Linux-Advocacy Digest #188, Volume #33 Fri, 30 Mar 01 06:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing? (Karel Jansens)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' Ewande�")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' Ewande�")
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> ("Paul 'Z' Ewande�")
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Nils Zonneveld)
Re: WFW3.11 uptime (and other thoughts on desktop computing) (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro ("Z")
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro (Matthew Gardiner)
So IE5/Outlook/Outlook Express will all execute attachments ("Adam Warner")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Jeffrey Siegal)
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro ("green")
Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro ("green")
Re: Poor Linux ("Glitch")
Re: Outlook Express Users and Virus's ("green")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows, Linux and evolutionary models
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:16:40 +0000
Andy Walker wrote:
>
> Natural selection partly relies on the ability to adapt to the future. As
> the future almost certainly involves multiuser, multitasking and
> multiplatform not to mention stability, I can't see Windows making the
> decade out. Whereas Linux is already being ported to 64 bit architecture,
> Windows still relies on 16 bit DOS in parts and is very badly supported in
> the types of processors it runs on.
> Scalabilty is also an important issue. Linux can be used, as has already
> been seen, in anything from embedded set top boxes up to large network
> servers. With the inevitable integration of electrical consumer goods and
> audio visual systems, Linux is perfectly suited to being at the forefront of
> this revolution.
Natural selection can only take the past into account, it most certainly
does not "adapt to the future" (how would that be possible, unless the
"entity" controlling the evolution has a way of looking into the
future?)
IMHO this whole analogy between biological evolution and
electronic/algorithmic evolution sucks big time: Natural selection is
not controlled by some kind of intelligence, while it is evident that
the electronic evolution is (albeit often a very limited form of
intelligence, also known as "management"); natural selection is not
striving to achieve some kind of utopian goal, it is just the way
biological organisms happen to react to a changing environment; natural
selection is not interested in the best possible solution, it will be
more than satisfied with one that works.
It seems to me that the only thing biological and electronic evolution
have in common is that they change over time.
Well duh...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:18:58 +0000
Chad Everett wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 19:38:49 +0200, Wilbert Kruithof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
> >Hello!
> >
> >The only thing I am asking for is an answer to above question. *What* way is
> >Open Source developing?
> >
>
> Open.
>
> >And is there a connection between Darwins theory and the way Open Source is
>developing??
> >
>
> No. Darwin's theory was that new species are created through a mechanism of random
>mutations
> preserved or destroyed by natural selection, without intelligent design. Open
>Source developing
> is a method used in Software Engineering (i.e. intelligent design).
*Thank* you! (I was starting to feel lonely <G>)
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
------------------------------
From: Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why does Open Source exist, and what way is it developing?
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001 23:33:56 +0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> OK!!
>
> One says (Chad Everett), there is no connection with Darwin. What he
> says is quite right, but I think there is one.
>
> Because no one knows which is going to happen in future!! So, the method
> of developing software could be labeled as "intelligent", but if I ask
> you; do you think the person which designed your body is intelligent??
>
> I am sure you would say "yes", independent of the fact, according to
> Darwin's theory, no "person" developed you. I think you can say that
> developing software is going the same way as the evolution process, but
> going *much* faster!
>
> But I am still thinking all day about this, and can not solve this
> question. So, please react if you have an other argument.
>
Here is why I think Darwin's theory does not apply to software
development:
1. Biological evolution does _not_ look to the future (it cannot, for
there is noone to do the looking), but builds up on the past. - Software
development does nothing but look to the future (this has to be faster,
that could be coded more efficiently...).
2. Biological evolution is not guided (there is no master plan behind
it), it just happens. - Software development is _always_ guided (no
programmer sits behind his console just tapping blindly at the keys (*);
he wants to create something, and usually has a pretty good idea of what
it is going to be).
3. Biological evolution is never interested in the best possible
solution, only in a solution that works sufficiently. - (I have to admit
I got stuck here, because this is eerily reminiscent of how Windows
"works") Software development should (see my previous remark) be
interested in the best possible solution, to avoid needless future
labour.
Now, if one insists on twisting Darwin's scientific theory into a
philosophical system (for which it was never meant BTW), one might come
up with a utopian construct (in the line of marxism) that said that
software _ought_to_ develop according to the laws of natural selection.
It'd be dead wrong, but one might fool a number of people for some
time...
--
Regards,
Karel Jansens
==============================================================
"You're the weakest link. Goodb-No, wait! Stop! Noaaarrghh!!!"
