Linux-Advocacy Digest #192, Volume #31 Tue, 2 Jan 01 15:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Strange passwd (Bill Unruh)
Re: Global Configuration tool (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux, it is great. (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it does) )
(The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code (Martin Eden)
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) (Andres Soolo)
Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!) (aflinsch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Unruh)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.security,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Strange passwd
Date: 2 Jan 2001 19:11:06 GMT
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
]I installed 2 Turbolinux at 2 separate machine A and B. I want to make
]some users who do not need a password when they are login.
Why in the world do you want to do this? If those machines are connected
to the net in any way, you have just made them a hackers dream. They can
use them to launch attacks on others without fear of being found out.
And you have opened yourself to liability lawsuits. Bad idea.
]>passwd -d user123
]>passed -S user123
]Changing password for user user123
]No Password set.
](and I CAN'T login with this user without a password.)
Look at the PAM setup on machine B. You can set it up so that it will
not work without a password.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.linux.sucks,alt.linux.slakware
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:13:32 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Chris Ahlstrom
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 14:58:05 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 20:51:11 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Flat head, is more like it.
>>
>> I'm not the one who has to pound one's head against the wall in
>> frustration begging manufacturers to support Linux.
>
>Maybe you should learn to write a driver for your favorite device(s).
>Contribute instead of complaining.
Assuming he's technically knowledgable and the specs are available.
Obviously, this is not a given -- I'd have trouble writing a good
driver, although at least on Linux I can poke around in the source
code for many similar examples, and no doubt a few books have been
written on how to do so. (I have a book on how to write a Unix
driver, but it's almost useless for Linux; the technology's
too different.)
And a few manufacturers used to require NDAs for board specs;
I don't know if this is still an issue, or not.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- "Use the source, Luke."
up 93 days, 16:18, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:22:52 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:45:32
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JSPL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 1 Jan 2001 13:37:16 -0500;
>> >"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 01:28:58 GMT, Chad Myers
>> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> >> No, you claimed that the Democrats were trying to "subvert the rule of
>> >> >> law."
>> >> >
>> >> >Which they were. You didn't even answer the claims, instead stooping to
>> >> >name calling.
>> >>
>> >> How is going to court "subverting" the rule of law? I've always been
>> >> under the impression that you went to court to get an interpretation of
>> >> the law, not to subvert it. Subverting would involve something
>> >> extra-legal, such as paying off the people counting the ballots or
>> >> voting on behalf of dead people.
>> >>
>> >> Maybe I missed a civics lesson someplace where they defined lawsuits as
>> >> "subversion".
>> >
>> >Well lets see, a law on the books in Florida stated that the the Secretary
>> >of State SHALL certify the results by a certain date. The Florida Supreme
>> >court issued an order stating that the Secretary of State SHALL NOT certify
>> >by that date. I'd call that "subverting" the existing law, not
>> >"interpreting" it.
>>
>> Thus supporting the theory that Republicans are simply wrapping
>> themselves in the flag, and claiming that any Democratic action
>> whatsoever was "subverting" the law.
>
>Max, open your eyes, seriously. The FL Supreme Court overstepped
>it's bounds TWICE and became activists and started writing laws on
>the fly. This was proven TWICE in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Without the filter of partisan posturing which you seem to have, it
seems that the FL Supreme Court "understepped" its bounds, and this, in
fact, is what the US Supreme Court pointed out. But your eagerness to
say that the US Supreme Court "proved" it makes clear that you wouldn't
be able to think straight about the matter to begin with, so even if I'm
wrong, I doubt sincerely that you could ever even begin to approach
convincing me of that.
>The first
>time, the FL Supreme Court completely, and wholly ignored the
>original U.S. Supreme Court's vacation, and went renegade and did
>the same thing AGAIN for a SECOND time in a row. Justice O'Connor
>even pointed this out in the second and final court decision. She
>noted how she was troubled by the gross lack of respect the FL
>Supreme Court showed towards the High Court. Under different circumstances,
>they would've been asked to resign for something as serious as that.
You are SO full of shit. ;-)
>To say that the Republicans are just "wrapping themselves in the flag"
>over this is wholly ignorant and just goes to show that you have no
>grasp on the severity of the situation that occurred in Florida.
You are SO full of shit. ;-)
>If you took some time to sit down and read the facts, we wouldn't
>be having this argument.
