Linux-Advocacy Digest #625, Volume #27 Wed, 12 Jul 00 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why use Linux? (Mig)
Re: Why use Linux? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today! (Cihl)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Help with printer (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux lags behind Windows (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Growing dependence on Java (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Help with printer (Aaron Ginn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:26:25 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Mike Stump from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Mike Stump escribi�:
>>A credit card's money is no more virtual than a dollar bill.
>
>:-) Some don't like the notion that the dollar is more virtual
>now-a-days, but I digress.
>
>>A credit card's "dollar" is simply a reference to a dollar you
>>promise to give to the bank in the not too distant future.
>
>You said it yourself, A credit card is a promise of a future dollar.
>It is in fact, not a dollar. Actually, a credit card isn't even a
>promise, the use of the card creates a promise. A promise is what I
>think one might reasonably call virtual. It is close, but when the
>promiss isn't fulfilled, it does differ.
In case you aren't aware, a dollar is a promise of a future dollar's
worth of stuff, in just the same way as a credit card in your context.
A credit card is not virtual money; it is alternative money. It is
virtual cash.
Those of you who have been bored in the past by my seemingly pedantic
nomenclature tirades may want to skip to the next message. I'm about to
make one of my little declarations, in hopes that it will be challenged
by logical and reasonable argument so that I might make the proof of my
case.
The word "virtual" translates, in modern parlance, and particularly
technical jargon, directly, entirely, and without exception, the word
"not".
Virtual circuit == not a circuit
Virtual terminal == not a terminal
Virtual connection == not a connection
Virtual memory == not memory
Virtual disk == not a disk
Virtual money == not money
Virtual cash == not cash
Virtual reality == not reality
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:29:24 +0200
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Rubbish! The web server running on the machine indicates it was started
> on the 17th May.
>
> The comment that Windows 98 crashes after a month I found ludicrous,
> and sure enough, I have a system nearby that's been up and running over
> a month now.
This is incorrect... everybody knows that Windows cant stay up for more
than a few days... even the screensaver makes Windows crash.
And if you start installing an deinstalling programs you know very well
that the registry gets corruptet (not to speek of dll-hell). A usable
Windows installation lasts 3-4 months before a reformat and new installtion
is due.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Why use Linux?
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:16:40 GMT
In article <Jlya5.2317$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul E. Larson) wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Bobby D. Bryant"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Paul E. Larson" wrote:
> >
>
> >> The main machine at my place of employment has a MAXIMUM up time
> >> of 7 days. Every 7 days we IPL the machine regardless of anything.
What does
> >> that fact tell you?
> >
> >It tells me that:
> >
> >a) your employer doesn't need 7x24 uptime, or
> The system is available 24 x 7, except for 4 - 5 hours/week for
backups and
> reorgs of the disks, but it is rarely used more than 18 x 5.
>
> >b) your employer should be running something more reliable, or
> The system is one of the most reliable in existance. The OS is also
one of the
> most reliable except for the need to a repair program on the dump file
that
> requires the system to be brought down.
Then it's not stable.
>
> >c) your employer should replace his/her IT staff.
> >
> Nope, manufacturer's requirements.
>
Then it's a POS and not stable.
Bottom line if the nanufacturer of a system REQUIRES it to be brought
down once a week, that system is NOT stable.
> Paul
>
> --
>
> "Mr. Rusk you not wearing your tie."
>
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: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:29:54 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:49:24 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 04:03:38 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >> What hardware would that be these days?
>> >
>> >Try some el cheapo kwung-how hardware, and you'll soon find out.
>>
>> That's "el cheapo".
>>
>> That's not non-pnp.
>
>The two often go hand in hand, which was my point.
This is merely supposition on your part.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:31:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Jay Maynard from comp.os.linux.advocacy; 10 Jul 2000 22:53:43
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:42:53 GMT, Mike Stump <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Suppose there is some software on a site that has banner advertising,
>>and that the software can be downloaded by all that come to the site.
