolution has proven Windows
to be superior to the Mac! ;->
> How nice of you to inform me of my own opinions. BTW, how do I feel
> on gun control?
Let me *guess* . . . no CSMA regular should ever be allowed to carry a
gun in your presence?
;->
No?
;->
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Hoobajoob" <[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: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 16:49:55 -0400
> I know that in the case of a missing DLL, Windows 98 will tell
> you that your program (or one of its components) is missing,
> and might give you the name of the missing DLLs before the
> Fatal Exception Error occurs. Win2K can't be much different,
> unless it automatically knows how to generate the missing DLLs.
It asks for the Windows 2000 CD. Then the problem goes away.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:45:23 GMT
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 20:29:56 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:29:45 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Barry Thomas wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Sorry, but I'm sick of this kind of meaningless drivel.
>> >> >
>> >> > Tell me, what point is there in naming your volumes the *same*???
>> >>
>> >> Who said anything about *YOU* doing this?
>> >>
>> >> What, is it impossible for anybody else in the world to name one of
>> >> their volumes the same as you've named one of yours?
>> >>
>> >> What happens when the two of you have to work together?
>> >
>> >On a Mac, the same thing as happens when your hard drives have different
>> >names. No problems at all.
>> >
>> >What's so difficult about this?
>>
>> This rather implies that MacOS is not infact using the volume
>> name as a unique identifier and that infact MacOS works much
>> more like Unix or DOS in terms of filesystems an you are merely
>> persuming the toplevel interface is how the underlying system
>> works.
>
>
>I don't know.
>
>From a user's perspective, it means that I can name my drives nearly
>anything I want to name them and _it just works_.
We don't even have to bother naming them...
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
