Linux-Advocacy Digest #582, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Mig)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Bob Tennent)
Re: Windows curses fast computers (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Windows curses fast computers ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Poor Linux
Re: Poor Linux
Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
The chances are slim for Microsoft on appeal (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: KDE Hell (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:05:46 +0100
Larry R wrote:
> Gotta love this:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/news/517823.asp
And this on their top consumer OS'es and to claim this is not a problem
--
Cheers
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Tennent)
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: 19 Jan 2001 21:53:18 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 15:28:27 -0600, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>The problem was not "screwing with real/protected mode". The problem was
>the computer didn't give the drives (with large caches) enough time to
>completely write out their data before shutting down.
>
>Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
>enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
>aparently the drive doesn't do this.
Is what you say the drive *should* do mentionned in the standard? Or
are you just trying to shift the blame away from your paymasters?
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:04:18 +0100
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> Actually, I think this *IS* a fault of the drive. The drive should hold
> enough capacitance to finish writing out it's cache and then park, but
> aparently the drive doesn't do this.
>
>
On what planet do you live?
When Wintendo shuts down, it does this VERY fast, and then switches power.
Well, with power off, the drive COULD have enough power left to do its job,
BUT it has perhaps also to power now (power going , in a sense, backwards
out of the drive) the CD-ROM, perhaps even part of the power-supply,
thereby feeding the MoBo and draining even faster.
No, this is NOT the fault of the drives, it's MicroShit's fault. They have
programmers dumb enough to not even get a decent time-out loop working
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows curses fast computers
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 16:17:06 -0600
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:94acvk$a9d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Larry R wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Gotta love this:
> >> >
> >> > http://www.msnbc.com/news/517823.asp
> >>
> >> I've seen this on AMD 450 MHz machines running 98. This is what
happens
> >> when you take shortcuts. For example, find a faster way to shut down
> >> all programs when doing a shutdown instead of screwing with
> >> real/protected mode.
>
> > Did you even read the article?
>
> > The problem was not "screwing with real/protected mode". The problem
was
> > the computer didn't give the drives (with large caches) enough time to
> > completely write out their data before shutting down.
>
> OHHHH....Its the COMPUTERS FAULT FOR BEING TOO FAST.
No, actually.. the drive was too slow, and didn't provide enough capacitance
to deal with it.
> Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> I'm sure everyone will be willing to slow down their hardware so that
windows
> wont break anymore.
Let me ask you a question. How long is WIndows supposed to wait? Suppose
IBM introduces a new drive with a 10GB buffer in it. It takes 10 minutes to
flush the buffer to disk. How long is Windows supposed to wait before
shutting down? The drive provides no way for the OS to know when the buffer
is fully flushed, so what is the OS supposed to do?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:11:13 -0000
On 19 Jan 2001 19:57:07 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> On 19 Jan 2001 19:28:17 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>> On 19 Jan 2001 16:24:26 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 06:21:20 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
>>>>>> Ebert) wrote:
>> [deletia]
>>>Alright look, brainiac. I know you like looking for arguments wherever
>>>you go, but realize that in this case IM AGREEING WITH YOU.
>>>
>>>Christ, irony and sarcasm are simply lost on some people.
>
>> ...especially in a context limiting enviroment.
>
>Ignorance is no excuse. If you really loved me, youd have known what
Ignorance is not the excuse, lack of information is.
>i meant.
>
>I want a divorce.
>
>
>
>
>-----.
>
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:13:56 -0000
On 19 Jan 2001 12:30:56 GMT, Geoff Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Sauosol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> It does not truly support the latest hardware and I'm
>> afraid never will.
You'll cut yourself on that edge you know, even with WinDOS.
>
>This has little to do with Linux the operating system. If the people
>marketing the h/w don't either provide a driver and/or won't release a spec
>there is little that can be done in the short term.
Sometimes the hardware is just too new and the design is not
well enough thought out, the silicon isn't fully debugged,
or the drivers are just crap.
--
The ability to type
./configure
make
make install
does not constitute programming skill. |||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: What really burns the Winvocates here...