==============================================================
(*) In hindsight, this does look like Windows development again.
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:11:00 +0200
"Barry Manilow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Mx Devlin" wrote:
>
> NT is
> > certainly faster, and better able to handle I/O and multi-tasking.
>
> I believe it has been shown over and over that NT is about 20% slower
> than Win 98, which was 20% slower to Win95. WinME has been shown to
> be 10% slower than Win98. Win2K is the slowest of all. A friend has
> it on a 700 MHZ and it is so slow it is depressing. I just got thru
> using NT on a 600 MHZ with 128 MB and it was quite slow. Like a
> lumbering beast.
Well, all I can say it's that at the hardware enthusiasts sites, they sure
don't replicate those figures. Given enough RAM, with a tweaked for
performance box and depending on the task at hand 95/98/Me are more or less
equals and generally inferior to NT/2k which are more or less equals.
9x/Me < NT/2K
http://www.anandtech.com
http://www.tomshardware.com
http://www.aceshardware.com
Ad nauseam.
> --
> Bob
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:16:00 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >Why not ? You want me to assume "Remarkably pathetic, as I suggested,
> >considering how bad WinDOS does in this department." without offering no
> >back up whatsoever. <shrug>
>
> No, I want you to *recognize* "remarkably pathetic [et. al,]"; no
Just because *you* said so ? Get real.
> assumption is necessary. Just open your eyes and put away your
> prejudices, and compare the products.
What prejudices ? Are you not the one crapping on some products here ? And
engage in rants with have little to see with the issue at hand and who even
acknowledges this.
"Other than my natural instinct to rant, I can't really disagree with
anything you've said" in this very thread..
It's indeed a straw-beam-eye situation.
> >> rather than MS's crappy design which allows such putative "hardware"
> >> dependencies to exist, is at fault?
> >>
> >> Nope, sorry, can't blame hardware. Not unless you can point to
> >
> >I can't. Watch me: I've seen different behaviours on various systems
with
> >different versions of
>
> And made assumptions about the variables that are entirely unsupported,
> and in fact ridiculous, no doubt. Like my old buddy Roger, who had to
Go there: news://comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips and find the "Formatting a
floppy while multitasking" thread. Apparently, what i claimed doesn't seem
so silly to hardware junkies.
> replace his video *hardware* to get *IE* to work, and acted as if it was
> a hardware failure.
Shows how far you think. When you replace the video card [assuming you
change brands], you are very likely to
> >> *specific* hardware. By name and model number.
> >
> >The irony meter just pegged. I find you quite demanding for someone who
post
> >things like :
> >"And having switched back now from NT to 9x again, I can confirm that
NT's
> >multi-tasking actually is almost as crappy as WinDOS'" without offering
no
> >back up *whatsoever* as to how and in comparison to what NT's
multitasking
> >is crappy. Before looking at the straw in my eye, try to remove the beam
in
> >yours. <roll eyes>.
>
> Shrugs, rolling of eyes; no doubt next you'll <sigh>.
What I do next is point out that you *still* haven't put forward the
evidence that NT multitasking is crap. you lose.
> So you can't name any such hardware, is that right?
That's right. I won't run around opening PCs to check the Floppy disk
controller/drive to see the brand and model. I just posted my observation
that floppy disk formatting wasn't MS OSes dependant. On some systems it
worked on some it didn't, regardless of the OS. So I blame the hardware.
Rant away, you are even allowed to use tghe infamous
<MAX> Because I say so </MAX>
I'm out.
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
How ironic.
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande�" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:38:10 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
> >But the issue wasn't *sometime* does, the issue was that it couldn't,
> >without any qualifier. Since you and I agree that it sometime does,
there's
> >nothing much to add.
>
> The issue was that it does. The issue of whether it always does is only
> brought up as an argument from ignorance, by the people who apologize
> for the monopoly.
I think that you are using a threaded news reader. So you won't have any
difficulty at all to find the Michael Versters' [self described credible
Linux advocate] post containing:
"losedos can not format a disk and do something else at the same time. "
A sentence like that make me thinks that "losedos"* [yay ! creative naming !
how mature !] is unable to multitask while formatting, with no qualifier
whatsoever. That's what put the "people who apologise for the monopoly" in
motion.
Thus you are wrong on this account. It's "freedom fighter" that implied that
Windows can never format an chew gum at the same time.