>>Suppose that the software is an mpeg movie player. Suppose that some
>>of the advertising revenue is folded back into the developement and
>>enhancement of that software. Suppose that 90% of the enhancement is
>>funded by this revenue stream. Now, suppose it was covered by the
>>BSDL, and that someone comes along and grabs it, and reoffers the
>>software on a different web site, but without source. Let's say that
>>it is 5% better than the old software. People will find it, and will
>>download it. Once people download it, they are less likely to
>>download from the other web site. Most users don't care about source
>>availability and hence, with good software reviewing guides, most
>>users will go to the new web site instead of the old web site. Let
>>say that number of hits lost is 50%. This will directly lead to
>>substantial decreases in funding for the original software. Since 90%
>>of the enhancements are funded this way, this leads to a 45% drop in
>>enhancements. This drop can be enough for the original author to stop
>>doing enhancements altogether. So we go from well maintained software
>>to software that bit rots and isn't maintained. This is a change is
>>the software. The previous level of software isn't maintained.
A wonderfully straightforward presentation of the issue, thank you.
>So you would solve the "problem" of the market deciding that the 5%
>improvement in the software is more important than source code availability
>by legislating a different method.
Way to miss the point.
>You, sir, are a communist. There's no other way to describe this overt
>overthrow of the free marketplace.
LOL
>I don't suppose that it occurred to you that someone else might pick up the
>freely available version and put the same improvements into it, therby
>picking up where the original developer left off?
And with the same results, should they also decide that the freedom of
others is not a commodity they are permitted to make profit on.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:32:00 GMT
On 12 Jul 2000 13:52:23 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>>> doesn't necessarily require the creation of a derivative
>>>> work of someone else's code.
>>>
>>>Going by the example of RIPEM, it may be very difficult
>>>to avoid creating something that RMS would consider
>>>a derivative.
>>
>> Except people manage in practice on a quite regular basis.
>
>Sure, by re-implementing the GPL'd work instead of using it.
Or rather avoiding the GPL in particular, which is not hard to do.
[deletia]
Free Software !-> GPL.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:31:17 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> If your intent was to say that a Windows system can be properly
> administrated and that will reduce the chance of failures, I'd have to
> provisionally agree with you. But the provision is that it doesn't
> eliminate the chance of failures, and that this remaining chance is
> still larger than the chance of a slightly improperly administered
> alternative system crashing to begin with.
This is almost exactly what I've said over and over again. Nowhere did
I say that you can completely and unequivocally eliminate Windows
crashing. NOWHERE. You seem to have stuck in your head that I said
with those three things I mentioned I said it would completely eliminate
crashing. What I actually said was run smooth (which in terms of
Windows does not really mean totally eliminate crashing.). Now, I have
restated it to clear up what I feel was the descrepency, but you seem to
insist that I am trying to say you can completely eliminate Windows
crashing. I know you can't, I know that it will randomly crash no
matter what the hell you do. But, if you have someone in charge of the
machine that knows what they are doing they can make the crashing
less-likely. They can't eliminate crashing altogether, but they can
sort of reign it in.
The bottom line seems to be that we are saying the same thing, but you
refuse to believe that anyone can actually understand that paradox known
as Windows quite as fully as you. I don't think you can completely
stabilize the system. But, I hope you will admit that having someone in
charge of any system that knows the system well will improve your
chances of having it run better. Whether that system is Windows or
something else entirely. If the person doesn't know the system, the
system will appear to have more problems. I don't even know why this
thread is continuing, other than the fact that I am very interested in
whether you can allow yourself to admit that I might have actually known
what I was talking about. I am not, nor have I ever, said that Windows
can be made to never crash. You seem to be utterly convinced that I
did. Whatever. No matter who is in charge of it it is going to crash
at some point. I don't understand why you can't see any of the times I
say this, yet you saw the one time that I slipped up and said Windows
could be made to run smooth (still meaning smooth in comparitive terms
to a network run by an incompetent moron, on shitty hardware, with users
constantly monkeying with the systems). If you fail to believe that
these two situations will provide different reliability, then we still
have an argument, if you do see the difference in these two situations,
then where the hell is the argument even coming from?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: To Pete Goodwin: How Linux saved my lunch today!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:40:17 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> =
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> =
> > And Windows lags behind Linux in some hardware products.