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 22:16:02 -0000
On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 20:04:20 +0000, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> It's the same thing you clueless slandering twit.
>
>And you're the first person to get on it, with language like that.
>"Slandering"?
Well, you couldn't find the killfile documentation for
knode so it's no great surprise that you can't operate
a dictionary (online or otherwise) either.
--
>> Yes. And the mailer should never hand off directly to a program
>> that allows the content to take control.
>
>Well most mailers can, so I guess they all suck too.
Yup.
Candy from strangers should be treated as such.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 05:02:37 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 03:11:53
GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> I'm afraid you're quite mistaken. Yes, they can; all of them, we
>> assume, know how to read text, type, and press the appropriate keys to
>> save the file. Its not brain surgery. As for there being "human level
>> interfaces to perform this task", I can't for the life of me think of
>> what you are referring to, as no such facility exists at all in Windows.
>
>Is this your defense to everything?
No.
>Live with it?
I don't understand what that has to do with what I said.
>Why?
See above; why what?
>There is no reason
>Linux has to be just like UNIX WAS, and the movers and shakers are changing
>this, whilst you, the typical zealot insist upon not only keeping the "glory
>days" of Linux, but revel in it's useless oversophistication.
Perhaps you mistook the message; it was surely not 'live with it', but
rather 'learn from it'. There are certainly better ways to do things
than Unix does. As soon as we figure out what they are, of course,
we'll make sure Unix does them. I'm not a big fan of the 'useless
oversophistication' bit, but I'm not silly enough to unilaterally
declare what is useless. In many ways, its nice to know that if you
need such sophistication, it will be there. But certainly; improve on
it, by all means. This is why I like Linux so much, and don't really
consider it any sort of "bastard" Unix, but rather, now, the de facto
standard Unix. It is not even just open source, but GPL (viral) open
source.
>> So whining about having to learn how to do something is now (still) the
>> entirety of the Softhead's argument? What you need, to make you a
>> really respectable sock puppet, is some good FUD and a couple "this
>> doesn't happen in W2K". You should attend more meetings; they give them
>> out in PowerPoint slides.
>
>???
Maybe if you didn't snip so obtrusively, we might be able to carry on a
discussion. But maybe that's not your point, eh?
>> It is difficult, I know, for many on this group to determine if you are
>> another Steve/Clair alias, or just another sock puppet. I think its the
>> latter, but it really doesn't make much difference.
>
>That's right, "Steve/Clair/Swango/Flatfish" moves from his home in The
>Hamptons, hop's Metro North from Manhattan to Poughkeepsie, moves into his
>"summer" home, and takes advantage of the Upstate NY/Capital District Road
>runner service, just to confuse you. No, REALLY! Get a life...
No, he's a troll which has used reportedly 16 (and supposedly growing)
aliases. Truth to tell, I don't know what the signature is, but I'll be
honest and tell you that I have myself recognized his 'posting style',
and subsequently been substantiated. Obviously, I'm not the one that
needs to 'get a life'. I'm strongly resisted the urge to suggest that
you do, but like I said; I don't really know what the signature is. And
I'm an excessively fair-minded individual.
>> >THESE ARE PROBLEMS WITH LINUX and just because one person
>> >decides to bring them up, you call them a liar because they didn't have the
>> >exact same experence you did with Linux.
>>
>> If they say they had the experience, indeed, they would be a liar.
>> Observing that is not quite the same as denying the problem, as you seem
>> to suggest.
>
>Your denying the problem exists, by calling him a liar.
No, I am not. What gave you that impression? I think I was pretty
specific in saying quite precisely the opposite; that it wasn't whether
the problems existed that he was lying about.
>I'm suggesting you
>do this reguardless of the evidence. You do this zeallously, for Linux.
>Put it togather.
Yes, I'm well aware of what you're suggesting. I obviously think you're
mistaken, and quite frankly would suggest that any reasonable person
would concur. Provide some such evidence in refutation of my "doing
this" (whether denying the problem, which I don't do, or calling him a
liar, which I do, I can't tell) and I will happily prove you wrong by
"regarding" it. No bets, of course, on what my response will be. Like
I said; I'm an exceptionally fair-minded person. If I were any more
fair-minded, I'd be a liberal.