Sure we would. Because I would be arguing from the real facts, while
you would still be arguing from this "Democrats are subverting the law"
bullshit.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:22:54 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 02 Jan 2001 03:45:33
[...]
>> >Which they weren't. You have not made one attempt to even back this claim up.
>>
>> You don't seem to realize what I claimed. I claimed that if you can't
>> recognize that Republicans had no more moral rectitude in their
>> machinations as the Democrats did, then you can't make a claim about how
>> morally destitute the Democrats were.
>
>But they (Reps) weren't. You have no facts to back up the claim that the
>"Republicans were doing the same thing". This is an out-in-out lie. The
>Republicans definately had the moral and legal high ground and the
>Democrats were in the trenches end-justifies-the-means mode.
You are arguing from conclusions, again. I have no concern at all for
any "moral and legal high ground", merely facts, and the law, both of
which are far more complicated and incomplete than you would seem to be
possible. Everything that YOU have to say about what happened is simply
tainted; useless because of your obvious partisanship.
>> I don't need to back this claim up,
>
>Yes you do, because there is no obvious backing. The problem is, you
>have nothing to back it up, so you hide behind your insults.
It was the Republicans who stopped the recounting. The Democrats sued
to get it restarted, but the FL Supreme Court botched the job and wasted
time until there wasn't enough left once things were sorted out.
>> you may have noticed (now that I've said it for the third time,
>> since you missed it the first two), because it is a tautology. I never
>> actually made any claims at all about how correct or partisan either
>> side was actually being. I was merely noting that so far your "claims"
>> are just partisan posturing, not critical examination of the actions of
>> either party.
>
>Suddenly obvious facts and recorded history is "partisan posturing".
Not suddenly, no. Foot-stamping has been a standard mechanism used by
trolls and conservatives for years and years.
>Democrats at all levels in Florida and the U.S. were attempting to
>stymie the election and contest processes.
And how is contesting the processes "stymie-ing" the election?
>They stopped at nothing
>including changing the rules and laws after the game (a gross violation
>of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution) and manufacturing votes
>in Palm and Broward Counties.
Facts please; we're already aware of your partisan posturing.
>I can show you report after report, sections
>of recorded testimony and counting sessions where Democratic canvassers
>would essentially make a Gore vote from nothing.
Perhaps you merely never saw the Republican canvassers doing the same.
Or perhaps you're moronically ignorant enough to figure Democrats, by
their political affiliation and liberal approach, are all dishonest,
while Republicans, due to their own politics and conservative stand, are
all above reproach. Or perhaps you aren't interested in what happened,
but merely using any and all opportunities to engage in foot-stomping
and serve up another 'Democrats are evil people' tantrum.
>They would hide Bush
>votes. There was even a case where a counter attempted to slip a batch of
>Bush votes under the door to a waiting accomplice to dispose of them
>(in Broward County, after the Nov 14 deadline, this was well documented
>by Fox News Channel and the Washington Post).
As was the way the Republicans broke the rules to "save" (and thereby
invalidate) thousands (THOUSANDS, in an election where the margin of
victory was hundreds!) of absentee ballot registrations, EVERY ONE OF
WHICH was Republican, and NONE of which were Democrat.
>There was no such trickery or criminal behavior being pursued by the
>Republicans, not by a long shot.
>
>So, again, I ask, what do you have to back your so obviously false claim?
If I haven't provided any, then to have already decided my claims are
false shows a lack of intellectual integrity. Doh.
>(Why do I ask... <sigh> You've already avoided the question 4 times now,
>thus answering it)
I haven't avoided it in the least bit, you lying bag of hot air. I
ignored it on some occasions, and I confronted it on others. Overall,
I've provided just as much, possibly more, real information than you
have, though I don't for a second believe you would be capable of
recognizing that.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:22:56 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 02 Jan 2001 04:55:32
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >> >> I have no choice but to see almost every action of a Republican as a
>> >> >> personal attack;
>> >
>> >Now that's a rational attitude, isn't it?
>>
>> I'm afraid it is, yes. A sorry state of affairs, but politics is a game
>> where CYA is the only strategy that makes sense.
>
>Instantly assuming a Republican, or any person aligned with a particular
>political view, comes out of the gate with a personal attack is most
>assuredly NOT rational.
You misread my statement, apparently.
>My tone got ugly only after phrases such as
>"classic bullshit, soft-headed (obviously a pet phrase of yours) and
>transparantly moronic" entered the picture.
