Linux-Advocacy Digest #350, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 15:13:11 EDT
Contents:
Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies.... (abraxas)
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... (Mikey)
Re: stability of culture of helpfulness (Tim Palmer)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (The Tibetan Traveller)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Phillip Lord)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: LILO problems -- Any suggestions? (Tom)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1) (Pete Goodwin)
Network Unreachable ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
RE: Do not like Windows but ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Windows98 (Tim Kelley)
Re: Windows98 (Tim Kelley)
Re: Do not like Windows but ... ("James Bond")
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... (TimL)
Re: OS's ... (name)
Re: slashdot (name)
Re: LILO problems -- Any suggestions? (Jeff Waller)
Re: If Linux is desktop ready ... (Leslie Mikesell)
RE: OS's ... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS Windows WM ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Re: MS Windows WM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
Subject: Re: Run Linux on your desktop? Why? I ask for proof, not advocacy lies....
Date: 26 Jun 2000 16:35:27 GMT
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>What are you smoking? Do you have any idea what 99.999% uptime is?
>
> More than Lie-nux will ever acheive.
>
Oh really?
11:17am up 410 days, 14:37, 26 users, load average: 0.72, 0.31, 0.21
What do you call that?
You lose, troll.
>>Now, Tim, you really do have to stop lying.
>>You never did admit that you were dead wrong about Linux for S/390 requiring VM.
>>
Actually, that depends on alot. If you know anything about the way VM works, youll
know that porting the operating system of a guest machine to the actual raw
hardware isnt actually very complicated, since its running on what amounts to
raw hardware in the first place.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: Mikey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 05:56:24 +0000
Pedro Iglesias banged a dead possum on a keyboard and out came:
>
> ... then tell me why the Hell a home user should to care about compiling
> sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what the Hell open source is useful to ?
> If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install procedure, why the Hell
> should he/she know that awk 1.0.4 prevents gtk from compiling correctly ?
Check out Mandrake 7.X. It's pretty much as set&forget/plug&play as you
can get. Installed on my CTX laptop with PCMCIA cards with no problem.
The desktop works great and looks pretty. If that's what you want, give
it a try.
But, I will add that I like having a tweakable kernel. Some may never
compile, but some do. I like having a choice.
--
Since-beer-leekz,
Mikey
CS is about lofty design goals and algorithmic optimization.
Sysadmining is about cleaning up the fscking mess that results.
-Graham Dunn A.S.R
------------------------------
From: Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: stability of culture of helpfulness
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:14:59 GMT
On 19 Jun 2000 15:42:22 EDT, Dances With Crows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 19:02:32 GMT, Oliver Baker
><<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> shouted forth into the ether:
>>Although I'm neither business savvy nor computer savvy, I'm writing an
>>article for a trade magazine on the subject of a big company that has
>
>Interesting.
>
>>The business people at this
>>company consider Linux a great way to save money on computer support
>>costs--not just because they believe it to be more trouble-free, but
>>because they feel they can just log onto the net and get expert free
>>help any time, thus eliminating the need for most of their support
>>staff.
>>
>>1)Does this make sense--that they could reduce their support staff? (and
>>if so, by how much? if anybody cares to make an estimate.)
>
>Not really, at least not in the short term. Free help from Usenet is a
>mixed bag. Sometimes you get exactly what you're looking for right away,
>sometimes you get misleading information, sometimes you get flames,
>sometimes you get completely ignored. Also, in the beginning of the
>switchover, there would be a big need for some support staff onsite/easily
>reachable as lots of users/admins run into common problems and/or get
>confused.
>
>After users settle in and get used to reading man pages/HTML docs,
...and after they get used to using ^P, ^N, ^B, and ^F insted of the arrow
keys, and after they get used
to having PgUp and PgDown only work sometiems, and after they get used
to using DEL insted of BACKSPACE and
after they get used to waiting for Netscape and after they get used to
tiping "mount" befoar loding a CD....
>support costs would
...go thru the roof. Youd shure make the UNIX gooru's happy, but the normle users
will hate halving to rede MAN pages all the time and use VI to eddit text
files.
