Linux-Advocacy Digest #157, Volume #29 Sun, 17 Sep 00 12:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("sandrews")
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("sandrews")
Re: Unix more secure, huh? ("sandrews")
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("Yannick")
Re: How low can they go...? ("sandrews")
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (2:1)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Donovan
Rebbechi)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! ("MH")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. (David M. Butler)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (ZnU)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (C Lund)
Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie! (David M.
Butler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:45:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> >> [...]
>> >> >I love the way Max is suddenly an expert on "technical design", to the point
>> >> >where he starts lecturing experienced developers. Ask him any elementary
>> >> >question about OO design if you want a good laugh.
>> >>
>> >> I am so so so hurt by your pointing out I'm not a programmer.
>> >>
>> >> I 'suddenly' became an expert in "technical design" starting about
>> >> fifteen years ago. It doesn't take knowledge of OO design (and that has
>> >> precisely *what* to do with user interfaces?) to know that most
>> >> 'experienced developers' have their head up their ass when it comes to
>> >> building a practical and efficient user interface. Save your ridicule
>> >> for someone who gives a damn.
>> >
>> >Being such an "expert" in "technical design" for so long I'd have to assume that
>you
>> >can post some ISBN number of the books you've written or contributed to or perhaps
>a
>> >few URLs where you are cited as an authoritative source. Until you can do that you
>> >are no more an expert than Kulkis.
>>
>> 1) I would have thought you'd at least be smart enough to know that you
>> shouldn't make assumptions. It means you're stupid.
>
>But my assumption was correct and by assuming I drew you out. I'll look stupid
>anyday to
>be effective where intelligence fails.
>
>> 2) I was parroting Donovan Rebbechi's rhetoric; perhaps you didn't
>> notice. Then again, perhaps you didn't want to notice, since it makes
>> trolling a lot easier.
>
>I fail to see the parroting. Could you show me what you mean? How does simply asking
>for your credentials contitute trolling? If I am to trust you experience in UI
>design I
>should be allowed to research it.
By 'parroting', I mean:
=====================================
> [...]
>>I love the way Max is suddenly an expert on "technical design", to the point
>>where he starts lecturing experienced developers. Ask him any elementary
>>question about OO design if you want a good laugh.
>
>I am so so so hurt by your pointing out I'm not a programmer.
>
>I 'suddenly' became an expert in "technical design" starting about
>fifteen years ago. It doesn't take knowledge of OO design (and that has
>precisely *what* to do with user interfaces?) to know that most
>'experienced developers' have their head up their ass when it comes to
>building a practical and efficient user interface. Save your ridicule
>for someone who gives a damn.
=====================================
You are trolling by pretending to have a pretense of whether or not to
trust my experience in US design.
>> 3) ISBN: 0830643613 (contributing author); RFC 2271, 2274, 2573, et. al,
>> (acknowledgements). Most of my work has been private development for
>> ELTRAX's "Enterprise Networking Technologies" curriculum.
>
>So you were involved with the SNMP working group. Great. I was involved in DRUMS.
>Neither one have anything to do with UI. Enterprise Networking Technologies don't
>appear
>to have much to do with it either. Where were you able to squeeze in that 15 years
>of UI
>design knowledge? I wrote all the design guidelines for my previous employer. No the
>ideas were no entirely my own. I used an ala carte method of design patterns I
>thought
>worked seamlessly together in a variety of applications. Things like, don't use
>property
>sheet UI when the the dialog real estate cannot support it. Avoid scrollbars in all
>except frame windows. Use proper indenting for subordinate dialog controls and don't
>forget to disable the subordinate controls when appropriate. All kinda things like
>that.
Well, good for you. I'd appreciate it if you would stop misrepresenting
what I've said; I never indicated I had 15 years of 'UI design
knowledge'.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
====== 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: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:47:37 -0500
In article <JE3x5.4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ingemar Lundin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Microshaft Sucks! I hope to NEVER buy another product that Gates had
>> a hand in selling!
>
>
> Strange thing tough...it only seems to be linux users that having
> problem with windows setup...how come?
