Linux-Advocacy Digest #251, Volume #27 Thu, 22 Jun 00 10:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Linux Usage Surveys (was: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't
accept the future. (Mark S. Bilk)
Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ? (2:1)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Kevin Croxen)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (J Bland)
Re: What UNIX is good for. ("Jonathan Fosburgh")
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: An Example of how not to benchmark ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is awesome! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows98 (2:1)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform (Neil Cerutti)
Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future. (The
Ghost In The Machine)
X can't be that slow (2:1)
Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (aflinsch)
Re: Wintrolls in panic! (Charles Philip Chan)
Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ??? (Michael
=?iso-8859-1?Q?Str=F6der?=)
Re: Number of Linux Users (abraxas)
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
(Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Linux, easy to use? (abraxas)
Re: What UNIX is good for. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux Usage Surveys (was: High School is out...here come the trolls...who
can't accept the future.
Date: 22 Jun 2000 12:31:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark S. Bilk) wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>As long as .3 percent of total market share is what you are looking
>>>for, I would say you are right on track.
>>In the business world, Linux market share is probably 30% --
>>one hundred times the .3% figure repeatedly posted by our
>>resident liar, Steve/Mike/Simon
>30 PERCENT!!!! ???
>What kind of drugs are you on? You'd be hard pressed to find a single
>secratary in NYC that is running Linux on her desktop.
>>http://www.infotechtrends.com/freedemo.htm
>>
>> 99Q2 - Percent of Web servers using each operating system.
>>
>> Windows NT 26%
>> Linux 21%
>> Solaris 16%
>> BSDI 11%
>> SGI (IRIX) 9%
>> Free BSD 8%
>>
>> JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE
>> VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 58 Netcraft/
>> *GENERATION LINUX - NIPPING NT's HEELS
>> 99Q2 - Percent of information technology managers using
>> or planning to use Linux as a general purpose desktop
>> or workstation operating system. ^^^^^^^
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Currently Use 10% <<<
>> Use Within 12 Months 20% <<<
>> No Plans 68%
>> Don't Know 1%
>>
>> JOURNAL/SOURCE/TITLE DATE PAGE
>> VARBUSINESS/ 12-Apr-99 54 InformationWeek/
>> *GENERATION LINUX - NEXT STOP: DESKTOP
>>
>>One year ago, when KDE and Gnome, along with hardware and
>>installation support, were much less developed than they
>>are now, Linux was already in use on the desktop/workstation
>>computers of 10% of all businesses. The figure may now
>>be 30%, if the managers planning to switch to Linux have
>>followed through.
>TOTAL MARKET SHARE STILL STINKS!!!
>Web servers are but a small portion of users out there.
The second survey was for desktop/workstation usage, not
web servers.
>http://websnapshot.mycomputer.com/systemos.html
This website gives data on the percentage of web *hits* that
supposedly come from computers using various operating sys-
tems, and gives a figure of 0.3% for Linux.
But do all web browsers accurately specify the OS they're
running under? Does Websnapshot count all Netscape hits
where the OS is not specified as coming from MS-Windows?
Do people at work browse the Web very much, i.e., are busi-
ness computers proportionately represented in this survey?
(The answer is obviously "No".) Do Linux- and OSS-specific
*non-commercial* websites include links to Websnapshot that
would allow hits from Linux machines using them to register?
Examination of the information pages of Websnapshot finds
no mention of the answers to, or even the consideration of,
any of these questions.
>>The next LinuxWorld Conference and Expo will be held
>>August 14-17 2000, in San Jose, Calif. The last one was
>>huge! See hundreds of companies and organizations with
>>GNU/Linux/OSS related products. Meet Linus and RMS.
>>Pet a real penguin! Register now for free admission to
>>the exhibits, Aug. 15-17 (save $25).
>>
>>http://www.linuxworldexpo.com/
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How many years for Linux to catch up to NT on the desktop ?