[...]
>> >I think I've seen better "documentation" written on the back of a CS
>> >student's hand. These people just can't write about their own damn
>> >products.
>>
>> Sounds like a large market opportunity, once the illegal monopoly quits
>> bleeding the industry dry.
>
>Yes, the market is called A TECHNICAL WRITER, it's a nice job for people who
>can understand technical references and translate that into end user (or ANY
>user) readable writing. It's how documentation is made. These people
>should HIRE ONE For god sake.
Well, like I said, there needs to be, as you observed, a little cash
flow transaction stuff going on, there. Illegal monopolies have a way
of kind of you know "restraining trade". Happens.
[...]
>> I'm sorry, it doesn't matter if it is a point-clicky thing, or a text
>> file, they're all human/machine interfaces. Now, there are bright
>> humans, and there are humans who expect a general purpose microcomputer
>> to perform similarly to a television set. But that's a different
>> matter, really.
>
>The point-clicky thing works just fine for Windows,
Oh, p'shaw, if it didn't suck balls, we wouldn't want to get rid of the
shit, y'know? ;-)
>and works just great for
>Mac, why can't it work for Linux?
No, no, you're mixing things up. Mac isn't "pointy-clicky", its point
and click. It has to be; its the only way to do things, by design.
Fine, I guess, for those who like it (certainly a million times better
than Windows.) As for Linux, well, you need a GUI, which is why Unix
has had a competitive market in GUIs, so to speak, for decades.
Unfortunately, those were the same decades when that whole illegal
monopoly thing squelched most all innovation in GUIs. But, yea, Linux
can do the whole "its a real OS, but uses a GUI, too".
Can't quite match that "middleware" thing, but that's a different issue,
as I'm sure you'll be entirely ignorant concerning.
>Because it's too much work to institute?
>Now who'se being lazy? Clearly the wonderful success of the TV is lost upon
>you Linux nuts. Elegant simplicty is an artform, and a talent. COPY IT FOR
>GOD SAKE.
No, its just a tad too much work to institute FOR FREE. If Windows were
"elegant simplicity", not merely familiar monopoly crapware, believe me,
Linux would copy it. And has, to various degrees, by various means, of
course. I'm a big fan of the whole "everything has a keyboard
equivalent" thing, myself. Yay, Bill. (Sorry, yay IBM.)
>> >Really? Linux.com is exclaimed as an excelent site with Linux and open
>> >source information, and I find propaganda and truely useless
>"testomonial"
>> >excaliming the "prefection" of Linux.
>>
>> Could you possibly cite some quotes attesting to Linux's "perfection"?
>> Perhaps you merely took something out of context.
>
>http://www.linux.com/news/articles.phtml?sid=93&aid=10678
>
>PROPAGANDA.
>
>Read the "Are you KIDDING" comment at the bottom. I loved this one.
You mean the "Are you joking?" comment?
"Claiming that Linux is easier and more user friendly than Windows is
pathetic, and it is maybe to people which "favorite accounting program
[is] (GNUCash)". But for 99% of other people windows is faaaaar more
user friendly,"[...]
Obviously, to the author. The 98.99999999% of other people may wish to
speak for themselves.
>> I would concur with yttrx; with a brain, leaving you "out of luck".
>
>I won't comment on this blatent personal attack.
I'm afraid you'll get nothing more than a guilty <*snicker*> from this
corner.
>> No problem; I don't think anyone holds it against you. The thing is,
>> you might not be perfect, but you can learn, in theory, anyway. Sure,
>> its possible there's something wrong with the system; bugs happen.
>> Nobody denies it; not even Microsoft can quite get away with that cheek,
>> though they do insist on calling them 'issues' to obfuscate the fact
>> that they are clueless where the bugs might be.
>
>And RedHat is just as in tune with they're own bugs, right? So, when RedHat
>shits on their customers it's Ok?
Oh, heavens yes. Well, with me, anyway, unless I'm a Redhat customer.