>drop. I think companies could have fewer people, but they
>might need more competent people. (2 Unix BOFH-types at $90,000 each is
>less expensive than 6 tech-support Bobs at $30,000 each, factoring in
>health insurance/benefits/etc.) ICBW on all that, of course.
But you'd nead 20 teck-support Bob's to handel all the users hoo are going to be
calling to ask how to do things that wer eesy for them on Windos.
>
>>2) Is this culture of on-line helpfulness impervious to a)increasing
>>numbers of Linux users, b)increasing numbers of queries from Linux users
>>at companies who--it might be perceived--could afford to hire people to
>>generate in-house the answers they are instead getting through the
>>kindness of strangers.
>
>Good question. <soapbox>I believe that I am *required* to help people
>with Linux support, as my code's full of nasty quick hacks and I'm too
Doant' beet yourself up. Everyother Open Sore's programmer's coad is full
of nasty hack's and bugs to
Lie-nux is all maid up of nasty hack's thats' why it sucks so mutch.
>poor to give loads of cash to the FSF, yet I need to give back to the
>community in some way. As such, if I can help somebody, I will, whether
>they're Joe Home User or Jane Corporate User. Linux has been built on a
>culture of altruism and knowledge-sharing; we should keep it up as much as
>possible and encourage those who've learned something to share it.
></soapbox>
>
>That said, I'd be more motivated, less sarcastic/bitchy, and able to help
>more people if somebody were paying me by the hour to solve Linux
>problems.
>
Maybe youd be abal to rite better coad to.
------------------------------
From: The Tibetan Traveller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 14:10:29 GMT
Henry Blaskowski wrote:
>
> In talk.politics.libertarian The Tibetan Traveller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Which is why I think the judge in this case should be jailed for
> >> crimes against freedom of contract.
>
> > I understand your postion that there should be no anti-trust law. I
> > don't understand why you insist on demonizing the judge for upholding a
> > law passed by congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the
> > supreme court. If you want to argue that the law should be repelled,
> > fine. Argue that position. If you want to argue that the judge made
> > a mistake in interpetting or applying the law, fine! Argue that
> > position. But it is silly to argue that the judge is immoral for
> > finding Microsoft guilty because you disagree with the law.
>
> The judge should have recognized the case is immoral and thrown
> it out immediately.
On what grounds? That Mr. Blaskowski thinks it is immoral? The Supreme
Court has already ruled that it is constitutional. Are you saying that
he should ignore the constitution and base his rulings on your opinions
instead of the Supreme Courts?
>
> >> Because if he can interfere
> >> in a voluntary consensual contract of two business,
>
> > Contract law allows judges to declare contracts, null and void, if they
> > are signed under duress. And the courts, unlike you, do not limit
> > the definition of duress to physical violence.
>
> There was no duress in this case, there was just an offer of a deal
> which PC vendors accepted happily.
Happily??? Exactly where do you get the impression that they "happily"
accepted the terms. The documents in the Caldera case say that at least
one OEM was told that if they shipped any computers with DR-DOS, they
would have to buy ALL Mircosoft products retail. The OEM 'accepted' the
offer. I don't think he was 'happy' about his choices.
>
> >> morally this
> >> is no different than his right for me and you to agree to split
> >> dinner, even if one of us ordered a more expensive entree. It
> >> is the same issue, the same morality.
>
> > This is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. On the moral
> > scale, I think it would be closer to your boss telling you that if
> > you didn't buy him dinner every night, you will be fired.
>
> No, because I never agreed to that. The vendors, on the other hand,
> agreed to accept the deep discounts in exchange for certain conditions.
It doesn't matter whether you initially accepted the jobs on those
terms. He is putting forth a new offer. Unless you have a signed
contract, your employment is at-will giving him the legal and moral
right, in your opinion, to change the terms of the offer any time he
wants to.
------------------------------
From: Phillip Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 26 Jun 2000 17:19:04 +0100
>>>>> "Kenneth" == Kenneth P Turvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Kenneth> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:22:39 +0000, Volker Hetzer
Kenneth> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Kenneth P. Turvey" wrote:
>>> I think it also implied some use of force during the transition.
