Linux-Advocacy Digest #746, Volume #34 Thu, 24 May 01 03:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:17 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 11:24:44
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 10:45:58
>>>GreyCloud wrote in message
>>>>It figures... Eric, get out of your narrow Paradigm! Start doing some
>>>>original thinking for yourself instead of letting a professor tell you
>>>>how to think! Crap indeed! Even Gallileo is rolling over in his grave.
>>>>Tell that crap to the NBS!
>>>
>>>To paraphrase - "why believe what thousands of scientists have proven
>again
>>>and again? Be original - make up your own science as you go along."
>>
>>You say that as if Newton weren't proven incorrect.
>
>It has certainly been proved that Newton's theories were only
>approximations, and it will no doubt be proved that many of today's current
>physics theories are only approximations.
>But such new development is done
>by scientists with a thorough understanding of current theories.
It is done by scientists with a thorough understanding of the math. The
theories (teleological explanations of the theory) themselves are
secondary and potentially meaningless.
>Occasionally, breakthroughs may be made by amateurs, but I will continue to
>trust the opinions of real physists over random outbursts from people who
>clearly have no idea what they are talking about.
Clearly, he has an idea what he is talking about; according to him, his
explanations come from a Nobel-prize-winning physicist in a specialized
educational course. He didn't claim any breakthroughs, only a
counter-intuitive teleology concerning the behavior of light in true
vacuum. Perhaps some people might reject counter-intuitive claims about
physics outright, but I would call them "pig-headed", more than "real
physicists". Real physicists know that there is quite a bit that is
counter-intuitive about light, and everything else in our universe.
>>>One of the American states (Maryland, IIRC) decided that it was too
>>>complicated for schools to teach about "pi" being 3.14159..., so they
>>>redeclared pi to be 4 and insisted that this be taught in schools.
>>>Fortunately, this did not last long. Perhaps GreyCloud is following this
>>>philosophy.
>>
>>...and since this happened (allegedly), pigheaded trolls have been
>>trotting it out to try and refute the fact that they are being
>>pigheaded. It is as if you were claiming that pi only has as many
>>digits as you memorized in grade-school, and then it stops.
>
>No, it is as if I were claiming that a state education board is not in a
>position to redefine pi, or as if I were claiming that interested but
>ignorant amateurs are not in a position to contradict the findings of a
>centuary of expert science.
You are mistaken in your assessment. The analogy is bogus: it clearly
indicates your miscomprehension of what was actually claimed. The first
one, anyway. Your second analogy seems incomprehensible to me. I
suspect a grammatical error.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:18 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 13:58:12
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>>>> If you weren't aware
>>>> that different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation travel or
>>>> propagate at different velocities or speeds,
>>>
>>>NOT in free space.
>>
>>There is no free space; all of the universe is a quantum foam of
>>transient particles, we're told.
>
>This is one theory that looks fairly solid but is not yet considered
>definite. But this "foam" has very little effect for the most part. It may
>well turn out that you are, technically speaking, correct in saying that the
>speed of light in a vacuum depends on the frequency. But the differences
>are tiny - I expect that you will be talking at most of the order of the
>tenth significant figure over the range of common light frequencies. All
>current measurements have shown that there is no difference, so we are
>talking about differences smaller than currently measurable.
The conclusion that GreyCloud claimed that the difference between light
speed at various frequencies in a vacuum *is* immense (12%) was a
fallacy. It was an inaccurate extraction of what he actually said.
In the last paragraph of your post, you seem to have finally arrived at
the point you should have started from. GreyCloud himself would
consider them accurate, consistent, and practical, I think, and further
would probably agree with me that they support his position. Having
finally understood how what he said is comprehensible, you can now
*begin* to engage him in discussion concerning its correctness or
validity or implications.
I just love free inquiry.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:21 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 14:48:13
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
[...]
>>>Statement truth: dead wrong.
>>
>>You wish. It might even be so. But you've provided no more proof than
>>he has.
>
>If I claimed that the sky was a lovely shade of green today, you would
>happily tell me I was wrong, without feeling the need to prove it in some
>way.
