Linux-Advocacy Digest #563, Volume #27 Mon, 10 Jul 00 08:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Re: Linux & Winmodem
Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems ("Mike Diack")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Pete Goodwin)
Why use Linux? (Nico Coetzee)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: 10 Jul 2000 04:12:01 -0400
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 21:21:01 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "John W. Stevens"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Joe Ragosta wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>> > >
>>
>> Translation: he believes what they say,
>
>Not to mention lots of independent magazines.
Hmm.. "Lots of independant magazines", eh? Why don't you
mention a few?
>> I did, but of course, you failed to accept it . . . say, that's pretty
>> much the exact same thing people do to you, isn't it?
>>
>> Such incredible nonsense. . . obviously, the Windows OS is superior to
>> the MacOS. Anybody who understands even basic evolutionary theory knows
>> that. And anybody who knows even basic evolutionary theory would know
>> that Linux is going to continue to grow, but that it is unlikely to ever
>> displace Windows on the desktop.
>
>
>Windows is superior to Mac OS? Really? In what way?
Even Windows 95 has pre-emptive multitasking. Mac OS before
Mac OS X (in other words, the version of Mac OS that Mac
users are using today) does not. In all other respects, it's
just as crappy as Windows and actually crappier than Windows
if it's on an iMac, where the OS has to be working for you to
be able to use the power switch or the Macintosh Three finger
Salute (on non-iMac systems, the Three Finger Salute, Control+
Command+Reset, still works even when the OS crashes, and if it
didn't, the power switch still works, while on iMac hardware,
the only way to recover a crashed OS is to pull the plug or
switch off the power strip if the owner of the iMac has one
installed).
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dealing with filesystem volumes
Date: 10 Jul 2000 04:21:00 -0400
On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:05:00 +0200,
=?Windows-1252?Q?Paul_'Z'_Ewande=A9?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>"Joe Ragosta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a �crit dans le message news:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>> > Does Win2K load properly from CD nowadays? i.e. a fully useable system
>> > with networking etc, or do you just get some cheesy install screen?
>>
>> Just the install screen.
>
>Windows really gets slapped silly by MacOS, BeOS, [Linux ?] on that one.
>
Yes, a functional Linux system can be booted from a CD also.
--
Microsoft Windows. Flaky and built to stay that way.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux & Winmodem
Date: 10 Jul 2000 05:07:06 -0400
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:44:26 -0400, JEDIDIAH
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 16:02:42 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Secretly Cruel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Jun 2000 01:15:58 -0400, John & Susie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> People need to be pissed at the cheap bastards that manufacture the
>>> Windows-only stuff, not pissed at Linux.
>>While I agree with this statement completely, what people "should" do
>>and what people actually do are usually two completely different
>>things. People will look at the situation this way.
>>My hardware works under Windows, it doesn't work under Linux. Therefore
>>there has to be something wrong with Linux.
>
> No, that's simply infantile.
So are Typical End Users.
>>machines, they go buy a new piece of hardware without even thinking
>>about compatibility, and it works under Windows. Then they try loading
>
> You simply can't get away with being an ingorant consumer. This
> is true in general as much as it is true for computing devices.
However, being an informed consumer takes work. Most people will
follow the Path of Least Resistance, which is to learn nothing at
all, and then draw all conclusions based on that knowledge.
> Not even the relative ease of a Macintosh will allow you to
> forego the 'burden' of being an informed consumer. Otherwise
> you end up with crap and you end up perpetuating crap.
>
> This sort of consumerism is simply assinine.
Consumers in general are assinine.
--
Guns don't kill people, cops do!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Linux faster than Windows?
Date: 10 Jul 2000 05:16:00 -0400
On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 01:46:11 -0400, Stuart Krivis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:33:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Another interesting benchmark would be mail programs. I use Outlook,
>>which has a sophisticated indexed system. My mail box has more than
>>5,000 messages, and Outlook can open this mailbox (on a dual Pentium
>>133, my main Windows workstation), in less than 2 seconds. Unix mail -
>
>Outhouse can infect your system and all your friend's computers in mere
>seconds. :-)
>
>>which uses nothing but a huge text file, and has to parse through every
>>byte (!) to open the mailbox, is very slow. On fast Unix systems, such
>>as Sparc's, it takes several _minutes_ to open a mailbox of 200-300
>>messages (compared to 2 seconds for a mailbox over 10x bigger on
>>Windows). Mailboxes over that length are absolutely unwieldy for Unix,
>>but no problem with a sophisticated mailer (security issues
>>notwithstanding).
