Linux-Advocacy Digest #732, Volume #30 Fri, 8 Dec 00 05:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows review ("Anders M�rtsell")
Re: Linux is awful ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: What does KDE do after all (SwifT -)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: What if Linux wasn't free? (jtnews)
Re: Linux is awful (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows review ("Kelsey Bjarnason")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Tore Lund)
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! (Steve Mading)
Re: windoze is awful (Steve Mading)
Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF! ("Tom Wilson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Anders M�rtsell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:37:12 +0100
I've been following this thread for a while now, and earlier several like
this one. Now I feel the urge to say something about discussions like this.
I think it's interesting to see people discussing for hours/days about
whether Linux or Windows is the better OS or, as in this case, whether you
should use a GUI or the CLI. Everyone must know that everyone who takes part
in such a discussion has already made up his/her mind about what's right,
and noone will ever change their opinion. Therefore these kinds of
discussions are mostly waste of time, but it's very interesting to read and
study the different ways of argumentation. Wouldn't you all think that it's
better spending you're time on something else than discussing with some
stupid guy whether your superior opinion is better than his bullshit.
If it's not clear to you, my point is: Isn't it time to cut this crap now
and get on with something important instead.
Thanks
/ Anders
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:VI0Y5.41596$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:pK%X5.10318$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [snips]
> >
> > "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:Bl_X5.40981$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > > No I need to move four out of 25 text files within the same
directory.
> > > > Some of them have 30-40 character names, so I can't remember their
> exact
> > > > names. Using a GUI file manager is at least as effective.
> > >
> > > What do you do when you are alternating back and forth between two or
> > > more long directory paths in a GUI that only remembers one? A cli
with
> > > command recall and edit is faster for me in this common situation.
> >
> > 1) Open a copy of Windows Explorer, browse to the source folder
> > 2) Select the files to copy
> > 3) Right-click, "copy"
> > 4) Open a second copy of Windows Explorer, browse to the target folder
> > 5) Right-click, "paste"
> > 6) Click or alt-tab to switch between the windows as needed for further
> > operations
>
> And that is supposed to be easier? It looks like a several-minute job if
> the directories are large and you have to wait for each to open and
> then scroll around to select the files.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:32:59 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>
> > "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> >> From what I understand, the UDMA 100 card mentioned in the original
> >> post is one of those PCI add in cards,
> >
> >
> > The OP was from me... and no, it's not a card; it's the controller built
> > into the motherboard. One of the controllers, actually; it has both a
100
> > and a 66/IDE controller.
>
> So, in a nutshell, it is a motherboard with 2 IDE controllers that are
> UDMA 100. correct?
Actually, it has two banks of two controllers each; one bank is IDE/33/66,
the other bank is straight 100.
> If so, UDMA 100 controllers are backwards compatible
> to 66/33 UDMA.
They're not; to fall back, you have to physically swap the cables around.
> Linux, currently supports UDMA up to 66 (can still use
> an UDMA 100 controller, however, it is not optimised for it), however,
> it is an urban myth that UDMA 100 gives better HDD performance than UDMA
> 66/33 as the speed depends on factors outside the specs of the
> controller, such as the rotation speed of the disk, the size of the
> buffer, internal transfer rate and the speed of the CPU (as IDE
> controllers are very CPU hungry, hence, the reason why most power users
> prefer SCSI).
7200RPM, 2Mb onboard cache, on a 1Ghz box...
As to SCSI, to get a comparable configuration to what I have with IDE, I'd
have to spend about $1,000 per drive, not counting the controller. As it
is, I got both my IDE drives for less than the cost of _one_ comparable SCSI
drive. If I had an unlimited pocketbook, I'd probably go SCSI. As it is, a
decently set up IDE system gives me sufficient disk speed for my purposes;
my stuff is mostly CPU bound as a rule. I just think it's ridiculous to
have to cripple the drives to get Linux working.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:41:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> Something being similar to itself isn't the kind of intuitive you've
:> been talking about though,
: But we weren't talking about "similar to itself". We were talking
: about "thousands of OTHER electrical appliances" (emphasis added).