I'm afraid you are entirely mistaken. (That's my term for "mistaken in
more than one category of correctness", such categories being accurate,
consistent, and practical.) I would not claim you were "wrong", I might
claim you are mistaken. I probably wouldn't do that, though, as I've
seen green skies myself on a couple occasions. A very pale muted green,
not what I would call a 'lovely shade', but if the clouds are just right
and the light is just right, the sky can indeed take on a green
appearance.
>It's the same here - GreyCloud is talking rubbish, and those of us who
>know don't feel required to prove something that is so well established
>fact.
That is possible.
>>>>GreyCloud didn't say a damn thing about whether the speed of light in
>>>>vacuum is _known_ to any arbitrary precision. He pointed out that it is
>>>>not *experimentally proven*, and in fact cannot be, since in order to
>>>>measure light's speed, you must change its velocity, according to
>>>>Heisenburg.
>>>
>>>You're very confused here.
>>
>>This means, translated to a modest and accurate statement, that you are
>>slightly mistaken and rather confused, here.
>
>No, Max, it is you who is confused. You are mixing up two things here - the
>HUP says (roughly) that when you try to measure the position and velocity of
>a particle, the uncertainty in the position times the uncertainty in the
>position is at least Plank's constant. This means it is theoretically
>possible to measure a photon's velocity to any precission, as long as you
>don't care where it is. The other thing you are mixing up is the principle
>that it is impossible to observe something without changing it. Again, that
>is not a problem here - you don't care if the photon is destroyed in the
>process of measuring its velocity.
Those two "things" are both implications of the HUP, I believe. And how
on earth you can measure the velocity of something without knowing where
it is, I have no clue. But we aren't talking about measuring photons,
but waves. Measuring waves is subject to the HUP as well, as is
measuring anything.
>>>First, Greycloud claims radio waves travel at 0.88c. This is
>>>experimentally proven wrong *every* *single* *day*. It's true for
>>>certain media, certainly, but has nothing at all to do with c.
>>
>>My, oh my. Can I even hope to sort out such an ugly, useless mass of
>>pointless, conflicted rhetoric?
>>
>>Actually, I think not.
>
>Personally, I don't see why you are confused.
I've already told you, I am not confused.
>Lets pick a nice, simple
>everyday example for you. Do you have a mobil telephone? Have you ever
>wondered why the arial is the length it is? [...]
No, because I learned all about such things in the advanced electronics
training I got, courtesy of the U.S. Navy.
[...]
>Your philosophical ramblings never fail to amaze me. The HUP has no effect
>on the measurements of "c" in the same way that it has no effect on the
>measurement of your weight on the bathroom scales. The precision of
>measurements of "c" is limited in the same way too - it is a matter of the
>quality and precision of the instruments involved. For example, if you use
>a 1 GHz clock to time a light beam over a distance of 300 m, you get a count
>of a million, and therefore your prescision cannot be better than one part
>in a million. No HUP in sight.
HUP isn't a measure of either precision or accuracy; it is a
mathematical formulation of the fact that as one increases, the other
*must* decrease. Same for knowledge of velocity and position; same for
knowledge of sample time and sample value. The HUP has very much
exactly the same effect on every measurement performed by human beings
or human instruments (or, theoretically, any being or instrument
anywhere in the universe). This equates to "none at all" at
super-quantum orders of scale.
>>>>I think the problem GreyCloud is having making himself comprehensible
>>>>(hence, Eric's difficulty in providing any reasoning to counter it,
>>>>resorting to the asinine 'you are completely wrong' bullshit) is
>>>>confusion over the distinction between the terms "quantum packet of
>>>>energy" and "particle [of light]", which is subtle but does exist. Both
>>>>qualify for the word "photon", but the math you use must be distinct.
>>>
>>>And how does this deal with Greycloud's "Radio waves are not light" and
>>>"Radio waves travel at .88c" crap?
>>
>>Waves don't 'travel'; that's the way I explain it. They propagate.
>>Likewise, photons don't "travel", either. They stand still in time, and
>>the rest of the universe moves relative to them. If you weren't aware
>
>You really like relativity, don't you?
I like it all, as long as I don't have to bother with any math. I hate
math.