Uh-oh.
>> >No, it doesn't. RPMDrake is riddeled with defects. STILL. Even after that
>> >UI changeover (from the KPACKAGE Clone look) it sill doesn't function
>> >properly tracking dependencies. Also Mandrake's revision numbering system
>> >doesn't help RedHat native or RPM generic packages.
>>
>> All potentially worthwhile issues to address. Please feel free to
>> contact RedHat or Mandrake, and bring them up.
>
>Your missing the point. But never mind.
I was never minding; that was the point.
>> >And you simply can't deal with the fact that Linux is imperfect.
>>
>> Au contraire; we can, and are, dealing with it perfectly fine. Just
>> because every potential bug that some clueless and unidentified droid
>> putatively posted somewhere, and was echoed by the intellectually
>> challenged Clair/Steve/Flatfish, blows circuits all over your stack
>> doesn't mean that *we* have problems dealing with the fact that Linux
>> isn't perfect.
>
>Sure you don't...
OK. :-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:37:19 GMT
Said Shane Phelps in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 13 Jan 2001 09:16:55
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
>> > >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
>> interchangeable.
>> >
>> > What about Word98?
>>
>> Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different formats.
>
>Is there any particualr reason for that still being the case?
>Not trolling, genuinely curious.
I wondered that, myself, but it does no good to ask Erik. He'll just
say "there wasn't demand", and then commence mumbling.
>IIRC, the Mac version of Word was developed from an earlier version
>of Word for DOS and included a lot of WYSIWYG (as we used to call them)
>capabilities which were independently redeveloped in WinWord. I would
>have expected convergence in file formats.
>Excel was developed on the Mac and certainly used the same format, at
>least as far as Excel 5.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: The chances are slim for Microsoft on appeal
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:23:44 GMT
>From BRIEF FOR APPELLEES UNITED STATES AND THE STATE PLAINTIFFS
(http://ecfp.cadc.uscourts.gov/MS-Docs/1648/0.pdf):
"Microsoft declines to acknowledge the district court�s core findings of
fact and instead recites, as its Statement of the Case, a sanitized
description of its actions based largely on its own proposed � but
rejected � findings. Microsoft, however, is not entitled to re-tender
its proposed findings to this Court. Rather, this Court conducts its
appellate review based on the district court�s findings, which �shall
not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.� FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a). See
Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). That
standard of review is dispositive of the fact-findings in this case
because nowhere in its submission does Microsoft assert specifically
that any fact found by the district court is clearly erroneous."
So much for Microsoft's putative chances of getting anywhere on appeal.
On recent proclamations on these groups that "Microsoft didn't even
question the verdict, just the remedy, which means they know they're
guilty," which didn't even make sense at the time, I can only remark
that they didn't really question anything; they just tried to sort of
ignore the real world.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:36:03 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 10 Jan 2001
>> >Word 2000 and Word 97 use the same format. The files are
>interchangeable.
>>
>> What about Word98?
>
>Word98 is for the Mac, All Mac versions of word have had different formats.
Oh, that's *right*. They never *did* come out with a Word98 for
Windows, did they?
So, as I requested earlier, I'd appreciate it if someone could post a
moderate Word2000 document to alt.destroy.microsoft (I promise nobody
will whine about posting binaries) so that I might test interoperability
with Word97.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:31:20 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 08 Jan 2001 11:29:58
>In article <U4Q26.52456$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:92fa5r$4gg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Very easy.
>> > >
>> > > You can't install 99% of the Windows programs using a command line
>> > > because they require GDI interaction.
>> > >
>> > You can install just about all of the Microsoft apps/server apps
>from
>> > the command line with an answer or ini file. If other vendors
>choose
>> > not to make the command line option available, that's their problem.
>> > The mechanisms are there, just that many don't use them...
>>
>> Try installing a package via telnet this way some time and see how it
>> works to answer questions you can't see.
>
>Read the post again. You can install just about all the Microsoft apps
>from the command line, without requiring GUI input.