> =
> But Windows has more hardware support than Linux (I'm thinking desktop
> PC's).
Pete, remember, Windows has an unusually short HCL. Most vendors
supply drivers for Windows, while Microsoft doesn't. For Linux,
vendors have just started to wake up.
Oh yeah, your Voodoo 5 is now supported. Get XFree86 4.0.1.
=
> > Totally subjective. Most people are just used to one desktop or
> another.
> =
> Have you seen the desktops on Linux? Two unfinished ones, and six
> minimalist!
What's wrong with minimalist desktops? :)
=
> --
> ---
> Pete
> =
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
-- =
=A8I live!=A8
=A8I hunger!=A8
=A8Run, coward!=A8
-- The Sinistar
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 20:41:54 GMT
On 12 Jul 2000 19:37:33 GMT, Jay Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:28:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The one's telling lies are your cabal.
>
>Let's examine this:
>
>> You lie when you claim that to make restrictions on freedom such
>> that all entities share the same level of freedom is somehow not
>> free.
>
>Sorry, but you do not increase freedom by rstricting it. Period. Further,
Somalia.
Lebanon.
Compton.
Yes you do.
Otherwise you end up with despots, warlords,robber barons or just
mobs rising out of the ensuing chaos. Thus, the rule of law is a
necessary element of liberty.
>not all entities share the same level of freedom under the GPV: add-on
>developers are frozen out.
No they aren't. They just aren't allowed to restrict access to
derivative works any more so than they were restricted from using
those works that were derived from. This is equality, also typically
considered necessary for freedom.
>
>> You lie when you claim that Free Software is actually incompatible
>> with the construction of software where the author can use any
>> licence he pleases, keep the software secret and even make obscene
>> profits on it.
>
>Counterexample: BSD. The BSD license is, according to most folks, free, yet
>the BSD developers (some of whom you're calling liars in this very thread)
>cannot incorporate GPVed software in BSD and remain true to the goals of
>their project: a truly free, reusable system with none of the GPV's
>drawbacks.
>
>Now, are you going to quit calling people liars when they're not?
They are liars. They seek special priveledge and then have
the gall to call that liberty. They have no understanding
of what liberty is or really of what the restrictions
imposed by various licences are.
If they were true to their rhetoric, they would not bother
with any licences at all. That would also have the nice
side effect of making the code compatible with the L/GPL.
--
Common Standards, Common Ownership.
The alternative only leads to destructive anti-capitalist
and anti-democratic monopolies.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:39:31 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> While this does, indeed,
> highlight a problem with Windows, it is my contention that it is also an
> indication of a problem with administrators of Windows systems, and
> their assumptions about what is responsible for their success. While
> there is certainly a large component of "having a clue", there is an
> equal, I insist, contribution of pure blind dumb luck. I predicate this
> point on the large number of otherwise successful MSCEs who I have seen
> hit a blank wall when Windows starts 'acting funny', out of the blue and
> entirely of its own accord.
>
In this paragraph you again seem to be saying something I have repeated
over and over again in a slightly different way. Yet you refuse to
believe that this is what I've said. I never said you can *eliminate*
the random wierdness of Windows, all I said is that you can *lessen* it
with proper administration.
> Sorry if I seem rabid; I'm not trying to insist on this point by
> repeating it. I'm trying to make it to begin with. As soon as someone
> shows the slightest comprehension of what I am saying, perhaps I'll feel
> comfortable moving on. But, yes, I'm enough of a bull-headed twit to
> want to continue this conversation, despite the animosity I seem to be
> building up. I apologize for any insults you may have perceived in my
> responses. But I am not disagreeing with the basis of your statement,
> merely the statement itself, and I have taken your desired re-assessment
> into account, AFAIK, and still disagree. Sorry if that's not enough for
> you.