>>that different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation travel or
>>propagate at different velocities or speeds, AND that light is both wave
>>and particle, then you haven't paid the ticket price to enter this
>>discussion. That is our starting point; it may be hubris to believe our
>>destination terminus will be any different, but it is the premise of
>>discussion.
>
>The reason this discussion is not going anywhere fast is that your starting
>point is completly wrong - in a vacuum, EMR propogates or travels at exactly
>the same speed regardless of frequency.
The reason the discussion is not going anywhere is because you are
begging the question. Whether or not light actually travels at the same
speed through a vacuum is precisely the matter we are trying to discuss;
presuming we know the answer before we begin would normally stop the
discussion, yes.
>There may be tiny differences
>beyond our current measurements and theories, but these differences must be
>very small indeed. In air, there are also tiny differences - I don't know
>whether they are big enough to be measurable, but they are not normally
>significant.
Now, why bother making a claim (there are no differences) and pointing
out it is the premise of the argument (there may be a difference), and
thus pissing all over the idea of free inquiry to begin with, and then
immediately falsifying your own position by admitting that, in fact,
there might be tiny differences beyond our current measurements and
theories?
You see, the thing is, nobody ever tried to understand how GreyCloud's
statement could be correct and comprehensible, before claiming they were
neither. It might be quite possible that, had the response to his
claims been, "there may be some extremely minor differences in the speed
of light in a vacuum for different frequencies of EMR beyond what our
current measurements or theory can predict, but it would have to be
several orders of magnitude less than what you are describing,
GreyCloud."
Instead, we get "that can't be true, GreyCloud, because we were taught
Maxwell's equations were perfect and absolute, so you must be wrong and
idiotic to suggest otherwise." A lot. Over and over.
>So if the "ticket price" required is to believe in something patently and
>provably false, then I suggest you and GreyCloud continue this discussion by
>private email, or in person at your next Flat Earther's meeting.
Guffaw. Which is "patently and provably false", the opinion you hold,
or the one you are trying to avoid learning more about? So much for
free inquiry. And you claim *we* are flat earthers?
[...]
>So GreyCloud might be mistaken or correct, but is certainly not wrong? What
>are you smoking, Max? Many of his posts are not even in readable English
>yet you claim his is not being unreasonable? Keeping an open mind is
>commendable, but there are limits.
Indeed, but you need to keep an open mind about what those limits are,
you see?
Let me fill in some background. I've been posting on Usenet regularly
for about five years, now. Through that time I've developed some
personal rules about how to engage in productive discussion, regardless
of the circumstances. I have found that it is NEVER productive to even
CLAIM, let alone try to point out, that someone is WRONG. The meaning
of the word itself becomes incomprehensible, and therefore unreasonable.
It is a resort to metaphysics used when no reasonable argument against a
person is available.
It is certainly true that it is often used when there is no reasonable
argument because the original person is not being reasonable to begin
with. But it is far more often the case that the original person is
being perfectly reasonable, but appears incomprehensible. Their words
seem gibberish, untranslatable.
But my own theory is that they wouldn't have attempted communication if
they had no reason or reason to, so I presume in all such cases that
this incomprehensibility is only appearance. So it is left for me to
determine where they are making a *mistake*, and point it out. I may be
incorrect, however, as I am not omniscient, so unless my intention is
simply to get into a ping-pong match on Usenet, there is no
comprehensible reason to bother claiming they are WRONG.
[...]
>Max, you clearly have some understanding of light and quantum mechanics (I
>have on several occasions said you are not as stupid as you make out).
If I seem stupid, it can only be because I am stupid; I have never 'made
out' to be stupid. Obviously, though, sometimes a rhetorical question
does not sound so rhetorical on Usenet, and so it is not uncommon that
one is labeled as having an opinion which in truth is not held.
>You
>don't fully understand what you are talking about, but then, not many people
>do understand quantum mechanics.
I fully understand quantum mechanics, without knowing a single bit about
the mathematics involved. That's what makes me sound so stupid.
(Obviously enough, most people will claim it is not possible to
understand quantum physics at all, let alone 'fully', without
comprehending the math.)
>So why are you trying to defend GreyCloud?
Because it pisses me off when someone who is comprehensible and
reasonable but mistaken is called "wrong".