>>> The workers rise up, the workers force their will on the former
>>> system, eventually everyone is happy and voluntarily cooperates.
>>>
>>> There is a middle step in which consent is not required.
>> Yes, however this is based on the assumption that the workers
>> form the majority of the population and therefore simply enforce
>> a majority decision.
Kenneth> Even majority decisions may be unjust. Mob rule is not
Kenneth> identical to just government.
This might be true, but I do not think that this is reason
for not having majority decisions. Also I think that there is a
difference between "mob rule" and government. It is possible that we
could form a government involving the majority of the population and
that it would not be a mob. Actually this is nice because it gives me
a chance to make an on topic point. The free software movement shows
that a cooperative society can exist without degrading into mob rule.
Phil
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 26 Jun 2000 12:16:31 -0500
In article <uN655.21960$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I think I must be on to something; both you and Leslie have felt the need
>to try to change the subject away from support for client/server security
>to other security-related issues (in your case, Visual Basic for Viruses :D
>and in Leslies, NT's poor implementation record compared to some.)
Before you can dismiss my observation of reality as changing the
subject, I suggest that you show why you think the poor record
is a simple matter of implementation bugs instead of overall
design issues where the unnatural integration of functions
into places they don't belong introduces new weaknesses.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: LILO problems -- Any suggestions?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:05:03 GMT
In article <8j71de$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Adam Weaver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Been there done that it sux
Ugh. You said it.
> did u try:
> fdisk /mbr
I'm going to do that after doing a tape backup of my current WindowsNT
install, then reinstalling NT on another drive, then reformatting the
old drive and doing fdisk /mbr.
I don't actually need to do that, anyway, since that drive won't be the
boot drive anymore. But...just to be tidy.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:19:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> Well, Unix structurally better allows one to rip out major
> subcomponents of a system and and replace them.
>
> Keep in mind that the "quality" of a Windows Upgrade is vastly
> inferior to what you are implying it to be.
How so? How does deleting menu items and leaving an old broken control
panel compare with Windows not doing any of these things? Surely Windows
is vastly superior since it gets it right!
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Network Unreachable
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:03:05 GMT
I'm sorry, this must have been asked a million times!
But anyway, I've put winlinux 2000 on my computer at work, and it's
great, easy to use, but won't recognise the network!
i ping other computers on the network and it says unknown host.
I check the routing table and about 20 nodes say connected,
i use the command ripquery and it says command not found.
I've looked up a file ifcfg-eth0 like someone suggested, and nothing
was found.
I did ifconfig and it gave a loada info, including RX packets:14090, TX
packets 12, txqueulen:100 Interrupt:15, Base address:0x200 MTU:1500,
Metric:1 with other values at zero.
i looked at the previous replies to network unreacable and tried
ifconfig up and down, and it did nothing.
The folder /lib/modules containts only a folder 2.2.13/
If you have any ideas, please help! i'm very inexperienced with Linux.
Thanks in advance
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:49:30 GMT
Yawn, your not very good at trooling, I compared the 2.2 kenel
(favorably) to w2k. I then stated that the 2.4 kernel is will be even
better. The emplication being, that newest of MS products is on par with
the kernel that has been OUT for some time now. The 2.4 kernel is coming
out soon and has MANY improvements that will surpass w2k. With MS's very
long development cycle, it will be quite some time before MS catches up
again!
In article <I3K55.204$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > No, I did. You want to compare OS's? Let's compare.
>
> Well, I think Unix does a better server than any Windows, was
> this what you wanted to hear to ? Anyway, do not be vaporwareman,
> kernel 2.4 is not still here.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 12:57:10 -0500
Tim Palmer wrote:
> So how is the proletrareit doing you STOOPID COMMY!
This guy has got to be a joke. I hope so, because someone this
fucking stupid is almost not even imaginable.
--
Tim Kelley
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows98
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 13:01:21 -0500
Leslie Mikesell wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On 26 Jun 2000 06:29:45 -0500, Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>I have a better solution: Run Windows 2000.
