oops, forgot the footnotes this morning (soory, tired)-
(*) on URLs for Linux games I have hitherto:
www.linuxgames.com (the one that Bob mentioned too)
www.happypenguin.org (has more of the action type things, and more
which would run with lesser high-end pixel
production equipment)
(**) On DOSENU (and WINE):
Now that I just read Bob's comment - be shure, Bob, that I *will do*
keep to it (i.e., Linux learning and ranting): there's simply no
alternative - here's the next tricky thing where I have to "mix and
match" for dang's sake, since almost all of the digital camera and
photo/pics treatment things the available "first-stage" programs are for
Win$ only (and some for DOS! - for instance, the backpack Compact Flash
card readers connected to parallel ports). So I *have* to find some
solution there to make DOSEMU work, as a user.
As it doesn't work yet (three different packages would not compile,
each for a different reason) the work-around is clumsy - boot in DOS
and store the raw material on DOS partition/Zip disk, reboot to Lx;
not very elegant (btw, some of the image treatment programs in Lx are
excellent and in my opinion superior to the Win$ stuff).
Naturally, Linux as a voluntary and ad-hoc association of volunteers
could not be expected to be even in front of the commercial gadget
race so one has to wait a while for certain things to get solved, sure.
(Thus, by now there are good scanner progs too; and USB support is
coming up in gear, for instance.)
But precisely as with DOS some years earlier, I wouldn't perceive of a
necessity of the *user* of (DOS) programs to be a (DOS system)
programmer too. What sure is needed is "literacy", in terms of knowing
about the structure of the system, and having access to help sources
(and learn from documentation) when something goes wrong.
The majority of 'puter users is not constituted by programmers, but
that doesn't qualify them as stupids from the outset (which is what
Win$ does). So I hope Bob is putting up the wrong picture on the wall
when he writes:
> ... I do get the feeling that some of you just want "a
> bigger DOS" that can do everything Windows can. That's not what Linux is
> meant to be, and if you try to make it do that, it'll fight you all the way!
> However, for the self-professed CLI types who truly want to get into the
> heart of the machine, there's nothing to beat it.
Welcome for some nice battles here ! <VBG>
Take the usual compile problems. It's not the (Linux) file system as
such which I put in question but the use made of/in it. Thus I could
assemble the nice heap of already near to 2 MB mail exchanges on one
Linux list just because of the (always changing) placement and naming of
one tiny little file containing just one tiny little subroutine of the
prog under development discussed there. Note that these are not stupid
users who have no idea of the power of the heart of the machine. But
committed and qualified programmers; quite a waste of time and effort.
There are pros and cons for the *nix (and *nix-programming languages)
heritage to cut any least little routine into its proper file. But
it's the user who suffers from the resulting chaos too.
In any case, this and the surely following rants are at least *meant*
to support the idea of alternative, and accessible ways to use 'puters
and the whole IT otherwise, and certainly SurvPC friendly, than paying
into the fortunes of Gate$ & Co. And it's very much this accessibility
issue which is at stake here. If you want preserve Linux for the
"knowing elite" then it will never become that alternative.
// Heimo Claasen // <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> // Brussels 2000-09-02
The WebPlace of ReRead - and much to read ==> http://www.inti.be/hammer
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