:> as you pointed out when I tried bringing
:> up vi's internal consistency. So you seem to be talking about
:> things being similar to *other* things.
: Perfectly consistent with "OTHER electrical appliances" (emphasis
: added).
Yeah, and 'vim' is highly intuative when compared to other vi
clones. It's the same thing. If you get to define the boundry
wherever you like, you can make anything look intuitive or
unituitive, as needed to suit your argument, by just shifting
the boundry around.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:58:21 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:> And incendentally, my only objection here is in your two-facedness
:> when you say intuitiveness is all relative (to which I agree), and
:> yet insist on making blanket statements about intuitiveness without
:> the appropriate qualifiers.
: You're erroneously presupposing "two-facedness", given that I haven't
: made any blanket statements without the appropriate qualifiers.
Hmm, I've responded to this in another part of the thread
already. In the interest of trimming the branches, I'll not
repeat the response here.
:> (As evidenced by your insistence that it is possible for a part of
:> a computer to be "intuitive" to all.)
: Where did I allegedly make such an insistence?
In this very thread. Remember the power cord?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 08:55:14 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Actually, the first thing to learn is how to exit the editor,
: hence the ZZ.
I'd been using vi for 1 month before I ever heard of that command,
and I still never use it. It is not the first command you have to
learn. Learning it as ":wq" is much better, as this is consistent
with the other types of quitting commands. ZZ was just a quick
shortcut mapping to the 'real' command.
:> Hit escape if you aren't sure. Now you are.
: So much for efficiency.
It takes roughly zero time to do that, and you only do it if
something distracted you long enough to forget where you are.
:> It is consistent with being the end of the type of motion command
:> you gave.
: Do you consider d to be a "motion command"?
'$' is the motion command, not 'd'. That's the way the other
ones work:
d {motion command} (delete from cursor to the moved-to-spot)
y {motion command} (yank from cursor to the moved-to-spot)
> {motion command} (indent block from cursor to moved-to-line)
< {motion command} (outdent block from cursor to moved-to-line)
v {motion command} (visually select from cursor to moved-to-spot)
...etc... (the last one (v) didn't exist in the original vi, but
exists in all the new incarnations of it)
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 08:53:04 GMT
"kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> <snip>
>
>
> >> Sorry, I missed something; what does some hypothetical "spaghetti code"
have
> >> to do with the functionality and capability of the display system?
Even
> >> assuming the display system's code was an unmaintainable nightmare, as
long
> >> as it met the criteria provided - "decent, professional, control over
it" -
> >> it wouldn't matter; it would still meet the requirements.
> >
> >
> > It fails on ALL of those counts, and more.
> >
> > Spaghetti code is a reliable indicator that the programmer who wrote
> > it is not completely sure about what the fuck he's supposed to be doing.
> "Spaghetti" code also cause's major problems later on when the piece of
> software needs to be audited to check for bugs etc, or when "features"
> need to be added.
Oh, absolutely, from a maintenance point of view, spaghetti code is a
nightmare. However, if a display system does everything it's supposed to
do, and reasonably speedily and stably, then whether the code underneath is
spaghetti or a marvel of modern engineering practice is *absolutely
irrelevant* to the statement he made, to wit:
>>if you want to have a decent, professional display and control over it,
>> Linux would be the last choice.
>You mean compared to the high-school spaghetti code produced in
Redmond????????
The fact that the code may be spaghetti does *not* mean that the
functionality it provides cannot be "decent, professional" and offer control
over it; it simply means that you can't maintain the code which already
provides this decent, professional and controllable system.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 09:01:44 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> Okay, I take it back. You did qualify it - but with entirely the wrong
:> group.
: Who or what is the "wrong group"? I qualified it for anyone who chose
: to read what I wrote.