>
>
> /IL
>
>
Wrong again /IL,
Go to ZDNET and read about true blue windos users, they`re having problems as well.
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:50:26 -0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <sS0x5.2269$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "sfcybear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8q0n8r$ipc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> And I supose that all the MS OS users are current on patchs??? I
>> doubt that.
>
> No, I think that there are lots of users out there under the mistaken
> impression that they can install a Linux firewall and "forget about
> it" because it "just runs". I know people running firewalls on 2 or 3
> year old copies of Linux or FreeBSD. Never applying even a single
> patch because they aren't Unix people. They just installed the
> firewall on the advice of a unix person that is no longer with the
> company.
>
>
>
Well I run a firewall on 2 to 3 year old Linux, there ain`t nothing wrong with that!
No I havn`t pached everthing, only the services that I need to. I havn`t been broke
into.
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Unix more secure, huh?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 10:51:54 -0500
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <P2Ww5.13965$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Otto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "A transfinite number of monkeys" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> : On Sat, 16 Sep 2000 13:33:58 GMT, Otto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : : And that suppose to diminish the validity of the actual news how?
> Maybe
> you
> : : should look at the following link, CERT released the warning about
> Linux
> and
> : : DDoS on Friday:
> : :
> : : http://www.cert.org/incident_notes/IN-2000-10.html
> :
> : Oh wow. It cites two vulnerabilities that have had patches
> available for
> : quite some time, all within 24-48 hours after being found.
>
> Oh wow, hundreds of systems are compromised on the daily basis with
> old exploits. Availability means nothing, applying the patch might. It
> doesn't really matter how quickly the patch is available, if people
> don't use them anyway. All CERT did is, issued a warning about
> widespread use of old exploits.
>
> : How about all of the Windoze users out there that have (and
> continue) to
> : fall prey to Netbus|BO|SubSeven|remote access trojan du jour? My
> firewall
> : and IDS logs here at home can attest to the widespread use of those.
> My
> : machines get scanned ALL THE TIME.
>
> That's kind of interesting how a not so good news about Linux can turn
> out to be really bad news for Windows (correct spelling). Let's forget
> the rpc.statd problem and focus on Windows exploits. Linux computers
> will still continue to fall pray to old exploits, but that's ok, as
> long as you can show that Windows OSs are more vulnerable. What a
> great argument.... Every PC on the web gets scanned all the time,
> regardless of the OS. In case you didn't know it's done by scripts and
> the results are recorded for later use. The IDS is great to indentify
> the source, but that's about it.
>
> : Here's a nickel. Go get a new arguement.
>
> Here's a dime, go call yourself....
>
> Otto
>
>
Here`s a quarter, Get a CLUE!
------------------------------
From: "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:08:48 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message :
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 20:15:31 GMT, Yannick wrote:
> >> > and also that possibility to advertise optional
> >> >functionality with on-demand installation ? And the package
> >transformations,
> >> >allowing multiple package customizations while reducing HD space ?
> >>
> >> I don't know what you mean by the above.
> >Since I don't know which one you refer to, I'll detail both :
> >- on-demand installation lets you install some menu options, shortcuts,
> >etc... referring to elements that are not really installed until you
invoke
> >them.
>
> I see. IN LInux, you'd acheieve this goal by having multiple packages.
>
No. Here the packages are absent in a transparent manner : if you click on
an
uninstalled feature, the installation of that feature is automatic (just as
if
it had already been installed, only it takes some time the first time).
> >you're the sysadmin. You want to decide what elements are needed for each
> >category of users, and perform an automatic installation of those
packages.
> >For each category of users, you build a transformation of the MSI package
> >describing the actual setup options. This transformation is not a new
> >package, it really is the definition of the transformation : when you
> >install with the transformation, it uses the original MSI package. Thus,
if
> >you have ten different categories of users with different needs, you'll
only
> >have one big MSI file and ten much smaller files describing the
> >tranformations.
>
> Are you saying you install the software once for each user ? I'm confused.