>Surely you must see that he is spouting junk? You seem on the one hand to
>be able to produce some reasonably accurate scientific explanations, while
>on the other you are suggesting that GreyCloud could be the next Einstein.
Actually, I can see that he has often 'spouted junk'. For example, his
comments on SETI (which actually spawned this discussion, ironically)
are pure hogwash. But I am unable to understand at this point where
precisely he is mistaken in describing his experience with these
experiments. Despite some people's misinterpretations of his
statements, he has never made an actual claim that is either known to be
false or unfalsifiable, to the limits of the context of the discussion.
HE didn't claim that light speed differs by 12% for different
frequencies of light in vacuum; that was a misinterpretation by someone
else. He just claimed that light doesn't necessarily travel at c in
outer space, for what seems to be potentially valid reasons.
[...]
>"GreyCloud is talking rubbish and there is no need to prove it". This is
>both true and reasonable.
It is incorrect, and so it cannot be 'true'. It is incorrect because,
while it is accurate (it means precisely what you meant it to), it is
inconsistent ('rubbish' not having a sufficiently concrete meaning) and
impractical (it is a false teleology; the 'and' is rhetorically
invalid). Whether GreyCloud is mistaken or 'wrong' has no bearing on
whether this must be proven before it is considered true. Presuming the
results before the analysis is not very scientific, and I can't
therefore consider it rational.
IF it were true, however, it would be reasonable. You get a pass on
that one, because it is comprehensible. But only as a tentative fact
(IF GreyCloud is talking rubbish, THEN there is no need to prove it.)
>But you are trying to sidetrack the discussion
>with your philosophies on truth and logic - we've all heard them before, and
>no one agreed with you then. Stop trying to be smart and answer the
>question in the spirit it was asked - when someone talks complete rubbish,
>you tell them so, without bothering to try to prove it.
I agree with you completely. I refuse, however, to adopt your
apparently lax standards for determining whether they are talking
rubbish, or I am simply unable to understand them. It is hubris and a
sin against Popperian science to assume you could provide a valid
judgement without a rather rigorous examination of the epistemological
and ontological arguments. But I guess that's just me "trying to be
smart" again. I hate to disappoint you, but I will never stop doing
that. ;-)
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:22 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 14:52:56
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 12:14:44
>> [...]
>>>I think the two of you have been reading way above your heads.
>>
>>We think you are an insulting and pathetic cretin.
>
>In this thread, the feeling is mutual. But if someone other than you or
>GreyCloud feels I am treating you unfairly, I will try to be more polite -
>until then, I'm calling a spade a spade.
I don't care about how you treat me, David. It was your response to
GreyCloud which made it apparent you are an insulting and pathetic
cretin.
[...]
>>This makes no logical sense at all. The only logical position would be
>>that it is neither. Both particle and wave are most obviously
>>incomplete descriptions of whatever this stuff is, whether you call it
>>'light', 'electromagnetic radiation', or 'radio waves'.
>
>This is quantum mechanics, not Boolean logic - there is no "law of the
>excluded middle" here.
This is not quantum mechanics; it can't be, because there is no math to
be found anywhere. This is not physics, this is the real world. It
doesn't matter whether you consider it a matter of logic or a matter of
language, both particle and wave MUST be considered incomplete
descriptions, or either one of them would suffice. Since both are
needed as explanations, the *real world* universe (not the theoretical
one physicists describe with math) MUST be considered to be, not both,
but neither.
It is not 'boolean logic', no. It is just *logic*. The uber-science:
philosophy itself. It is irrational to believe that light "is" a
particle or a wave; it is reasonable to recognize that light *can be
described as either*, but must therefore actually "be" neither.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:23 GMT
Said David Brown in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001 16:58:45
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>In vacuum, all frequencies of EM radiation travel at c.
>>
>>So we've heard. I'm beginning to suspect this is an artifact of the
>>standard curriculum in computer science and engineering programs.
>
>You'll find it is an artifact of most science cirriculums - they might not
>always tell the truth, and tend to simplify things, but it is seldom they
>teach falsehoods in order to complicate matters. Maybe the American
>education system has a different attitude, but in European schools, they try
>to be accurate within the limits of the complexity level of the course.