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:56:56 +0100
Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (2:1) wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >> It depends what you define as `because I can'. because i can open every
> >> source file, header and loads of relavent man pages on a program I'm
> >> working on, I do. I find having all of them open at once very useful
> >> because they are there when I need them to be.
>
> I can open a large number of files in the IDE I use. I can open various
> pages in MSDN (however, one at a time). What I do find, though, is the more
> windows you have open, the more confusing it gets!
With the IDE's I have used (a boreland one and VC++), IIRC the windows
opened are internal to the IDE only. On Linux, they're root windows.
Personally I prefer the latter. Also, if one crashes (for whatever
reason), the rest stay alive.
> If each of these represents one process on Linux, then that's a feature of
> Linux. Windows achieves the same results with one or two processes.
True, windows processes are heavier than UNIX ones. It uses threads.
processes are more robust, though, since one thread can kill the whole
program.
> >> Also, at the same time (if I was on line)I can have a mail client open,
> >> a browser open and mabey have a calculation running at a low priority in
> >> the background, not to mention lots of pretty things like xearth
> >> running.
>
> I run with a mail client, and occaisonally WinAmp playing MP3's.
I also have things like updatedb firing off once per day in the
background, which perform very useful tasks. Most of the many process I
run, I run for a reason. Another reason that UNIX needs more processes
avaliable than Windows is piping. Can't do it under windows (without
using a temporary file), can under UNIX, and each command requires a
seperate process.
> >> If I was that way inclined, I could serve personal web pages too (tho I
> >> have another computer around to do that for me). So why limit yourself
> >> to few processes, when many can be so useful.
>
> Again, another difference. Windows does the web stuff with one process but
> many threads. Linux I assume does it with many process daemons.
Yep, httpd, by default starts with about 8 processes, with more being
spawned if necessary.
>
> >> So because I can run lots of processes, I do and find it very useful. If
> >> I couldn't, then I wouldn't (obviously).
>
> Well, what Linux does in multiple processes, Windows does in less but using
> threads.
More or less...
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kevin Croxen)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: 22 Jun 2000 12:35:44 GMT
The only knock against Suse in this environment is that one has
to work very hard to keep the disk footprint down with this
distro. Yast1 was not really written for less-than-full, small
hard disk installs, and I've found it very difficult to trim even
non-X (but still network capable) installs of 6.2 or 6.3 down below
300 Megs. Slack (which was the ur-father of the Suse distro
anyway) is a much easier-to-handle choice in this type of
environment.
--Kevin
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
>DeAnn Iwan wrote:
>>
>> peter wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm setting up two 486 linux systems, one will be a small web sever,
>> > firewall, and ip masq.
>> >
>> > The other will be a machine to write perl programs on.
>> >
>> > I have two 250 meg drives, I don't plan to install X, so which distro
>> > is out there that will allow me to do what i want to do on the 486's
>> > ???
>> >
>>
>> Any major distribution will probably work. Note that how much
>> memory you have and whether or not you have a CDROM drive enter into
>> play here. The latest RH, SUSE, and other graphical interfaces like
>> lots of RAM (RH 6.2 will complain about 32 MB RAM, but will install,
>> etc.). I have been unable to get SUSE 6.1 or 6.4 to do an NFS install
>> from machines even with 32 MB RAM; they seem to get caught thrashing
>> between trying to load appriate parts of YAST, the install packages and
>> so forth and eventually freeze up. After 2 weeks, I've given up. (I
>> had done NFS installs with RH 5.0 very smoothly. I suspect it has to do
>> with distros taking advantage of the new kernels ability to preload one
>> kernel/OS and then finalize with another. If they are finalizing across
>> NFS and do not have enough local RAM/storage, then they tangle.)
>>
>> Unless you have lots of RAM and a local cdrom, moving to Debian or
>> Slackware can be good. Both distributions allow you to install a small
>> Linux system from around a dozen floppies. You can then download the
>> rest of what you want via ftp, NFS, etc.