Sorry, this comes from the habit of having one user per workstation. In fact
I suppose you can find relevant cases where this is a sensible thing to do
on a per-user basis, but nevertheless this is probably possible for a set of
machines (those machines being used for different purposes and thus
requiring different software configs).
> >Now you set up everything so that the install starts when your users log
off
> >on friday evening and shutdown their machines after completion.
>
> If you want to set certain times for installs, you can do this with
> cron.
It's not about times. Times are very well if your machines are on all time
(in which case you can do everything at night, so as not to be annoying to
people working late or early), but this is a waste of energy. Events, in
particular "on machine shutdown", is better because you are 95% sure that no
one bothers the software being installed when the machine should be off
anyway.
But this is surely possible in Unix too.
Yannick.
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:10:21 -0500
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>
>>> Check out the new sig, which Erik prompted me to realize I had not
>>> started using in COLA, yet.
>>>
>>> --
>>> T. Max Devlin
>>> *** The best way to convince another is
>>> to state your case moderately and
>>> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
>>>
>>We'll look forward to your new posting direction then. When do you
>>expect to start posting moderately and accurately?
>
> 1993.
>
ROFL - You`re good
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:16:38 GMT
> None of them were Commy except Linux.
Communism, like capitalism has good points and bad pointd, though IMO,
communism has too many bad points. But this isn't a political group, so
I'll stop here.
> >Now I'm getting slightly confused. To be rather pedantic about it,
> >laws are meaningless without enforcement -- but I am unaware of
> >laws that protect "smart people with the money from all of the stupid
> >brutes out there".
>
> Thear are laws agenst stealing, and laws agenst murdor, and laws
agenst crack-smoking.
Er, yes. So?
> >Laws protect everybody; they protect the "stupid
> >(but hard-working) brutes" who save their money from the smart
> >criminals who might take it, too. (Not that criminals are all
> >that intelligent, by and large; the smart ones don't get caught,
> >but the even smarter individuals don't have to commit crimes,
> >since they would be in demand and get paid top dollar in
> >legitimate enterprises.)
> >
> >At least, they're supposed to. I don't know if they're entirely
> >successful.
>
> If their not succesfull, then their not vary smart.
Smart people aren't sucessful. It seems that many real geniuses never
met with any kind of success or recognition.
> Why would thay? It would caust them monney.
On the contrary, it is cheper (in the short term) to churn out bad,
hacked code.
> >"Primate Indians"?
>
> Munky poepal with bo's and arro;s that shoot cappitolists.
I thought that rich (i e land owning indians) people should be protected
from the land stealing bruted (the 'cappitolists' who invaded). Maek upp
yaw miynd, timmay.
> >Of course, there are issues with higher wages -- for starters, they
> >raise the cost of creating the product, which gets passed on
> >in part to the consumer (the rest gets eaten by the corporation).
> >
> >>They make company's worhtless and noboddy want's to by there stalk
> >>so thay half to sell it real cheap. We half to get rid of union's
> >>and there stupit dimmands for higher wages and job securety.
> >
> >"Stupid demands"? Why are they stupid?
>
> They caust monney, whitch make's company's stalk drop like a rock.
Shouldn't there be laws protecting people from the brutes?
> >>Lixnu is getting stronger to, because company's don't realize how
^^^^^
I love that one.
> >>mutch munny their losing when they don't run Windows.
>
> >Perhaps it's because the CEO's are realizing how much money
> >they are losing when they DO run Windows --
>
> All the CEO's that are lissening to Linux zellates now are going out
of bisness.
Proof? A shread of evidence?
> >after all, a
> >server that blue-screens doesn't serve too well! (It's not
> >too clear to me that a BSOD can be rebooted from after a
> >set time, either, although watchdog cards could presumably
> >be installed if necessary.)
>
> Its' not clear that a Kernal Panic can be rebooted from ether.
I believe that you can set linux either to reboot or loop. Besides
kernel panics are rather rare. Also, watchdogs (for either system)
aren't expensive.