:> It only looks unintuitive to users who have familiarity with
:> other text editors first.
: On the contrary, it can also be non-intuitive to users that have
: no familiarity with any text editors. I did not restrict my statement
: to just those who have used text editors, though they have the added
: problem of "unlearning" something.
:> This is not the same as the set of all first-time vi users.
: Irrelevant, given that I didn't say it is.
:> You didn't qualify it down far enough.
: Sure I did. You simply overinterpreted what I wrote.
Sorry, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you
were stating something that would make sense to me. The
notion that someone who has never encountered any text editor
before could still find editor A more "unintuitive" than
editor B is an alien concept I can't fathom. They are both
equally uninituive to someone who has had no experience with
anything like them before.
------------------------------
From: SwifT - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What does KDE do after all
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 10:12:56 +0100
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> Sockets were developed on 4.3 BSD Unix.
Whatever. It's no reason to call them 'bad'.
> I'm talking about a properly defined syntax for the byte-stream.
>
> Any IPC bytestream that can be implemented in sockets can be
> implemented through pipes.
Actually, if a socket is used for IPC bytestream, it creates pipes. So
since a socket creates pipes, a socket can't be worser than a pipe (since
it relies on them).
--
SwifT
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: 8 Dec 2000 09:17:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Said Steve Mading in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 Dec 2000 00:50:42 GMT;
:>that product will be the only one of its kind on the
:>market, and would thus qualify the company selling it of
:>"monopolization" in your definition.
: Certainly not. What definition of "monopolization" do you think I've
: provided that this example would match? Certainly someone who just
: happens to be first doesn't have the ability to exclude competition, and
: thus is unable to control prices (the market does that).
That depends on how specific their patents are.
:>This would be true even if
:>that company did nothing wrong yet. In 1903, the Wright Brothers
:>were monopolists becuase they built 100% of the working flying
:>machines in the world, at least according to your definition.
: "The Wright Brothers" wasn't a profit-seeking company, precisely. Try
: to stick to the real world, please.
I am. I'm trying to show how *being* a monopoly is not yet
evidence of the crime of anti-competitive monpolization.
It's irrelevant whether such examples are numerous or few.
All it takes to disprove a blanket statement is one counterexample.
Your alleged premise (note, I'm not going to call it a fact unless
you can prove it) that it is *impossible* to attain a majority
market share without doing something illicit is what I am arguing
against. I will agree that *most* of the time, that's how a
company gets into such a position, but I'm not about to automatically
condemn any company that happens to get to that point like you are.
Unlike you, I admit that it is actually possible for a company to
reach that point purely by legit means such as having a good
product for a fair reasonable, non gouging, non dumping price. You
seem to be saying that such things are the talk of fantasies and
fairy tales.
If you would relax your position from the fanatical "all", to the
more reasonable "most", then I'd have no problem with it.
And you also seem to be forgetting that while a fair, open market
will *TREND* toward more competition, it does not get there
instantly. Therefore there is a window of time during which a
company can have a majority position without doing anything wrong.
Your position is based on the faulty notion that if a company
engages in no illicit behaviour that the market will instantaneously
sprout competitors in a matter of minutes. Oh, sure, it will eventually,
but there is no guarantee as to how fast it will happen.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:10:15 GMT
[snips]
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I read these kinds of contests every day and I wonder why people
> are stupid enough to have them?
Dunno... but you proceeded to start one anyway, didn't you?
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 04:25:38 -0500
From: jtnews <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What if Linux wasn't free?
The fact that Linux is free makes it better than commercial software in
one
respect. Commercial software companies often have pressure to keep
changing
software to push out new products to generate more revenue. However,
often
these changes are not needed by end users. With Linux, on the other
hand,
there is no pressure to generate revenue since the source is free
anyway.
Changes are, usually, only made on their technical merits.
Swangoremovemee wrote:
>
> Would anyone but nerds be interested?
>
> I doubt it.