*Of course, I am assuming that when he wrote "losedos" he was struggling to
write Windows. :)
> --
> T. Max Devlin
Paul 'Z' Ewande
------------------------------
From: Nils Zonneveld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:08:35 +0200
Warren Bell wrote:
>
> With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows XP and the WPA, that will
> require you to have MS activate your PC after makeing any hardware
> changes, makes me wish there was somthing out there to compete with
> Windows. I mean really compete.
>
> Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but the average
> computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs is a
> light, user freindly version that anyone can use. Somthing that's
> stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a single or
> multi user home system. Somthing that even the untechnical user can use
> without too many problems. Here are some things that I think would be
> needed to make this work:
>
> - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> click.
> - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> distros are similar.
> - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
>
> I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really compete
> with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS like
> this?
Mac OS X?
:-)
Nils
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: WFW3.11 uptime (and other thoughts on desktop computing)
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 30 Mar 2001 10:04:42 GMT
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 00:25:03 -0600,
David Punsalan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hey all you fanatics,
Thats me :)
Before I go any further, a note for COLA regulars, I've just installed the
latest version of SLRN, and was pleasantly supprised to see some options when
followuping, namely, 'post to all groups', 'post to this group only' etc :).
At last non-cross posting made easy!
>
> I've got nothing against linux, but I thought I'd just share an
> anecdotal story in response to a thread I read some time ago about
> uptimes and windows.
>
> In short - I've got a Windows for Workgroups box that I set up in my lab
> that logs temperatures and pressures and runs and ftp server and has
> simply never crashed on me - not once!
Excellent.
>
> I telnet in to unix servers to check email, down/upload datafiles,
> manipulate datafiles with Excel and it all runs smoothly on a 486DX266.
>
> It does exactly what I need it to do and I am perfectly happy with it.
> Implementation was effortless and I'm no pro.
>
> Why am I posting this? I just think it's appropriate to balance all the
> legendary stories we see about linux.
Unfortunately a single Win3.11 pc won't balance the Linux/Windows stability
debate.
> Unfortunately, I wish my AMDK6
> 400Mhz with Win98 ran with as few crashes as my WFW3.11 box does.
>
> Ofcourse - I'm not running Word, Excel, Powerpoint, IE (with
> streaming video), Acroread, Kaleidiagraph, EndNote, Winamp, WarFTP,
> Napster all at the same time on the old clunker. In all fairness -
> considering the fact that this list is the typical load (and I stress
> TYPICAL) of what I run on my machine (400MHz,Win98,128MB RAM which
> nowadays is a modest amount of muscle) - I really can't complain if it
> crashes three or four times a year. I have NEVER had to worry about
> running too many apps at the same time on this beast. On X, however, I
> have had a MUCH different experience.
Me too, I have a similar machine 300Mhz, 2.2.18 Linux, 128Mb ram, and I'm
lucky if it locks up a couple of times a year.
>
> I know that at home I run RH6.1 on an identical machine and I'll be lucky
> if can get through a single StarOffice session without it vanishing into
> thin air on me. Not to mention the XMMS lockups, lousy looking pdf's on
> Acroread, illegibly tiny fonts on Netscape, and, for me, at least - video
> never works very well if at all.
I don't use acroread, prefering xpdf myself. Netscape fonts really do suck
however the latest Mozilla (0.8.1) fonts are *exactly* what I want.
>
> Why do I use Linux? - As a programming environment - it reigns supreme.
> Which is handy when I want to do some mathematical modeling. In which
> case - I don't even need X. I should mention though that the ubiquitous
> FORTRAN benchmark program mytest1.f runs just as fast on my Win98 machine
> as it does on my RH6.1. Go ahead and laugh at me for still using FORTRAN
> - I don't care.
>
> Lastly, I fully acknowlege that I can only speak intelligently about MY
> experience and cannot, therefore, make generalizations about which
> OS/platform is best for desktop computing. I also recognize tha, being
> completely self-taught on Linux (if you don't count reading HOWTO's), my
> bad luck with Linux can likely be attributed more to the poor job of
> installing/maintaining/configuring it than to the actual OS.
Not neccessarily, sometimes a poor driver can make life hard.
I used to have a lot of trouble with a Trident video card,on one of my machines
X would lock up intermittently, but I knew that X was fine on another similar
machine with a differnt video card, I changed that card and had no more
troubles, it wasnt X or my setup, just a lousy trident video card.