Those aren't the kind of personal attacks I was referring to.
[...]
>> >> >You do have a choice, Max.
>> >> >
>> >> >> it is an self-preservation mechanism.
>> >
>> >Paranoid schitzophrenia?
>>
>> Subversive iconoclast.
>
>No less rational than the prior description.
Guffaw.
[...]
>> That same way you are; you keep posting no-content messages, as if
>> you're responding to my statements, but you never actually provide any
>> reasonable response to my comments, almost as if the only reason you
>> read my words is so that you can snipe and spout rhetoric, and you stop
>> even trying to understand my reasoned and practical position.
>
>I've responded calmly and rationally to several of your statements. The
>foolishness began when you were pressed for an explanation of your views and
>provided insults and lame condescension as a response. I read your words to
>try and get a fix on where you're are coming from and whether or not you're
>simply made of straw. Your replies seem rational enough when discussing
>uptimes but they certainly seem less so when discussing politics.
They are the same arguments: you believe in what you most reasonable
know to be true, and judge the validity of facts by how well they
correspond with other known facts, and strive at all times to be as
accurate, consistent, and practical as possible.
In the one argument, were we have Microsoft apologists wishing to prove
that NT is a reliable system, and in the other we have Republican
apologists wishing to prove that Democrats have no honesty or integrity.
In both cases, statements made by the apologists are apparently inspired
by arguing from conclusions, and would prefer that their personal
convictions have the weight of facts, regardless of how unreasonable
they are in their presentation or support.
[...]
>> >Which you convieniently neglect to bring forward...
>>
>> Look around. So far, you haven't refuted my position (in fact, you've
>> strongly supported it by engaging in such mindless squirming in leu of
>> refuting it with facts or reason) so if you have any facts which you
>> believe can shed light on how accurate, consistent, or practical my
>> argument is, feel free to provide them. Real facts, please, not simple
>> Republican hyperbole and partisan thrashing.
>
>Yes, your position has been refuted. And you, sir, have been asked on
>several occasions for facts. Your response was the aforementioned
>name-calling.
Bullshit. ;-)
>Any facts presented to you are instantly filed under hyperbole and partisan
>thrashing.
Now if only I was partisan, or presenting any hyperbole, you might have
some small point. ;-)
In point of fact, I am not a Democrat, nor a liberal, nor a Republican
or conservative, but a moderate independent. My presentation has been
entirely and completely limited to the recognition that, if there was
political malfeasance going on, it is most probable (and supported by
what few facts we actually have, if they can be extracted successfully
from media presentations) that both sides were doing everything they
could to ensure they carried Florida.
The Republican's incessant efforts to insist the Democrats were trying
to subvert the process count in the Democrats favor, I'm afraid. It
might not seem rational, but it is definitely and without a doubt
reasonable.
[...]
>> >Hope the voices in your head have something nice to say soon...
>>
>> To requote my own previous response:
>>
>> >> >> >> Now, here we have the classic kind of bullshit, soft-headed,
>> >> >> >> transparently moronic argument that Republicans and right-wingers of all
>> >> >> >> stripes typically use.
>
>The phrase "Hope the voices in your head have something nice to say to you
>soon" isn't an argument - Its' an insult.
Actually, it is an argument; of the ad hominem variety.
>I apologise for that...Spending New Years porting poorly written legacy code
>from C to C++ makes me a bit cranky.
And here I would have thought it had something to do with having been
shown to be engaging in hyperbole and partisan rhetoric.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux, it is great.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 19:39:44 +0000
Todd wrote:
> Anyway, given the cost of Linux, it is an impressive system. However, I
> still feel that Windows 2000 is a technically superior product ( I work
> with many 2000 boxes everyday ).
Out of curiousity, how often do your 2000 boxes crash, blue screen or
whatever (if at all)?
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.microsoft.sucks
Subject: Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yes it
does) )
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:41:31 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 31 Dec 2000 02:08:00 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>>
>> AN operating system is only as good as the programs that run on it.
>
>
>wrong. An OS is only as good as it's kernel. New Programs can be
>developed in parallel by anybody who has a copy of development tools.
>But the kernel can only be improved by a rather limited group of
>people.
Except in the case of Linux; one can patch one's own kernel to one's
heart's content, and submit the patches to Linus & cohorts.
It's about as open as one can get. :-)
>
>
>
>>
>> Therefor, Linux sucks.