>>Got an extra $300 he could have?
>That gets you a bare OS - not even a compiler. You'd need a few
>thousand at least to match the functionality of the things included
>in almost every Linux distribution.
There was a thread going on a while back where we compared the
cost of windows with all the common Os utilities that come with
linux for free (compression utilities, compilers, etc.).
I think NT ran up into 7-8,000 dollars.
------------------------------
From: "James Bond" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do not like Windows but ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 20:10:22 +0200
I read the 2.4 kernel feature summary, and fail to understand how this will
surpass W2k. Perhaps you care to elaborate. To me it looks like it is the
other way round. 2.4 is there to catch up to W2k (like with USB support).
James
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8j8533$lot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yawn, your not very good at trooling, I compared the 2.2 kenel
> (favorably) to w2k. I then stated that the 2.4 kernel is will be even
> better. The emplication being, that newest of MS products is on par with
> the kernel that has been OUT for some time now. The 2.4 kernel is coming
> out soon and has MANY improvements that will surpass w2k. With MS's very
> long development cycle, it will be quite some time before MS catches up
> again!
>
>
> In article <I3K55.204$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > No, I did. You want to compare OS's? Let's compare.
> >
> > Well, I think Unix does a better server than any Windows, was
> > this what you wanted to hear to ? Anyway, do not be vaporwareman,
> > kernel 2.4 is not still here.
> >
> >
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: TimL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:00:08 -0400
Don't know, why don't you tell us?
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
> ... then tell me why the Hell a home user should to care about compiling
> sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what the Hell open source is useful to ?
> If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install procedure, why the Hell
> should he/she know that awk 1.0.4 prevents gtk from compiling correctly ?
------------------------------
From: name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:07:15 -0400
Pedro Iglesias wrote:
>
> When Word won Wordperfect, it was not the dominant one, so it
> won 'cause it was better. Besides, it mind me bollocks if Microsoft
> split or not, Windows will be the dominant OS for a while. Tell me
> a company that does not try to beat the rivals, come on.
>
Oh, you're a really bright one aren't you. Because Word wasn't dominant,
it is now because it was better. You might want to stop posting here
until you gain some semblance of intelligence. Unless you like being called
a complete moron or an idiot.
------------------------------
From: name <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: slashdot
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 14:09:55 -0400
I don' think Slashdot is as concerned about their site being up 24/7 as
say maybe
MS is with Hotmail. Your point is moot(sp?).
Jeff Szarka wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 23:46:07 -0400, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >It is clear that
> >they would not have the budget or the manpower that Microsoft has.
>
> It sounds like you're trying to justify slashdot being down because of
> this.
>
> Linux is free right? Hardware is pretty cheap these days, even on the
> high end. I seem to recall the owners of slashdot are not exactly
> poor. I would image the ad banner revenue of slashdot alone is more
> than enough to aford decent hardware.
------------------------------
From: Jeff Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: LILO problems -- Any suggestions?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:34:33 GMT
I'd try
1) boot floppy: either linux one in which case you can access the
filsystems
of the installed linux or with win98,nt (it there such a thing?) format
/mbr.
2) Yanking out the affected harddrive. Perhaps the boot loader will
function differently if the drive is not accesable at all.
3) Yanking out the good harddrive and putting it in another machine as
a secondary disk.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: If Linux is desktop ready ...
Date: 26 Jun 2000 13:32:00 -0500
In article <KtL55.238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>... then tell me why the Hell a home user should to care about compiling
>sources ? If he/she gets binaries, what the Hell open source is useful to ?
>If he/she learns the ./configure;make;make install procedure, why the Hell
>should he/she know that awk 1.0.4 prevents gtk from compiling correctly ?
I think you underestimate the capabilities of some home users. Even
if you are right about 99%, suppose that 1% of home users are
interested in compiling things and a few more percent learn after
some experience. That still ends up being a *lot* of people who can
solve their own problems and may end up contributing improvements
to the system. With the current Linux distributions you don't
need to compile anything but it is still nice that you can.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: OS's ...