You attack our comprehension of what you say, yet you repeat what we say
and tell us we don't get it. What gives? We aren't supposed to be
insulted by someone that refuses to see his repetition of our own
statements and then tells us we don't have *the slightest comprehesion
of what I'm saying*? Oh yeah, I'm not insulted by that. Perhaps you
need to work on your reading skills pal. We are saying the same thing
back and forth, the difference being that you keep saying, "No you are
wrong," and then following it up with a different wording of what I am
saying. I'm not telling you your statements are wrong, just the fact
that you refuse to believe I do comprehend what you are saying, and in
fact, that is exactly what I was saying to begin with. As for your
insistance that I am blaming others for my problems, well, I have yet to
figure out where that one came from. Care to enlighten me?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 12 Jul 2000 20:44:24 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000 22:20:35 +0200, Mig wrote:
>Hello
>
>Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
>The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
>
>No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
>Have an idea?
Is the printer listed as supported in the printing HOWTO ? What type is it ?
Cheers,
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 16:48:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Mike Stump from comp.os.linux.advocacy; Mon, 10 Jul 2000
08:03:20 GMT
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>John Dyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Your counter-example is fallacious. An example of a GPL-like parking
>>lot is that it is marked 'free parking', but that means that it is
>>'free' to park there. However, a GPL-parking lot requires that you
>>pay to leave the lot with your car.
>
>A pretty good analogy, but I think I can provide a better one. A GPL
>packing lot would be one where it prohibited someone parking an RV
>next to the exit and collecting money from the people on the way out.
Well, this is bait I can't pass up. You know how I love the image of my
own typing.
As has been previously pointed out, free parking is not an analogy of
free software, and was not presented as such. It is an illustration of
a usage of the term "free" in which commonly accepted restrictions do
not prevent the word from being applicable.
But your own analogy is, in fact, surprisingly similar to an equivalent
description that I posted recently to alt.destroy.microsoft. The focus
is on examining whether "the market" is a pie chart, in which increasing
your "share" will necessarily decrease someone else's, or whether it is
an open air site of commerce, as the term is originally meant to convey.
The pie-chart image that people have of markets is an inadvertent (I
would hope) result of the overwhelming use of the term we have seen from
within a business (defining their own history and potential
opportunities for sales), rather than within a society (defined by
everyone who wants to sell and everyone who wants to buy attempting to
locate each other in a busy field by the river). Rather than go on
further, I will simply repost the cogent sections.
>>Microsoft doesn't want anyone besides Microsoft to have a piece of the
>>messaging server market because it wants to make as much money as it can.
>
>If this were the case, it would want the messaging server market to be as
>large as possible, which means a competitive market. Its kind of nice when
>your competitors work for you by coming up with new markets for your products,
>and enticing new customers to spend money, even if you have to wait for some
>of them to start looking for alternatives, and have to compete fairly all the
>time.
>
>I'm sure you'll entirely disagree with this, consider it ludicrous, because
>you misunderstood it. Consider, in the future, you might want to be clear and
>consistent in whether you think "market" refers to all potential customers, or
>just the actual customers who are already active. Recognizing there is a
>difference, and being able to deal with it, are necessary and critical points
>in understanding why people seem to say things that don't make sense about
>economics and monopolies and such.
>
>The problem is that no two different meanings of market can be considered with
>entirely consistent frameworks. The average consumer (yourself, for example)
>seems to consider only the "market" as they are used to seeing it defined "in
>business". Which is to say pie charts, total market, market share, and
>demographics. This is the way businessmen use the word "market".
>
>But when economists talk about a "market", it seems they're talking about a
>different thing. And they are, I think. Ironically, what they mean by market
>is more familiar to consumers. Because it is the market defined by commerce.
>You know, a _market_. Now, modern western consumers generally might think of
>a grocery store when they say they need to "go to the market". But the term
>really refers to a place where many vendors go to sell their wares to any
>customers who might be interested in purchasing them.