>
>
>SuSE up to version 6.3 will install over NFS on machines with as little
>as 8 MB of RAM. I know, I've got two at home set up that way. You just
>have to pass the lilo line:
>manual vga=normal
>and set it up via the old YAST1 method. Not too painful, and it allows
>you a lot more options.
>
>Although, I'm not going to dispute you that Debian and Slack have a lot
>of merit on an older/smaller machine. I'm planning on doing a Debian
>install on one of the aforementioned machines when the next version is
>"stable" released. Hopefully soon.
>
>Nathaniel Jay Lee
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (J Bland)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: 22 Jun 2000 12:27:21 GMT
>There isn't really much of a difference between distributions except in
>what the distributors think what should be standard on a linux box. Debian
>and Slackware think "essentially nothing", and SuSe thinks "a full-blown
>KDE system with 256 screensavers". I don't know any other distros.
The minimum install for SuSE 6.4 is ~80MB. Which would easily fit onto the
harddrive, and that's with Perl iirc.
Most of the distros will happily install in a small space, just depends on
how small you define 'small' as and how much free space you want left to
play with.
Frinky
------------------------------
From: "Jonathan Fosburgh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 07:55:11 -0500
"Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Because you are a geek.....
> >
> > And I can produce 100 secrateries that can produce fantastic
> > presentations, embedded video/audio and so forth with Powerpoint while
> > you are still figuring out how to get latex to work with the overhead
> > projector.
>
> I suspect that a touch typist who knows TeX would produce TeX
> documents in less time than Powerpoint presentations.
>
> Colin Day
>
I have to ask, why would anyone attempt to get TeX to work with an overhead?
You use a TeX macro package like foiltex or slitex if you want to produce
overhead transparencies, and if you really need the "slick" look of
PowerPoint, you use something like StarOffice (IMHO light years ahead of MS
Office) or KOffice.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 13:05:52 GMT
Gary Connors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> abraxas wrote:
>>
>
>> You are whining about KDE, not about linux. The fact that you do not know
>> the difference between the tough betrays your lack of credibility in the
>> first place.
>
> Not that I care to defend him for Trolling, but Linux without a GUI is
> even harder to use
> that Linux with KDE.
Thats a matter of opinion.
> Second, Linux may be a kernel, but it is most
> often distributed for use
> at home with a GUI and most people refer to this hybrid as still being Linux.
Youve missed the point. The point is that since KDE *isnt* linux, if you dont
like it you can use something else without tossing the entire operating
system.
I understand that its incredibly difficult for windows users to understand
a GUI that is not so intrinsically built into the operating system as to be
impossible to replace.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:15 GMT
"John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>(and, yes, for some reason my PII is a little slower than
>the Celeron 400 . . . I'm puzzled by that).
The only reason I can think of is the full-speed L2 of the Celeron, compared
to the half speed cache on the P2. I am quite surprised that this should
make enough of a difference to compensate for the smaller size and the
slower memory interface, but the machine quite clearly is a Celeron400.
It even sits in a Dual CPU board, which might (or might not) incur extra
overhead even in the absence of a second CPU.
Bernie
--
Wherever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship
Harry S. Truman
US President 1945-53
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: An Example of how not to benchmark
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>Why don't you guys exchange binaries by email and let us know
>if this is a hardware (or concurrent processing) quirk, or
>if you are using different compilers/options?
Because (at least supposedly) we are both using binaries straight from
the Povray ftp site, as compiled by the good people who make povray
available to the world.
Bernie
--
All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others
George Orwell
English novelist, 1903-50
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:17 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ha ha....
>
>If you only knew...
>
>Ever hear of an IBM 2821?
>IBM 3330?
>IBM 3340?
>IBM 3033?
>
>Look them up and that will give you a slight clue as to how long I
>have been in this (the computer) business.