I don't think it has anything to do with USA v. EU schools. I've
noticed the same behavior regardless of a person's background. I don't
think it is an artifact of the teaching process, but of the learning
process. Some people just seem to only be able to comprehend things in
terms of absolutes; the way they learned things is RIGHT, every other
explanation (even ones that don't actually contradict, but only APPEAR
to contradict, the learned explanation) is WRONG.
It is a situation counter to free inquiry. It is a reasonable approach,
given the frequency that flaked mistake pseudo-science for free inquiry.
But just because the flakes can tell the difference is not supposed to
mean the scientists can't tell the difference, either.
If children in both American and European schools were taught, somewhere
along the way, that the only reason anyone ever taught them a fact is so
they can eventually be smart enough to prove it wrong, then maybe we'd
be farther along as a civilization. Accepting scientific facts as
unfalsifiable because they are currently unfalsified is not a scientific
mindset. No scientific truth can ever be taken on faith, and there are
no stupid questions; only sarcastic answers.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 06:12:23 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 23 May 2001
>>>The pyhsicists have long since sorted out that the speed of light is a
>>>constant in free space. Not only that, but it is invariant through
>>>relativistic transformations as well.
>>
>> Yes; physicists seem to split into two convenient groups: those who
>> believe something, anything, is invariant, and those who are still
>> discovering why this isn't the case at all.
>
>So noe Einstein's wrong too?
No, Einstein was mistaken. He died still trying to discover precisely
how he was mistaken, so apparently he was well aware of this fact. That
doesn't make him "wrong", because nothing makes someone 'wrong' except
being misunderstood. "Wrong" is a matter of metaphysics (you are wrong
when you don't accept my morality); the term has no place in science or
argument. "Mistaken" is a matter of reason and free inquiry.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2k Sp2 Worked perfectly
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 01:08:58 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ome.com...
> On Thu, 24 May 2001 05:52:55 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED].
h
> >ome.com...
> >> On Thu, 24 May 2001 04:24:48 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>
>
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
> >h
> >> >ome.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Fuck off and die troll. Win2k is pathetic for it's 40 year old file
> >> >system
> >> >
> >> >40? NTFS is about 10 - 15 years old.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Actually I exagerated a bit. The technology is only 30 years old.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
> >NTFS is ten to fifteen years old, not thirty.
>
> Look up the word technology. NTFS isn't ground breaking work. Mainframes
has
> such technology 30 years ago.
Mainframes didn't use file systems as we know them today 30 years ago. They
used DASD (Direct Access Storage Devices) with Access methods like VSAM.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux
Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 01:25:29 -0500
When you lie, you should at least attempt to provide believeable lies. Here
is why you are lying:
1) MS doesn't know your email address, so they can't send you an email if
you try to install Office on more than one PC. Activation is an all or
nothing process, you will simply not be allowed to activate if you are over
your limits, no emails will or could be sent.
2) You are allowed to install office on 2 machines via your license.
3) The activation desk would know that you are allowed 2 installations, and
would not ask for settings on your PC, since they wouldn't have known them
in the first place. The activation desk is simply a clearinghouse that MS
subcontracts.
"Techno Barbie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FNjO6.20147$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I decided to switch to Linux after trying to reinstall MS Word on a new PC
> I had just purchased. Of course, when I installed Word I had to call MS
due
> to they sent me a nice e-mail informing me that copying Word on more than
> one PC was illegal. I then called there support desk to get Word unlocked.
> The sales person then probed me why I was trying to install in on another
> computer, and asked if I knew it was illegal to copy the product on more
> than one computer. She then started to ask me a few settings on my PC, and
> after I had enough, I told her to forget it I was not going to use it
> anymore.
>
> Having tinkered with Linux for more than a year, I finally made the break
> with Windows and only use it to play games. Although I cannot install
> programs that are not RPM's yet - and editing configuration files are
> confusing to me - I did get Star Office up which is the main thing I use
my
> computer for.
>
> I really wonder how MS new security measures on their software, is going
to
> effect the average user. For me it was enough to tick me off and make a
> switch to another operating system.
>
> Well off to learn something called the command line :-)
>
> Techno (as in the music) Barbie
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