>
>
>Linux will beat LoseDOS (in all forms) decades before Microsoft
>ever puts out a decent kernal that doesn't crash at the drop of a pin.
I'm not sure if it's NT's kernel that is crashing. I suspect its
badly-written drivers in some cases (a coworker of mine got BSODs
because apparently his CD-ROM driver was doing something dumb),
but it does seem that NT crashes a lot. What parts? I for one
can't say.
I have caught at least one instance of memory corruption somewhere
in the system while running Office2000, though -- composition of
a message started acting very strangely. I closed the composition
and restarted Office2000, and everything was fine (riiiiight).
I would guess that's a misprogrammed RTF widget, but it's weird,
and then there's the "oops, I can't do tooltips anymore" issue
in the GUI, somewhere.
At least in the case of Linux, the GUI -- if one can call the
console a GUI, as opposed to just a rock-solid UI -- doesn't crash. [*]
There may be some issues with X and user-written libraries, of
course, but they won't bring down the entire system; if X crashes,
one is left at a console if it doesn't just start right up again
(xdm).
>
>
>>
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Sat, 30 Dec 2000 06:09:51 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > >Ah yes, "Linux is easy to use".
>> > >
>> > >Alright, fine, LINUX is easy to use.
>> > >
>> > >Now make ALL the programs under it easy, and then we'll talk.
>> >
>> > Linux is not about programs. Linux is the kernel. Repeat after
>> > me....Linux is the kernel....Linux is the kernel....Linux is the
>> > .......
>> >
>> > Linux is pathetic.
>> >
>> >
[.sigsnip]
[*] And even if it does, one can telnet/ssh in and sync/shutdown/reboot
as an emergency measure. It's a blemish, but not a fatal one;
there's no comparative method in NT for rebooting.
I have had the video drivers do strange things years ago;
SVGA DOOM occasionally locked up the video console. I understand
this is no longer an issue -- and in any event, I now run
BOOM in X.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 93 days, 16:23, running Linux.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:41:25 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 20:06:40
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> > Let me get it striaght, you've a NT box(s) that BSOD occationly, and you
>> > remember those 3 AM BSOD especially because...?
>>
>> Getting up and driving to the office at 3 am does that -
>> Gee, I'd have thought that'd be an easy concept....
>
>That was punishment for ignorance.
Somebody else's fault. Can't be Microsoft's, just because their product
is crap.
>> > Did you had to reset the machine manually?
>>
>> It isn't me, it's my poor nt admin co workers - I'm
>> the lucky one, I admin Unix boxes, I get to sleep
>> at night and have my weekends free.
>>
>> And AFAIK they had to reboot the blue screened
>> windows pc server with the button...
>
>Then I would say that both you and they are incompotent NT administrators.
>It takes about half a minute to set NT to reboot automatically on BSOD.
Somebody else's fault. Can't be Microsoft's, just because their product
is crap.
>> Surely you've heard the old saying that the number
>> one remote nt administration tool is your car?
>
>No, I've not.
Somebody else's fault. Can't be Microsoft's, just because their product
is crap.
(Just so you got the idea I was copying and pasting, in order to
ridicule your feigned position.)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: Martin Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXCLUSIVE: Hacker Steals Redhat Linux Source Code
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 19:51:27 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> >
> > goodbye, moron.
> >
> > *PLONK*
> >
>
> Translation: Keldon Warlard realizes he's been outsmarted.
>
By someone who (by his own admission) can't get Windows to start up?
I'd say you two are in a league of your own 8*)
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: 2 Jan 2001 19:50:56 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy JM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>FUD. Most commerce servers run *nix. Most DB servers run *nix. Anyone
> Is Unix swearing or something?
No, it's just that there aren't single Unix anymore.
Besides, Unix(tm) is a trademark of it's respective owner.
The .sig was chosen randomly, believe it or not :-)
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
As of next Thursday, UNIX will be flushed in favor of TOPS-10.
Please update your programs.
------------------------------
From: aflinsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: An Entire Day With Linux (Yukkkkk!!!)
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 14:47:32 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I have Mandrake 7.2 already set up and running, as best as it can for
> Linux that is.
>
Same distro & version that I run.
> First off, this version of Linux is anything but stable and that is a
> fact. Here are a few bugs:
>
> Open a terminal window under kde and that's the end of it. You can
> never open another one because it is hung. You can open other programs
> and run them but when you try to logout of kde it is hung and it's
> kill the xserver time.