>
>You most likely weren't even born yet...
And yet, your daughter only just entered high school? Not a very quick
learner, is she? ;-))
Bernie
--
Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad name
Henry Kissinger
American politician
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is awesome!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:06:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Linux sucks Mark and you know it. The only reason you support it is
>because it fits into the cult like left wing, screw the establishment
>ala "Pacifica Radio" which you seem to believe in and support.
I don't know about Mark, but the reason *I* am using linux is simply
that it works, and does the things I want from an OS, mostly the way
I want them done (and where the differences between my wants and what
linux does are really irking me, I *can* [and do] roll my own).
Nothing more, nothing less. Well, a certain amount of inertia keeps me
from hopping from linux to *BSD to plan9 to QNX. If Hurd ever gets to
a usable state, or the GNUStep project gets a bit more mature, I will
certainly give them a trial run on a couple machines.
However, the last time I though "well, maybe Windows wouldn't have this
problem", and rebooted my university machine into it (the first time
in, oh, a year or so), it did even worse than linux (it seems that we had
a network problem, and IE never unstalled, whereas NS/linux did).
Bernie
--
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors
Plato
Greek philosopher, 429-347 BC
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:17:15 +0100
> 2) Presentation
> Fonts are ugly. I know it is an old issue (since I first tried Linux in the
> mid 90s). I understand that this is a patent X problem. Saw some paper on
> the xfree website to improve matters, but no real action. Won't be
> surprised if it takes another few years to solve this problem.
read the font deuglification HOWTO
> 3) Printing
> After getting my modem to work I browse the internet and read mail with
> Netscape 4.7. I open a page and then print it (thru /dev/lp0 as
> /dev/usb/usblp0 does not work). Guess what? It is not wysiwyg or even the
> same as the screen fonts, and looks ugly. Not even in colour. Compare the
> printout to that produced by IE5. In Linux printing often do not match the
> app screen presentation.
The web browser formats the text to fit the output medium. Screen !=
sheet_of_paper
so it will look different. Also, how exactly is this a linux problem?
> 4) App setup
> Eg download Nescape 6 trial, but cannot print from it. In addition it is
> very slow. It also does not have a proper setup program that I could see.
> With WinApps there is almost always a simple setup.exe to get started.
> Apps, including system apps, often have their own config files which use
> incompatible syntax. Many of these config files have to be manually
> configured, or configured by crude little apps - which were an afterthought
> to the app (like apache configuration).
Netscape6 != Linux
It is not linux's fault that a beta app doesn't work that well (I've
never tried it)
> 5) Lack of apps
> In Linux I don't have access to powerful, industry standard, desktop
> applications. Do I need to elaborate here? The apps bundled with gnome/kde
By industry standard, you seem to mean microsoft.
> are really very crude. For example, the newsreader where I cannot quickly
> find a particular newsgroup and the sorting is limited (compare this with
> OE).
>
> Can you provide me with a list of Linux apps to match the following in BOTH
> power and usability :
>
> Office 2k
StarOffice, all that corel/wp stuff. Or you can use a combination of
seperate progs like lyx/TeX/LaTeX (which is an industry standard),
gnumeric, etc etc.
> Adaptec Easy CD creator
Don't know---I don't have a CD burner.
> Adobe Acrobat
Um... adabe acrobat? xpdf?
> AudioCatalyst
> GetRight
I don't know either of these
> Windows Commander (an excellent prog, unlike mc)
Likewise, but I do like mc.
...
> IE5
Why would I want a piece of shit like that on linux?
> 6) Usability
> Many small things, like having to specify a DNS when setting up my ISP.
> Poor error messages, eg "modem is busy" when ppp cannot find unconfigured
> cua port. Like getting an error message from linuxconf about my system
> clock, just after I have installed the system. Constantly getting garbled
> output in a terminal (which has to be cleared with ^L).