>
>Now, you tell me. Does it make sense that when one of the vendors who has a
>stall near the door to the market says they are blocking the door to everyone
>else's booth "because they're so successful"? Would anybody seriously take
>them seriously when the local guard starting dismantling their shop (just to
>open a path to the market, they will even be allowed to keep the storefront on
>*both* sides of this walkway) if they started yelling, "you're just punishing
>us for being too successful!"
[...]
>To not want other competitors in a market "because you want to make as much
>money as you can" would have to be grounded in a valid and demonstrable theory
>explaining why this would be true. I don't believe it is. Unless you're
>going to automatically and without consideration assume that each "market" is
>a pre-defined, known, and fixed size, there is no reason to think that making
>as much money as you can is automatically going to result from preventing
>competition. Its just lazy thinking, very common, but incorrect. Markets are
>defined by *competition*, not products. You may very well be able to make a
>LOT more money in a "market" in which you compete, as that market may be much
>larger (through the combined efforts of all competitors, as I suggested above,
>and also through natural expansion or development) than it would be if you
>were the only company making money at it.
>
>Again, is a "market" potential consumers or revenue base? Is a "server"
>hardware or software? Its pretty amazing how easy it becomes to understand
>all sides of an argument when you can recognize the various inconsistencies in
>the very words we use to explain our ideas.
So you see I anticipated your "parking an RV by the entrance and
charging people", although MS charges in both directions. This
description (not even really an analogy, you see, in my case, concerning
markets rather than parking) was explored further in other posts I have
made. Perhaps those interested may want to check them on deja news.
I'd be happy to answer any questions anyone has, though, regardless of
whether you deign to do that research.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
[A corporation which does not wish to be identified]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux lags behind Windows
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:49:58 -0500
Since I think we are both coming at this from different areas, I will
bow out of this conversation. In the Hyperion novels, the computers act
as humans. As this is where this conversation started, this is what I
am basing my side of the conversation on. You are basing yours on what
could happen in the real world (as it appears at least). We are
discussing two completely different realities, one the reality created
by a sci-fi author talking about 700 years into the future, the other
about reality as it may actually exist someday.
In all actuallity I would hope we have enough common sense to build in
some sense of *right and wrong* much like most (some? a few?) humans
themselves have so that the computers don't assume they need to
eliminate humanity or rid themselves of them. In reality, this would
only make sense. But it's a long time before computers are actually
this advanced. And I don't know what will actually happen by then.
Good day.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Growing dependence on Java
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 15:53:51 -0500
p@p wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nathaniel says...
>
> >
> >Note: StarOffice will run even if you tell it you have no Java installed
> >on your system. It depends on Java only for Java in it's web browser
> >app. It doesn't depend on Java to run at all.
>
> Why not ship staroffice with the Java run-time in it? Why does the
> user have to have Java installed on their pc?
For Windows it does come with a Java run-time, but the assumption is if
you have Linux you already have a Java run-time and it is pointless to
install another one. (I don't know why they did this as the rest of the
suite is as bloated as can be, and I think there is a Java run-time on
the CD if you actually purchase it, just not in the download version.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help with printer
Date: 12 Jul 2000 13:26:47 -0700
Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello
>
> Just bougth myself a printer but cant get it to work.
> The problem seems to be that the parallel port is not detected .
>
> No problem with the port or printer since i prints OK from Windows.
> Have an idea?
>
> Cheers
> BTW i use RH 6.5 Workstation
What type of printer do you have? Is it a Winprinter? In other
words, it _only_ works with Windows. Also, you may not have parallel
port support compiled into your kernel.
BTW, what is RH 6.5? I thought Red Hat's latest distribution was 6.2.
Aaron
--
Aaron J. Ginn Motorola SPS
Phone: (480) 814-4463 SemiCustom Solutions
Fax: (480) 814-4058 1300 N. Alma School Rd.
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Chandler, AZ 85226
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