Odd, the KDE terminal always works for me. I have had the KDE logout
not work for me a few times. It didn't lock up X however, just did not
work, logging out a second time does the trick.
You could always use a different terminal, several are included with
the distro and installed by default.
Just curious, but did you install the packaged version, or a
downloaded version. The packaged version was sort of rushed out the
door, and has a few not quite ready packages (KDE 1.99 something
instead of 2.0 for instance)
> Wheel mouse worked fine until I tried Gnome instead of kde and it (the
> wheel) never worked again after that. Re-installing via DrakConf
> didn't help.
I don't use a wheel mouse, so won't comment here
> Use the Fontmanager to find my Windows TT Fonts, which it does, but
> they never show up in any of the menues to be selected. SO where are
> they and how do I use them?
Minor nitpick, but did you restart xfs? I had the same problem,
restarting the fontserver found them all.
> Setting up an account in Gnome Dialer doesn't work. When you hit OK
> button after inputting all the data it just goes back to a blank, like
> when you started. Real nice applet that one is.
No comment here, as I usually use KDE, and have kppp setup instead.
Everything worked fine, just needed to make a symlink to /dev/modem
> Selecting "Help" in just about any program brings up that totally
> useless generic KDE help (How to move a mouse etc), or a message that
> help hasn't been written yet. Doesn't surprise me seeing as half of
> kde hasn't been written yet. It looks and acts like a toy and is very
> unstable.
KDE is written, just some of the applications are incomplete. I have
seen win apps with useles help files also (win98 is a perfect
example).
> Menues between the various window managers don't have the same
> selections in them. For example:DrakConf is missing from
> Enlightenment. So where did they go?
I never noticed that. It might be true however. Eitherway you can
always pop open a terminal, and run it from the command line.
> Speaking of Enlightenment (pretty nice BTW), once you run it all of
> your menues in kde and Gnome get screwed up. Totally out to lunch
> unless you wish to rebuild all of your menus.
>
> Printing doesn't work with StarOffice and CUPS.
It does for me. What are you doing wrong?
> My Matrox G400 with 16 meg is identified as a 4 meg card. No way to
> change it because Linux insists it has 4 meg.
No comment, as I do not have a Matrox card.
> Not to mention none of my USB devices work.
Every single one of mine work perfectly (of course I only have a usb
zip drive and a dsbr100 radio).
> Add to this that Netscape looks like crap no matter what font is
> chosen. StarOffice takes an eternity to load and doesn't import
> correctly from Word for Mac, which even Wordperfect for WIndows does
> fine.
Never tried to import a Word for Mac document so I will not comment. I
have imported Word for Windows docs without difficulty. Usually the
only problem is with fonts that are not installed on the other
machine, but transferring the same doc to another windows machine
usually gives the same problem anyway.
> MusicMatch Jukebox is a half assed, bloated (13meg) pig that runs like
> molasses under Wino.
???. Isn't this a Windows program? Are you saying it is half assed &
bloated under Wine/Linux but not under Windows. If it is such an awful
program, why did you even try to run it under Wine & Linux? OTOH, if
it were a Linux program is there even a snowballs chance in hell that
it would run in Windows? Seems that Linux has a significant advantage
here.
> Typical of Linux programs, it is a generation behind the Windows
> version.
What is, I thought it was a Windows version that you were running
under wine. One of is very confused, and I don't think that it is me.
>
> I did like knode though and that application has promise.
Personally I think knode sucks, and prefer to use pan. Agent, which is
what you seem to be using runs perfectly well under wine.
>
> DrakConf is pretty nice as well.
Yes it is.
>
> Free or not, one has to wonder if anyone test's these things before
> they ship this garbage.
Hmmm, could say the same thing about Windows.
>
> So tell me again, why should I switch from Windows 2000 to Linux? Why
> should anyone switch? Is there a compelling reason? Surely just
> looking at the painful boxy fonts of Linux is enough to make one run
> back to Windows. The way I see it I would be taking a huge step
> backwards all for the joy of running Linux.
My fonts all look fine, and the few that don't look good, look just as
bad under windows.
>
> Nothing much has changed in 2 years from a UI point of view.
Are you really sure that you installed Mandrake 7.2 & actually used
it?
>
> Flatfish
> Why do they call it a flatfish?
Because it is a flat cold slimey thing with gills that likes to hide
under the mud. Perhaps you should go back to hiding.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