>
> The only reason the big companies are jumping on the Linux bandwagon
> is because they figure if it catches on (doubtful at best) they can
> make a buck selling hardware and services.
>
> It has such a dismal market share amongst desktop users now, that if
> it were commercial it would be dead by now.
>
> Point is Linux can't even be given away because no desktop user in his
> right mind (programmers are not in their right minds) would want it.
>
> As Redhat and SuSE and Corel move toward commercializing Linux, and
> don't kid yourself that is their ultimate goal, to make money, Linux
> will be even deader than it is now.
>
> Swango
> "It Don't Mean a Thang if it Ain't Got That Swang"
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: 8 Dec 2000 09:20:36 GMT
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: Though I don't like the UNIX CLI, where did I say I wanted to get rid of
: it? I'd prefer both GUI and CLI were available, after all, scripts are only
: done with a CLI.
I didn't say you did. I said that this is what is *percieved*, and it's
why people get hostile. They assume you are advoacting the first part
of a long, slippery slope toward gui-only tools, whether you know it or
not.
------------------------------
From: "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt,comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: Windows review
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:14:47 GMT
[snips]
"Anders M�rtsell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90q6k1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I've been following this thread for a while now, and earlier several like
> this one. Now I feel the urge to say something about discussions like
this.
> I think it's interesting to see people discussing for hours/days about
> whether Linux or Windows is the better OS or, as in this case, whether you
> should use a GUI or the CLI. Everyone must know that everyone who takes
part
> in such a discussion has already made up his/her mind about what's right,
Correct to a point... except that some of us use _both_. The examples I
offered in response to Les's questions were easy, quick ways to do basic
tasks using the GUI. Similar things can be done from the CLI. In some
cases, the GUI is easier, such as when you want to copy a mess of files,
whoops, did I create the taget folder? Nope, there it is, fine, do I have
enough space? Yup, okay, right-click and paste, as opposed to faffing
around with CLI equivalents. On the other hand, if I want to copy the files
with, say, 1999 in their name, the CLI is easier; I can use *1999* and
voila, end of problem, whereas the GUI would be more difficult to use in
this case.
I just find it laughable that some folks insist that one way is superiour,
apparently in all cases for all users, when this is patently absurd.
------------------------------
From: Tore Lund <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:11:44 +0100
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> : Steve Mading writes:
>
> :> To hit ESC, you don't have to move your whole arm, just stretch
> :> your finger a bit (Especially so on the older keyboards for which
> :> VI was designed, which put the escape key at the left edge of the
> :> numbers row.)
>
> : To hit cursor keys, you don't have to move your whole arm, just
> : stretch your finger a bit.
>
> Wow! So I assume then that your planet is populated by aliens with
> sinewy 8-inch long fingers that can bend sideways and splay out
> in any direction from the palm? [snip]
I think you missed the sarcasm here.
--
Tore
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: 8 Dec 2000 09:39:02 GMT
Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:00:24 -0500,
: Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: <SNIP>
: Man! Commodore had this effect which I believe
: started this whole thing off.
: I didn't realize everybody else was into commodore
: back then.
About a month ago I downloaded "Vice" (A C-64 emulator,
as well as an emulator for some other Commodore machines
like Vic20 and PET). I've been in retro-kitchy heaven
ever since. I've finished Phantasie1 again, and am now in
the middle of Phantasie2. (Those games go faster when you
can warp-speed all the 1541 disk access in the emulator).
Check out "http://www.lemon64.com" for a good site on c-64
retro emulations and games.
Who could ever forget: "Destroy him, my robots.", and "AAAaaaahhhhh..."
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: windoze is awful
Date: 8 Dec 2000 09:30:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Kenny Pearce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: software is irrelevant. As was previously mentioned, user side software CANNOT
: cause linux to crash... the program itself may crash (I must admit, I have had
: my X-server crash once. I came to the conclusion it was literally an act of
: God (and that's not a figure of speech)),
NOT a figure of speech?? So, God came down and said, "I think I'll
crash Kenny's system today - zzzot"?