> >As for corporations having so much money to throw around learning
> >a new OS -- let me suggest that there are a fair number of
> >dotcoms (I am currently employed at one) who want to ensure that
> >their hardware and their employees (and their money!) are doing
> >their very best. One would hope that Linux is sufficiently
> >polished (it's getting there) so as to allow employees to get
> >their actual work done, be it development in C++, Java, or
> >whatever, without worrying about whether their operating system
> >is going to Bite the Big One.
>
> Keap hoping. Linux isan't their yet. Linux make's you eddit
/etc/rc.d/netstat/rc.inittab or it'll stop working.
That is incorrect. It won't stop working, if you don't change the
configuration.
> >It also helps that the OS scales nicely from a tiny 386
> >to a gigantic IBM S/390, with a lot of systems in between.
> >Can Microsoft do that?
>
> Linux can't even scail to a dual-processer Pentium III with a Radeon
64MB DDR video card. Windows beats the
> pant's off Linux on that kind of a system.
<dreamland>
OK, so I'll just throw out the S390 I bought for personal use and go
back to my dual processor thing, so I can use windows. Y'know I erally
can't get used to all that speed.
</dreamland>
> >And there's a lot of Unix code out there, that can be readily
> >ported to Linux, and vice versa. (Linux code could be ported
> >to NT, as well -- but it takes quite a bit more work; NT code
> >can be ported to Linux, but that takes even more work, and a
> >lot of supporting libraries as well.)
>
> All the GOOD code is for Windows.
Jesus, christ, man. Yuu rowt in intyre sentanz wifowt mis-spealing an
wurd!
Besides, how do you know. Have you seen windows code?
>
> >>Meanwhile, the CommyLinux CommyVirus is gettign put
> >>in place, and pretty soon we'll all half to surrendor
> >>to the Commy's because if we don't our computors will
> >>crash and itl'l be like Y2K with no ellectrissitty and
> >>all that Capitol has done for uss wil be destroyed.
> >
> >You're seriously suggesting that Microsoft is a better solution
> >for crashes than Linux?
>
> Yes.
Anuva korektlee spealt wurd!
Well, guys, isn't it good to have Tym Parma back?
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). He got there before Von Neumann too| eng.ox.ac.uk
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 17 Sep 2000 15:41:05 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 13:00:04 +0100, Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
>Perhaps someone here could write a suitable filesytem, preferably as an
>addon
>to the standard e2fs filesystem (maybe corel could do this as their distro
>is the one
>most aimed at inexperienced users)?
In fact one could do something even simpler and write a version of "rm"
that "moves files into the trash" or something like that. This has already
been done.
Oh, and Corel is a POS. Just thought I'd say it (-;
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: 17 Sep 2000 15:44:30 GMT
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:46:20 +0100, Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
>On the negative side though it does mean that either application developers
>must port their products to multiple operating systems or at least some
>users
>will have to make their machines multi-boot to be able to run everything
>they
>want to (better emulation of each-other's operating systems should help
>here).
I think one issue Richard has avoided is the fact that compatibility is not
only important, it is something demanded by users ( not just "lazy
developers" ). If one refuses to compromise in design by being "compatible",
more can be done in terms of design, but then, you're not compatible.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:47:56 -0400
I beta tested winMe. Three betas, and I'm running the final on this box. It
is an effort to bring an even more user friendly OS to what some refer to as
the "home user".
Help is improved greatly (but slower), home networking is a walk in the
park, system restore does just what it says it does, an included movie maker
is a bare bones editing program for making home movies, media player is
memory intensive, but a fairly good product, and real mode dos support has
been removed. You can't boot to dos, you can't hold the shift key when
restarting and just boot to windows. Restart on the shutdown menu always
goes through the entire boot sequence. Some apps that depend on this won't
run. Older virus scanners and such. The only hit I had there was an older
version of Guard Dog. But I never thought much of that program any-hoo.
You can still run many, many dos apps. I know because I do. A Gin game,
Turbo pascal, Turbo C,. version 1 of Mavis beacon for dos, and a few dos
games. They work just fine. Over a dozen batch files all work as expected,
just as they did in w95,and 98.