>
> What I have I gained from using Linux? - certainly not free time. "Mental
> exercise" I think is the answer to that question - which I genuinely
> enjoy. But I'd just be kidding myself to say that it's anything more than
> that to me.
Just to balance your post, I use Linux everyday to design electronics
equipment and interact with friends on the net, create user manuals, graphics
print frontpanel labels etc.To me, Linux is essential for my everyday work.
>
> I commend you on reading this lengthy post to the end.
No problem, a interesting post.
>
> - David
>
>
> "Talent imitates. Genius steals."
Terry
------------------------------
From: "Z" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 10:20:49 GMT
"Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:RBVw6.10229$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Warren Bell wrote:
> Linux is not for the average Computer user, which is why the standard
> does not have to bend to the will of the masses.
LOL, and still, Linsux will "take over" from Windows...yeah right...what a
joke.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:21:35 +1200
Thats really rich coming from a person who neither uses a valid email address
or a real name.
Matthew Gardiner
Z wrote:
> "Martigan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:RBVw6.10229$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Warren Bell wrote:
> > Linux is not for the average Computer user, which is why the standard
> > does not have to bend to the will of the masses.
>
> LOL, and still, Linsux will "take over" from Windows...yeah right...what a
> joke.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: So IE5/Outlook/Outlook Express will all execute attachments
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 22:21:55 +1200
Hi all,
I think this tops the buffer overflow in Outlook/Outlook Express where
arbitrary code can be run on an unpatched Windows machine just by sending
someone a plain text email.
This vulnerabilty is a right screwup. It allows someone to execute an
attachment on your Windows computer:
(a) just by visiting a site; or
(b) just by sending you an HTML email (that is automatically rendered
using IE5).
Unknown to me MS HTML emails are just in fact packaged web sites:
"Because HTML e-mails are simply web pages, IE can render them and open
binary attachments in a way that is appropriate to their MIME types."
Check it out:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS01-020.asp
This is a good example of how not to design a secure operating system. And
that's why statements such as "no operating system is secure" are
misleading. While none are prefectly secure there are degrees of security.
This demonstrates that Microsoft allowed people to email web sites to one
another and then thought about the security implications later.
Attachments execute as the email (i.e. web page/site) is "rendered".
Wonders never cease.
Regards,
Adam
------------------------------
From: Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 02:31:28 -0800
Les Mikesell wrote:
> > > > As long as the definitions are clear and well written (which is
> entirely
> > > > the case in terms of the FSF's "free software") it does not take a law
> > > > degree to understand them, nor should anyone be confused simply
> because
> > > > they are unwilling to take a few minutes to read what the definitions
> > > > are in a given context.
> > >
> > > There is nothing at all clear in the GPL regarding the relationship
> > > of shared libraries to each other and the linking program
> >
> > This has nothing to do with the FSF's definition of free software. Free
> > software is not the same as GPLed software.
>
> Yes, that is the whole point of this argument. GPL'd software is
> very restricted, hence not free at all.
GPLed software is "free software" as that term is and has been clearly
defined by the FSF.
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:41:53 +1000
> > - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
>
> Well, as long as you have the latest version (Xfree 4.03) installed, both
> GUI's are very light. The first version of KDE was mega bloated, slow,
and
> used a tonne of memory, however, it has gradually matured into a pretty
> good desktop. Also, depending upon what distro you choose,
have you got any figures relating to kde 1.2.x and 2.x relating to memory
usage, hard disk usage.
not because I don't beleve you. I just weighing up wether to upgrade or not.
space and memory is limited and kde 1 and 2 may not exist together as they
require diffrent versions of qt and the versions don't overlap. So it would
be one way.
Thanks for any pointers. compiling for me is not a option. I don't have the
space.
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux needs a standard, user proof distro
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:47:39 +1000
IBM tried that with the THINKpad laptop.
sell it to corporations, e.g. telstra -> users will like them (despite the
price)
and buy them.