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:29:54 GMT
I( was talking about evolution as well. MS still has a long way to
go.The ADS can be quite a headache judging by the problems the MS guys
at the places I work are going though! The Unix boxes have wheather all
the "storms" quite nicely. W2K? hardly.
In article <E3K55.201$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Pedro Iglesias" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Take it to MS advocacy. The 1995 Unixes could still beat w2k and
> > millenium.
>
> I did not said a OS was better than other. Anyway, I was talking
about
> Windows and Linux evolution, not Unix. Obviously, no 1995 Unix would
> beat neither ME nor W2K as desktop. As server, each of them would do
> then, and do today.
>
>
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, 26 Jun 2000 18:25:46 GMT
What position? I haven't taken one. The only position I've taken is
that you should back up ridiculous claims. What's my credible source?
Simple. I replied to it. Proof positive of you making a claim with no
supporting evidence.
> 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......
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:31:51 GMT
Well, okay, I'll grant you that Sawfish is very configurable, but
really I was more talking about the entire desktop environment, the way
explorer works with Windows to provide your desktop etc. Gnome uses
Midnight Commander to do the same thing, but not nearly as successfully.
> : Well, when I said flexible, I meant in and of itself. Being able to
> : scrap one window manager and use another does not make THAT window
> : manager flexible. Remember I'm talking about window managers, not
the
> : X-Windows system itself. There's no single WM that is as intuitive
and
> : configurable.
>
> <snip!>
>
> Whoa there. You haven't tried Sawfish yet, then. With its GUI-driven
> configuration menus, you can configure practically everything to
> taste - even to the point of giving windows different behavior
> on an individual basis. And if you're really daring, adding a bit
> of Lisp-like code here and there can give Sawfish virtually limitless
> capabilities. And if you want it intuitive, just do what I did and
> spend some time making its features do what your intuition
> prefers - like reassigning which mouse button does what and so forth.
>
> Check out more info at:
>
> http://sawmill.sourceforge.net
>
> and
>
> http://sawmill.themes.org
>
> And for the lazy (like me), up-to-date RPMs are always available.
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:04:01 GMT
On 26 Jun 2000 11:28:11 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 15:36:36 GMT, Pedro Iglesias <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> The structure of Unix makes such extremism unecessary.
>>>
>>> Theory is very good, my experince tells me other thing.
>>
>> Whereas mine flatly contradicts you.
>>
>> I have binaries that have been sitting on my /usr/local since
>> I was running Slackware: 5 years ago.
>>
>> Don't 'fix' what don't need 'fixin'...
>
>Is there some reason you don't want the improvements that have been
>made over the years? I can understand not wanting to shut down
What are you smoking?
Did I say my system was limited to those 5 year old Slackware
binaries. My /usr/local isn't even limited to 5 year old
Slackware binaries. Although, some things are in less need of
being replaced by 'the latest and greatest' than others.
>a working service to upgrade, but if you are going to replace a
>kernel and reboot you might as well take all the new stuff at
>the same time. I wouldn't want to run (say) a 5 year old samba
One simply does not need to trash an entire system to do that.
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux Upgrades (Mandrake 7.0 to 7.1)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:06:07 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:19:52 GMT, Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
>> Well, Unix structurally better allows one to rip out major
>> subcomponents of a system and and replace them.
>>
>> Keep in mind that the "quality" of a Windows Upgrade is vastly
>> inferior to what you are implying it to be.
>
>How so? How does deleting menu items and leaving an old broken control
>panel compare with Windows not doing any of these things? Surely Windows
>is vastly superior since it gets it right!
No, a Windows upgrade applied to your old system files will
merely leave you with a remarkably more unstable system (even
by windos standards) and quite possibly lead to total data loss.
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:08:08 GMT
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 18:31:51 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Well, okay, I'll grant you that Sawfish is very configurable, but
>really I was more talking about the entire desktop environment, the way
>explorer works with Windows to provide your desktop etc. Gnome uses
>Midnight Commander to do the same thing, but not nearly as successfully.
Howso, EXACTLY?
[deletia]
--
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