>
>You are either lying, or you have never used a Sun. I use them daily,
>and Pine or Mutt will open a mailbox far faster than "minutes."
>
Pine and Mutt on a 486 will open a 200-300 message mbox in only a
couple of seconds.
>As for sophisticated mailers, Mutt is capable of doing more than Outlook
>in terms of mail.
Mutt doesn't have to do as much of the work, either. Procmail provides
the killfile, and fetchpop or fetchmail provide the POP3 functionality.
--
If a man commits sedition in the middle of the
woods, and there are no cops around to arrest
him, is he still a criminal?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: 10 Jul 2000 05:30:32 -0400
On Sun, 09 Jul 2000 09:47:27 -0700, Bob Lyday
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>
>> > Um, Yahoo Messenger. Um, ICQ. LOL.
>>
>> Nope. ICQ and Yahoo compatible agents are available.
>
>The Yahoo Messenger is Java Messenger, which sucks. The ICQ is Java
>ICQ, which I know nothing about except that it is not updated much and
>lacks a number of features in the regular version.
There's LICQ, which is not written in Java.
--
Do unto others as they'd do unto you, but do it first!
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:19:24 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting John Dyson from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 08 Jul 2000
>>>> GPL aint needed. GPL can be helpful for the purpose though.
>>> Wrong. The BSD-type license made it easier for Mircosoft to rip-off the
>>> Kerberos source code. GPL'ld code would have made Microthief's efforts much
>>> more difficult as well as being more expensive.
>> Again, Microsoft used a compatible reimplementation based upon spec.
>> The GPL would not have hurt Microsoft any any significant way.
> It might have been compatible, but it wasn't interoperable.
Actually, that's not true. It *is* interoperable, except on a part that
was permitted to be vendor-defined in the first place. To be more
specific, MS2k is able to work with other Kerberos implementations, but
other Kerberos implementations need the proprietary information in
order to authorize against MS2k hosts.
> The GPL
> might have hurt Microsoft indirectly because it might have encouraged
> more open source development of Kerberos.
Not likely. Because of where Kerberos (and other security mechanism)
implementations usually need to reside in an OS, no other Unix vendor
would have even *begun* to consider it.
> This might have a) deterred
> MS from trying their little scam and disallowing this particular assault
> on competition, and b) allowing more development and implementation of
> Kerberos before MS got to it, preventing MS from attempting the attack.
Neither of these statements are even possible outcomes of the GPList
fantasy about Kerberos. (Kerberos has been around for at least ten
years, which means that it's had a *lot* of development and
implementation.) And since the 'problem' was in the specification and
not the base code, it wouldn't have deterred Microsoft at all.
>> If Microsoft had such low volume such that the cost of
>> implementation was large, then it (GPL) would have significantly
>> hurt them.
> There is no incremental cost in software development to speak of, so the
> volume is meaningless as a component of cost of implementation, except
> when software companies are allowed to cook their books.
Actually, the volume is significant. If they could not sell hundreds of
thousands of copies, then the development cost becomes a significant
portion of the saleable licences. To be specific, the GPL[1] pretty much
requires that you eat the cost of development up front, whereas
Microsoft can amortize development over several years and millions of
licences sold over that time period.
-f
[1] And most other open source licences, but the GPL is somewhat worse in
this case.
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:26:53 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
> 13:54:59 -0400
>> On 8 Jul 2000, Chris Lee wrote:
>>> Wrong. The BSD-type license made it easier for Mircosoft to rip-off the
>>> Kerberos source code. GPL'ld code would have made Microthief's efforts much
>>> more difficult as well as being more expensive.
>> Do you have any proof that Microsoft actually used the open source code
>> in implementing Kerberos? My understanding is that they did not, but
>> that they used the specification.