Overall, I find it a little more sluggish than w98, but I've had less
instability. But then I don't have much of that with w98. I read hardware
reviews - use certified drivers and maintain my system(s).
As for driver support, MS has admitted to reducing driver support in WinME.
I'm not sure of the reason, just that it didn't detect things I would have
thought it would. Overall, however, as I had the drivers for the hardware it
didn't provide, I found the install flawless in all four installs. Beta 1
to 3, and the final.
Most of what needed to be added (what ME didn't find) can be done during
installation.
I have more fun running Linux, but ME is just not that bad. Would I pay $50
to go from 98 to ME? If I was into home networking for the first time, used
video devices, et., Yes. Otherwise, probably not.
"sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <JE3x5.4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ingemar Lundin"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Microshaft Sucks! I hope to NEVER buy another product that Gates had
> >> a hand in selling!
> >
> >
> > Strange thing tough...it only seems to be linux users that having
> > problem with windows setup...how come?
> >
> >
> > /IL
> >
> >
>
> Wrong again /IL,
> Go to ZDNET and read about true blue windos users, they`re having problems
as well.
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:53:37 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason McNorton
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybe you should tell me what's new in W2K compared to W98...?
> This is completely off topic, but.. I have to ask. Was it drugs or
> schizophrenia that hit you in 1992 for you to produce those sketches on
> your site?
Neither. I have a very active imagination. And creative, imaginative
people prefer the Mac to Windows.. ;)
> Their quality is quite good, but the content is far more twisted than
> stuff I've seen come from extremely disturbed individuals. There's an
> evilness and detached oddness to them that puts anything by HR Giger to
> shame.
I'll take that as a completment. I'm curious about the "evil" you mention.
Where is it evident?
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:55:37 +0100
In article <eLNw5.5043$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You're saying there's nothing new? Then I guess I'm as fluent with W2K as
> > I am with Win98.
> Your question is somewhat on the order of "So, what's the difference
> between the Titanic and a speed boat?"
> It's so obvious, it's not even worth mentioning, and the fact you
> asked the question shows that, even if we did answer, you still wouldn't
> comprehend because you don't even have a basic understanding.
And since you and dc *still* haven't managed to provide any specifics,
I'll just assume the difference is just minor stuff, like a new version of
the paperclip, 1000 more options for that already useless "recycling bin",
some new icons, 63,000 new bugs, and so on.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.society.anarchy,alt.atheism,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 11:58:01 -0400
2:1 wrote:
>
> Well, guys, isn't it good to have Tym Parma back?
>
> -Ed
>
LOL! Damn I wish I hadn't come here after the rest of that thread expired
from my servers... that's funny stuff.
-D. Butler
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 15:55:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Elvis
Jefferson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is MacOffice 2001 carbonized?
No.
> On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 18:35:24 GMT, Rob Barris
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Getting them to do Carbonized apps (example, Mac Office 2001) is a
> >political victory, being able to run their old ones transparently is
> >a technical one.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:59:55 +0100
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >You're saying there's nothing new? Then I guess I'm as fluent with W2K as
> >I am with Win98.
> <boggle> Well, at least you admit you know nothing about W2k.
> Anyway, there have been enough posts here that, by now, you should be
> reasonably educated about it. But I suggest you not knock something
> you know nothing about.
Since there evidently is nothing new worth mentioning in W2K there is no
reason for me not to "knock it" the same way I "knock" Win98.
I mean - you guys haven't managed to tell me about *one* single new thing
in W2K.
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Never tell me again that Windows is easy to install!!! It's a lie!
Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 12:03:37 -0400
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> "OSguy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Microshaft Sucks! I hope to NEVER buy another product that Gates had a
> > hand in selling!
>
>
> Strange thing tough...it only seems to be linux users that having problem
> with windows setup...how come?
Porbably the same reason that Windows users have the most trouble with
setting up a Linux system... few will admit when their own preference in OS
actually does something that makes it difficult, or doesn't seem to make
sense. Both sides are guilty of this one.
-D. Butler
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