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Business's, such as IBM need to adopt the OS as a the standard right
through out
> their organisation, then, the employees feel that they have to install
Linux on
> their home machines so that it is compatible to work. Then, IBM partners
think
> "well, IBM is very important to us, we better move over to Linux for easy
sharing
> of information", so they move their computers over to linux. The ripple
effect
> continues, and as more and more users get added to this base, more and
more
> programs are ported, all this happened just by IBM moving to Linux, now,
could
> you imagine, if General Electric, IBM, Oracle, All Government Departments,
HP,
> Compaq and Dell moved all their clients from Windows to Linux, could you
imagine
> the huge ripple it would create in the computer industry? it would be
massive,
> Microsoft would get the shock of its life. It would not happen over night
as
> many of these organisations are spread over several continents, it may
take up to
> 2 years for a full transition and retraining, however, as the roll out
continues,
> training organisations will offer Linux Training, and as a result, after 5
years,
> a total roll out, and Linux will become one of the major forces in the
office.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
> Warren Bell wrote:
>
>
> > Martigan wrote:
> > >
> > > Warren Bell wrote:
> > >
> > > > With all the stuff I'm hearing about Windows HP and the PA, that
will
> > > > require you to have MS activate your PC after making any hardware
> > > > changes, makes me wish there was something out there to compete with
> > > > Windows. I mean really compete.
> > >
> > > So you want people to rent or pay for updates?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Linux is a great OS and is getting better all the time, but the
average
> > > > computer user won't want to use it. What I think Linux needs is a
> > > > light, user friendly version that anyone can use. Something that's
> > > > stripped of most of the server functions and is made for a single or
> > > > multi user home system. Something that even the UN-technical user
can use
> > > > without too many problems. Here are some things that I think would
be
> > > > needed to make this work:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Linux is not for the average Computer user, which is why the
standard
> > > does not have to bend to the will of the masses.
> > >
> > > > - A standard GUI that all Linux distros could use.
> > > > - A GUI that's feels lighter and faster.
> > > > - All the most used admin (root) functions available from point and
> > > > click.
> > > > - All makers of the lighter distro to follow standards so all the
> > > > distros are similar.
> > > > - Of course, more programs that people need for everyday use.
> > >
> > > That sounds like windows to me already! ;-)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to see Linux come out with somthing that would really
compete
> > > > with windows and give people who arn't tech savvy a choice. Any
> > > > thoughts on this? Any distros that are trying to move twards an OS
like
> > > > this?
> > >
> > > As before if Linux does get standardized as you wish you will run
into
> > > some problems:
> > >
> > > 1. No matter what group is out there ONE of them will write/own the
> > > standard. That means money. Money and Linux don't match.
> > >
> > > 2. If everybody uses the same standard you have inventive
stagnation.
> > > How can your imagination in programming be excited when you HAVE to
write
> > > for one standard?
> > >
> > > 3. As soon as you bring the a standard to lure new "techless"
useres
> > > and charge them for a distro you will make the advancement of Linux
> > > depended on the whims and money of the "techless" users. Like
Windows.
> > >
> > > 4. The comunity that owns Linux is a friendly one, will gladly
help
> > > "techless" users become proffecient with the OS, just as long as they
show
> > > a willingness to advance their knowlege. If they choose not to learn
the
> > > OS then they can go crawling back to Windoze.
> > >
> > > Linux, for users by users.
> > > Windoze, from Gates to you, and from your pocket to his Phat bank
> > > account.
> >
> > I've been hearing the last few years that Linux is going to be big
> > competition for Windows. The way that would happen is if it was as easy
> > to use as Windows. If it's not easy for techless users to set up and
> > use on their own, they'll just go with Windows instead.
> >
> > I just hope they make a more user freindly and standerdized version that
> > will bring Linux closer to being an alternative to Windows.
>
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 05:52:28 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Kyle Jacobs wrote:
>
>> Oh, definitively Windows 2000.
>
> Oh please - so predictable, just parroting the party line...
>
>> Linux used to make my hard drive do a tap dance when performing
>> high-memory operations (creating big pictures under GIMP), yet Windows
>> 2000, similar software, similar application sizes.
>
> Of course you'd swear to the above, regardless of whether it actually
> happened...
actually that problem does happen to me when opening pics with the
Gimp(usually with more than 2 pics but it depends on their size),
or when i minimize NS6 or switch windows, the hard drive goes crazy for a
few seconds.
>
>> Windows 2000 loaded a majority of the program into psychical memory,
>> removing what seemed to have been my other programs (even the ones I
>> had been working in) to VRam.
well Linux does that too im sure however CPU usage sure does skyrocket
and the hard drive gets a workout when it swaps.
>>
>> Chalk it up to dynamic process resource reallocation under 2000!
>
> That's something Unix users have enjoyed for years.
>
------------------------------
From: "green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Outlook Express Users and Virus's
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001 20:51:11 +1000
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Very important news regarding outlook express:
>
>
> http://www.satirewire.com/news/0103/outlook.shtml
>
> Matthew Gardiner
>
L & LOL :O)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