Oh my, God, You've kill -9'ed Kenny!
: but the kernel itself cannot crash
: due to the actions of user side software. You simply can't say that of
: Windoze.
: Ayende Rahien wrote:
What you say is true of software that has only ordinary user
permissions. But once you make a program setuid root, then it
*can* crash the system. The protections that are normally in
place to shield normal users from illicit access to hardware can
be bypassed for programs like that.
(For example, the X server *can* crash the system, because it has
root privelege and talks directly to the video hardware not going
through any kernel drivers.)
------------------------------
From: kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 sucks compared to linux
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:46:30 GMT
To be perfectly honest, I am not really too phased whether the fonts are
nice and dandy, as long as I get my work done, thats the main thing. I
would much rather have a stable system than worrying about whether the
fonts are pretty.
kiwiunixman
Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> "kiwiunixman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> Sorry, I missed something; what does some hypothetical "spaghetti code"
>>>
> have
>
>>>> to do with the functionality and capability of the display system?
>>>
> Even
>
>>>> assuming the display system's code was an unmaintainable nightmare, as
>>>
> long
>
>>>> as it met the criteria provided - "decent, professional, control over
>>>
> it" -
>
>>>> it wouldn't matter; it would still meet the requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>> It fails on ALL of those counts, and more.
>>>
>>> Spaghetti code is a reliable indicator that the programmer who wrote
>>> it is not completely sure about what the fuck he's supposed to be doing.
>>
>> "Spaghetti" code also cause's major problems later on when the piece of
>> software needs to be audited to check for bugs etc, or when "features"
>> need to be added.
>
>
> Oh, absolutely, from a maintenance point of view, spaghetti code is a
> nightmare. However, if a display system does everything it's supposed to
> do, and reasonably speedily and stably, then whether the code underneath is
> spaghetti or a marvel of modern engineering practice is *absolutely
> irrelevant* to the statement he made, to wit:
>
>
>>> if you want to have a decent, professional display and control over it,
>>> Linux would be the last choice.
>>
>> You mean compared to the high-school spaghetti code produced in
>
> Redmond????????
>
> The fact that the code may be spaghetti does *not* mean that the
> functionality it provides cannot be "decent, professional" and offer control
> over it; it simply means that you can't maintain the code which already
> provides this decent, professional and controllable system.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 09:42:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
kiwiunixman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> come on Pete, don't hassle tapes :) I have a 50gig ADR Tape drive to
store all my MP3's, videos,
> and downloads (which can be randomly accessed).
Just a playful swipe you understand 8).
> KDE2 is not as buggy as GNOME, however, stability could be improved.
> Apart from that little gripe, KDE2 is pretty good.
My god, if KDE2 is not as buggy as GNOME, and after what I've seen with
KDE2, what does that make GNOME?
--
---
Pete
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS tree - SOUND OFF!
Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2000 10:00:04 GMT
"Steve Mading" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:90qa7m$dhc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : On Wed, 06 Dec 2000 20:00:24 -0500,
> : Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> : <SNIP>
>
> : Man! Commodore had this effect which I believe
> : started this whole thing off.
>
> : I didn't realize everybody else was into commodore
> : back then.
>
> About a month ago I downloaded "Vice" (A C-64 emulator,
> as well as an emulator for some other Commodore machines
> like Vic20 and PET). I've been in retro-kitchy heaven
> ever since. I've finished Phantasie1 again, and am now in
> the middle of Phantasie2. (Those games go faster when you
> can warp-speed all the 1541 disk access in the emulator).
>
> Check out "http://www.lemon64.com" for a good site on c-64
> retro emulations and games.
>
> Who could ever forget: "Destroy him, my robots.", and "AAAaaaahhhhh..."
Or..."Stay a while...STAY FOREVER!!!"
Impossible Mission was one of my favs.
Skyfox was good too!
--
Tom Wilson
Registered Linux User #194021
http://counter.li.org
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