Can you be more specific. Oh, yeah, and windows gives the most helpful
messages.
> 7) Consistency and interface design
> Inconsistent and poorly designed user interface, and poor utilisation of
> screen space.
Poor utilisation of screen space? What do you mean?
> 8) Speed
> X still feels sluggish, and programs load slower than in W2k (I only have a
> 200MHz machine), even though I have a TNT video card.
I have never experienced sluggishness with X. I have an old PC with an
old distro (RH5.2 vanilla) and I find X very fast. It is in no way
slower than windows on my computer.
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: 22 Jun 2000 13:27:09 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] posted:
>That's all you do with ssh. Install the client and it takes
>care of the rest, by default. Installing X itself is also
>not the nightmare it is made out to be. It never was, even
>before the shiny happy GUI tools and PCI.
Most Linux setup turned out to be easier than I thought it would,
with X being the easiest. For a while I believed that it must not
be working correctly based to all the FUD I've read.
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In Windows, there's some good thing, some bad thing and some very bad thing.
In Linux, there's some bad thing, some good thing and some very good thing.
-- Robert L.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: High School is out...here come the trolls...who can't accept the future.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:26:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Robert L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 01:23:39 GMT
<vUd45.128855$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>No, he is totally right.
>0.3 % of user is Linux user.
>
>OS of user that go at www.microsoft.com
>60% win98, win95
>39% win2k, winNT
>0.7% ( other platform)
>0.3% Linux.
>
>As you can see, it's at the microsoft website, they get the result.
Well, we now know where the .3% number came from; problem is, there's
a slight bias, there. :-)
I don't think "visitors of www.microsoft.com" is a representative
sample of all Web browsing users -- not that all users browse
the web, either.
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: X can't be that slow
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:31:32 +0100
I hear lots of trolls complaining about the speed of X. I have a p133
with a Riva128 based card and have never noticed X to be slow. What is
everyone doing to X which makes it crawl? In my personal experience for
ordinary desktop things it is so fast that I don't notice any delays.
I have tried running windowed games like quake under both windows and
linux, and they were both absoloutly appauling, so I never tried it
again.
can anyone awnser my question, what is everyone doing to X to make it so
slow???
-Ed
--
The day of judgement cometh. Join us O sinful one...
http://fuji.stcatz.ox.ac.uk/cult/index.html
remove foo from the end and reverse my email address to make any use of
it.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux MUST be in TROUBLE
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 13:31:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 05:37:43 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:40:31 -0600, John W. Stevens
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>*EVERY* operating system does this! (For God's sake, no OS will
>>schedule a process to run when it is sleeping on a resource!)
>
>If you are doing non-blocking I/O on Linux, the process will not go to
>sleep even if the resource it needs is not available. Other systems have
>more sophisticated means of dealing with this (such as asynch), but Linux
>is so primitive that it likes to hog the CPU excessively. Does Linux
>support non-busywaiting barriers yet or is it still playing catchup?
select() is your friend. :-)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- but it's a very selective friend ...
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: An Example of the Superiority of Windows vs Linux
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:30:46 -0500
"John W. Stevens" wrote:
>
[SNIP]
> --
>
> If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
>
> John Stevens
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oh man, that was beautiful. I was considering writing something along
these lines, but I think you did an excellent job. May I use this?
I'll give credit wherever I do use it.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 09:25:59 -0500
Gary Hallock wrote:
> What is a modam?
Using the spelling of the typical wintroll on this newsgroup...
"If i hav to reboot one mo dam time, im switching to linucs"
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Wintrolls in panic!
From: Charles Philip Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 22 Jun 2000 09:21:13 +0500
>>>>> "1" == 1 <2> writes:
>> But I really, really would like to know what makes a wintroll a
>> wintroll!
>>
>> Why do they STILL insist on touting Microsoft!
>>
>> What could possibly keep a person going on the Microsoft
>> bandwagon? What could it be?