For various definitions of "can", none of which extend to "would", or
even "could". Unless, of course, you include the catch-all "could if",
in which case you'd score 100%, AGAIN! Damn, that Microsoft stuff sure
is good, ain't it? Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:54:15 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 13 Jan 2001
06:59:02 +1100;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 10 Jan 2001
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>>>>It's a Microchannel based IBM PS/2
>>>
>>>Indeed. That is "nonstandard"? It strikes me as a very well defined standard.
>
>>No, "Microchannel" was an attempt to wrest back the PC platform from the
>>open market; it was a proprietary bus implemented only by IBM.
>
>It was not implemented only by IBM. It was also a standard --- not a free
>one, but one which you had to license, granted... but that doesn't make
>it any less of a standard. Quite the opposite, really.
Well, let's not stir up the "what is a 'standard'?" question again. It
isn't a standard, the way the word was intended. It was a proprietary
specification. Now, IBM had a 'standard' use of the proprietary
specification, but that doesn't make it a "standard", though if you were
to use the phrase "the Microchannel standard", I doubt anyone would find
it incomprehensible, though some few pedantic ones might argue the
point.
>>>Have you tried recently to buy an ISA VGA card? How about a
>>>VLB EIDE controller? Does that mean these busses are "non-standard" all
>>>of a sudden?
>
>>You're over-stating the case. Mostly by ignoring the difference between
>>an enhancement in the 'standard PC architecture' and a proprietary
>>replacement for it.
>
>Have you tried buying any of that stuff lately? If the fact that
>Microchannel cards are hard to get these days means that Microchannel
>was non-standard (as you seem to believe), then what does that make
>ISA and VLB?
Well, since it isn't the fact that cards are hard to get which indicates
that Microchannel was non-standard. It is the fact that only IBM ever
produced PCs supporting it which most decisively supports the argument.
And absolutely nothing, btw, which refutes it; Microchannel was
non-standard. ISA, and possibly VLB(?), was.
>And what, pray tell, is "the standrd PC architecture"? And if anyone
>gets to decide what it is, shouldn't it be IBM?
No "body" gets to decide, no. There is no panel; any committee which
seeks to provide any definitive specifications still has to submit their
proposals, with no chance to argue the case and no organized method of
even proving its technical superiority, save in the most haphazard way,
to the market, which, tell pray, identifies "the standard PC
architecture" as whatever any two or more vendors are allowed to get
away with in getting the market to agree with them on what "the standard
PC architecture" is. Anything that only one vendor promotes is
automatically "non-standard". Should two or more vendors compete or
cooperate in defining a new standard, then they take their case to the
market, and all the other vendors try to interpret what it says.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:54:41 GMT
Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001 17:44:42 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 6 Jan 2001 08:47:29 -0500;
>> [...]
>> >Yikes! Ever try red hat 7? Makes buttcake 7.2 look like winME
>>
>> Well, I'm glad to hear that, but I've just been told that Red Hat 7 is a
>> "piece of shit", because of some library bugs. What gives?
>
>Red Hat 7 and 2.4.0 running like gangbusters here -
>
>very few complaints.
Any tips?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE Hell
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2001 01:55:49 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 12 Jan 2001
18:10:05 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Yatima in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 09 Jan 2001 20:28:46 GMT;
>> >On Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:36:55 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>In article <3a59915f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> I prefer WindowMaker, myself. It seems like KDE has everything in
>> >>> it but the kitchen sink, and it IS a pretty nice desktop
>> >>> environment. Yet, it lacks the simple features I use most, such as
>> >>> the ability to switch virtual desktops with the keyboard.
>> >>
>> >>Ctrl+Tab
>> >
>> >You can also assign arbitrary keybindings to anything you want (just
>> >like windowmaker) so you can have different bindings for each desktop
>> ><alt>-1 through 4 if you like.
>> >
>> >Not that I needed to tell *you* that :)
>>
>> What's the keybinding for the 'Windows' key? Win-1, Win-2, Win-3
>> would be really cool. But I think I'll still try GNOME.
>
>At least here, they generate Meta_L, Multy_Key and Mode_switch.
"They?" Is it three different keys you're referring to?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