> You don't need proof that they "used [...] source code in
> implement[ation]" if the code is open and they used the specification,
> because it is a reasonable (bumbumbumBUUHHM - I never use this word like
> this hardly) assumption.
Ah, but it *isn't* a reasonable assumption -- at all.
> So your suggestion that this isn't the case is an unreasonable
> assumption, and therefore requires some proof before anyone is required
> to take it seriously. And considering the circumstances, its worth
> reminding you that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Except that it's not only my suggestion. People who are closer to the
primary Kerberos development have said this as well (and first).
>> Sorry, but it really would help if GPL advocates didn't make fools of
>> themselves this way.
> And, what do you know! If the Kerberos source code were GPL, then MS
> couldn't have kept the source for their implementation secret, and we
> would know the answer to your question of whether they used Kerberos
> open source code or not.
Again, this is *false*. MS would not be obligated to show its source
code unless it actually used the source code -- and it's not stupid,
unlike the foolish GPList advocates who actually think that the GPL
would have helped in this case. Russ Allberry and I *do not agree* on
the GPL at all -- but he has made statements on Kerberos which pretty
much blow your claims out of the water.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
From: "Mike Diack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I am trying to do an unbiased comparison of operating systems
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 12:06:30 +0100
Jeff,
Even though I am a huge Linux fan (and am longing to see Linux succeed over
Windows), I must point out one minor point, in the name of fair advocacy:
Windows 2000 DOES support FAT 32.
Mike
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:36:00 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Care to prove it? (Hint: you can't.) From www.m-w.com, I find that:
> Thanks for the reference...
>> * 1free7[a-b] don't apply.
> 7a1 and 7b seem to apply fairly well. 10 usually applies.
7a(1) : not obstructed or impeded : CLEAR
b : not hampered or restricted in its normal operation
I'm not sure why you think that either of these apply. 7b is definitely
not true about GPLed software -- because part of the normal operation
is extension and redistribution, and there are significant restrictions
on that operation.
>> * 1free10 often applies, but is the 'free beer' sense.
> Sounds like you agree with me on 10. If 10 often applies, then why is
> it a lie to call GPLed software, free software, when you even agree it
> often is.
Because the claim is that 'free software does not mean free beer, but
free speech'. It's not the desired claim -- and it doesn't help your
assertion that GPLed software is 'free' (as in liberty) software.
>> * 1free12[a-b] doesn't apply.
> I think 12 b also applies nicely.
12 b : not restricted by or conforming to conventional forms <free
skating>
Still doesn't seem to apply. Sure, the permissions granted by the
licence aren't 'conventional', but the language used to grant such
permissions pretty much is. Worse, it still doesn't apply to the
'liberty' claimed by GPLists.
>> * 1free14 *might* apply, except that it refers to animates and not
>> inanimates.
> free is perfectly good slag use of 14. Also, I question your
> assertion. Look up slavery, 2 fits just fine, and it isn't limited to
> persons. Please prove that slavery can only be applied to persons.
free : 14 : not allowing slavery
slavery : 2 : submission to a dominating influence
I'd suggest that it's up to you to prove that nonanimates can be
described with an animate sense (in other words, prove that a tool can
be 'enslaved'). This is more clear when you look at 'enslave' and its
synonym 'subjugate'; these don't really have the sense of being able to
apply to anything that isn't animate here.
>> * 1free15 definitely *does not* apply to GPLed code.
> There are no limitations on who can use GPLed software. 15 certainly
> does apply. Some people may choose that GPLed isn't right for them,
> but they do so of their own choice. Also, most people `use' without
> modification. For these people, GPLed software is in fact open to a
> fairly wide audience.
15 : open to all comers
The code isn't open to all comers at all.
> Thanks for playing.
Please, Stumped, try again. You've not got a clue.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:37:26 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Hyman Rosen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>>>> And which of those implies an attempt to take away the same freedom
>>>> from everyone else?
>>> None of them, because no one's freedom is being taken away.
>>> You may share in the bounty of the GPL, and you may not restrict
>>> anyone else's ability to do so. Simple and free.
>> It may be simple, but the restrictions make it anything but free.