> BECAUSE LINSUX SUXX AND ALL LINSUX CAN DO IS SHUFFAL TEXT FIALS
> ALL DAY AND I CANT EVEN WORK OUT HOW TO USE THE CAPSLOCK KEY
> NEVER MIND SOMETHING AS USEFUL AS A COMMANDLINE
Interesting a Wintroll posting with Netscape 4.7 on SunOS 5.7!
Charles
------------------------------
From: Michael =?iso-8859-1?Q?Str=F6der?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: 486 Linux setup, 250 meg HD, which distro ???
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:35:26 +0200
DeAnn Iwan wrote:
>
> The latest RH, SUSE, and other graphical interfaces like
> lots of RAM
=> avoid graphical install software. You can install SuSE with
text-mode installer (see manual) which is far more usable anyway.
Ciao, Michael.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Number of Linux Users
Date: 22 Jun 2000 13:49:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> learn to reply and NOT repeat that rediculous sig again.
Maybe someday when youre doing something a little bit more interesting than
IT, (HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAA) you'll be able to spell.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy
lies....
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:50:44 -0500
Gary Hallock wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Ever try root canal?
> >
> > Given the choice of being subjected to using tex or having root canal
> > I would choose the root canal.
>
> Hey, I'd pay to watch you have root canal!!! But only if you have to
> stay awake with no pain killers.
>
> Gary
Hey man, I'll chip in on that. What do ya say gang?!? Let's take up a
collection. When we hit about 100,000 dollars I say we make him go
through with it.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Linux, easy to use?
Date: 22 Jun 2000 13:54:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <8irg6h$4ng$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas) wrote:
>> You are whining about KDE, not about linux. The fact that you do not
> know
>> the difference between the tough betrays your lack of credibility in
> the
>> first place.
>>
>
> "The tough"? Perhaps you meant the "two".
Sorry, I learned to type phonetically.
> As for Linux/KDE, I'll lump
> them together I think.
And prove yourself to be an utter moron to every single person who
knows just a *little* bit about the way linux works. Even the ones
who dont like it.
You dont know what youre talking about at ALL. You would do best to
stay with windows.
> My points still stand, your comments are merely
> noise.
I see. So KDE *is* linux, eh? Please, do go on...
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: What UNIX is good for.
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:56:43 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
>
> On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 17:31:22 GMT, JEDIDIAH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 19 Jun 2000 06:03:04 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 00:18:06 -0400, Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>Tim Palmer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>or even a good LOGO interporator.
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Oh yeah, I want Win2K just to allow kids to program in LOGO!
> >>>> >
> >>>> >Brilliant!
> >>>> >
> >>>> >(IMO, one would be better off buying a used Amiga for that sort
> >>>> >of thing, or perhaps an old Mac II.
> >>>>
> >>>> But not UNIX beacause LOGO is far too advanced for UNIX!
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Logo is available for Linux. I have ucblogo-4.6-2. Now, MicroWorlds
> >>>might be a problem.
> >>
> >>Photoshop is avallable for Windows.
> >
> > When we feel like spending that much for an image
> > manipulation program it might be relevant...
> >
> >[deletia]
> >>>> of us want an OS that supports the hardware we alreaddy have. Linux doesn't
>even come cloase
> >>>> in hardwair support. Windows beats _any_ UNIX hands down.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Almost any external modem is supported. In fact, all I had to do for mine
> >>>was plug it in and use modemtool to set the symlink for /dev/modem.
> >>
> >>EXTERNAL? Did Linux not suppoart the inntermal modem that came with your PC?
> >
> > Did Windows 3.1?
>
> It supported the modams that came with it preinstalled.
>
> >
> >[deletia]
Anybody a Southpark fan?
Oooh, Timaaaaay!!!
And I had always thought that Timmy on Southpark was a fictional
character.
Nathaniel Jay Lee
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