> This is not true. The restrictions are necessary to make it free.
> Let me quote:
>
> free 14 : not allowing slavery
>
> Without the restrictions, this sense of free could not be achieved to
> the extent that GPLed software achieves it.
Mr Stumped proves once again that he can't tell the difference between
a tool and a person. (Hint: animates can be enslaved, tools --
inanimates -- cannot.)
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:38:38 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> And the inconsistancy of the GPL, is that some people call the
>> GPL 'free', and then apply constraints, rules and regulations to
>> the redistributions... This makes GPL inconsistant with free
>> software.
> Are you a free man? Do you have any constraints placed upon you? Are
> there any rules and regulations that you must obey?
Is software now a legal person?
It's amazing that you can't tell the difference between a tool and a
person.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 07:42:06 -0400
On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Quoting Austin Ziegler from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Sat, 8 Jul 2000
>> On Sat, 8 Jul 2000, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Each of the above items are actions performed by an animate. Software
>>>> is a thing, not an action. Still can't. See my latest response to
>>>> 'Jedi' and you'll understand precisely what I'm talking about.
>>>> The language doesn't support the desired goal without great
>>>> obfuscation.
>>> Intellectual property, and particularly software, is not a "thing".
>> It's a 'virtual thing'; it is not reduced in quality or availability by
>> copying (in the same way that physical things might be), but it is
>> still a *thing*.
> The term "virtual thing" is an oxymoron.
Not really.
> "Virtual" is superfluous;
Use "digital" if you prefer.
> something is a thing (having direct physical effect), or it is not.
You do understand that software *does* have a direct physical effect,
don't you? All software does, even if it's just taking up bits on a
disk. Because software is 'virtual' or 'digital', it has *different*
properties than most other physical things, but software is a blend of
conceptual and physical.
Gimme a break -- I *am* a software developer, and I'll tell you now
that the software that I create *is* a thing -- but it isn't
constrained by the same restrictions as purely physical things.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
------------------------------
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, 10 Jul 2000 12:39:46 +0100
On Sat, 08 Jul 2000 13:45:27 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Quoting Aaron Kulkis from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Thu, 06 Jul 2000
>> [...]
>> >Besides that.. ONE WEB-PAGE hit typically takes more time to download
>> >than ALL of what I write in a typical day.
>>
>> It is not the download time, but the intrusion upon others' good will
>> and convenience, which is considered a transgression of netiquette.
>
>Just call me an anarchist.
OK, anything to oblige: you're an anarchist.
Now quit with the long .sigs, or you'll be an *unpopular* anarchist.
Or, worse still, a killfiled one.
--
Warning: end of message imminent. Stop reading now.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:48:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I humbly suggest that you either grow a brain or go back to
> Windows. Your choice of course.
I would humbly suggest that if all you can do is cast insults that you
leave. The doors over there, close it on your way out.
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:59:58 +0200
From: Nico Coetzee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Why use Linux?
This is why:
=== script output ===
Mon Jul 10 13:42:15 SAST 2000
1:42pm up 28 days, 1:23, 2 users, load average: 0.03, 0.14, 0.29
USER LINE LOGIN-TIME FROM
nicc tty2 Jun 12 14:13
nicc :0 Jul 5 15:07
=== /end ===
Here is the script:
rm ~/stats.txt
date > ~/stats.txt
uptime >> ~/stats.txt
who -H >> ~/stats.txt
Windows users is not very used to long uptimes - especially one session!
Well, for the Win users I'll explain. I have two sessions: 1 term (like
DOS) and one X-Window session. The first one I use to do console
specific tasks, like editing text documents, mounting/unmounting of CD's
and Stiffies, check local mail (Pine) and manage some servers (inn and
apache) and so on. The X session is mainly for StarOffice and Internet
work.
By the way, this is a dual boot machine (Win95), but Linux has matured
so much the last couple of months I do not have to do any work in
Windows any more. This should be convincing for any normal end user that
Linux is ready for normal day to day end user tasks.
Cheers,
Nico
--
==============
The following signature was created automatically under Linux:
.
"The geeks shall inherit the earth."
-- Karl Lehenbauer
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
