On Sat, May 06, 2000 at 11:36:57PM +0200, Viktor Rosenfeld wrote:
> Pat Mahoney wrote:
> >
> > > So I offered her to install GNU/Linux on her machine and set it up for
> > > every tasks she wants to do.
> >
> > Can I ask why you want her to run GNU/Linux? (I mean, not that I don't want
> > her ru
On Thu, 4 May 2000, James Ravan wrote:
> Based on my experience with Debian Linux to date, I also take a simplistic
> view. Windows has worked with all the hardware changes I have made to my
> machine since I bought it this past January.
Linux can be simple too... try to move a harddisk betwe
> "Steve" == Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Steve> Then why keep bringing it up? I just find it amusing
Steve> that the selling point of a unix-like system is that it is
Steve> modular and flexible so the first thing most people point
Steve> to is a Microsoft-esque
Pat Mahoney wrote:
>
> > So I offered her to install GNU/Linux on her machine and set it up for
> > every tasks she wants to do.
>
> Can I ask why you want her to run GNU/Linux? (I mean, not that I don't want
> her running it...)
Well to quote you: I'd rather see everyone running free software.
James Ravan wrote:
>
> At 12:31 PM 5/4/00 +0800, Corey Popelier wrote:
> >I take an extremely simplistic view. I'd use Windows more if it didn't
> >crash 20 times a day. That's why I use Linux. Simple.
>
> Based on my experience with Debian Linux to date, I also take a simplistic
> view. Windows
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Emacs - was Re: Mail/news
software:
> >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Richard> Win hasn't required an autoexec.bat since '95. -- My
> Richard>
At 12:31 PM 5/4/00 +0800, Corey Popelier wrote:
I take an extremely simplistic view. I'd use Windows more if it didn't
crash 20 times a day. That's why I use Linux. Simple.
Based on my experience with Debian Linux to date, I also take a simplistic
view. Windows has worked with all the hardware
> "Richard" == Richard Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Richard> Win hasn't required an autoexec.bat since '95. -- My
Richard> other computer's running Debian. {www.debian.org}
I think you need it in order to setup the environment (compilers
seem to require this) and/or load doske
On Thu, 04 May 2000, Brian May wrote:
> For me, the problem with Windows is you have to think when thinking
> should not be required. Take for instance, autoexec.bat.
>
> I know a Windows computer, that whenever it starts, it flashes up
> with the message "Bad command or filename" for a few second
Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > "Pat" == Pat Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Pat> For me, Linux makes me think. For others, windows may make
> Pat> them think. For still others, something else (not computer
> Pat> related) may make them think. If linux makes you think
Hello all there,
On Wed, 3 May 2000, Steve Lamb wrote:
> For me it isn't a GUI/CLI mindset it is simply the ability to do what
> needs to be done. Windows doesn't let me do that in most cases. The standard
> 'nix utilities provide a lot of automation for mundane tasks.
I've been following
I take an extremely simplistic view. I'd use Windows more if it didn't
crash 20 times a day. That's why I use Linux. Simple.
Cheers,
Corey Popelier
http://members.dingoblue.net.au/~pancreas
Work Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4 May 2000, Brian May wrote:
> > "Pat" == Pat Mahoney <[EMAIL PROT
> "Pat" == Pat Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pat> For me, Linux makes me think. For others, windows may make
Pat> them think. For still others, something else (not computer
Pat> related) may make them think. If linux makes you think,
Pat> good. If windows makes you think,
Let me reply to myself here. This kinda came off wrong.
On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 10:15:37PM -0500, Pat Mahoney wrote:
> Linux[1] is much more difficult (to learn anyway) yet much more powerful than,
> say, windows. The Windows philosophy is: "don't think, everything should be
> easy." With linux, y
Tuesday, May 02, 2000, 9:10:53 PM, Pat wrote:
> important and I don't see Windows 9x or NT giving this, although I have zero
> experience with NT. But I do know that to kill a runaway process in Win95
> you have to Ctrl-Alt-Delete, wait for the little window to pop up (forgot
> what it's called), a
On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 09:17:30PM -0700, Eric G . Miller wrote:
> I feel compelled to respond...
>
> On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 10:15:37PM -0500, Pat Mahoney wrote:
> > Linux[1] is much more difficult (to learn anyway) yet much more
> > powerful than, say, windows. The Windows philosophy is: "don't
May I suggest that only people like myself, who have faced this dilemma
in extremis, be allowed to add to this thread.
Having used and valued both Vi and Emacs, I truly had my 'Faith' put to
the test, when I had to chose between them while installing Debian on a
box with only 814Mb HDD space.
It
On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 10:19:00AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Monday, May 01, 2000, 10:55:47 PM, Richard wrote:
> > I've had several debates featuring this very subject.
> > Some very long and drawn out and heated.
>
> Then why keep bringing it up? I just find it amusing that the selling
> po
Monday, May 01, 2000, 10:55:47 PM, Richard wrote:
> I've had several debates featuring this very subject.
> Some very long and drawn out and heated.
Then why keep bringing it up? I just find it amusing that the selling
point of a unix-like system is that it is modular and flexible so the firs
Pat Mahoney wrote:
> Linux[1] is much more difficult (to learn anyway) yet much more powerful than,
> say, windows. The Windows philosophy is: "don't think, everything should be
> easy." With linux, you must think. The windows philosophy seems to rub off
> onto the rest of one's life (or maybe it'
Hi,
"Richard Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Graeme Mathieson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Re[2]:
> Emacs
>
> > Has anybody ever tried to graft emacs directly on top of oskit?
> > _Then_ you would have your operating system. :)
>
> It would be a great OS period. Perfect fo
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Monday, May 01, 2000, 11:59:24 AM, Richard wrote:
> > Emacs is far more useful than that... It's still the best
> > mailer/newsreader/text based office program in existence.
> That is highly debated, esp. for people who prefer not to have
huge
I've
Graeme Mathieson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote regarding Re: Re[2]:
Emacs
> Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ snipped ... ]
> > Simply stated, anything which requires Emacs to run
> > is instantly lower than something that requires Windows to run because
at
> > least it /IS/ an OS and not a
I feel compelled to respond...
On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 10:15:37PM -0500, Pat Mahoney wrote:
> Linux[1] is much more difficult (to learn anyway) yet much more
> powerful than, say, windows. The Windows philosophy is: "don't think,
> everything should be easy." With linux, you must think. The window
Linux[1] is much more difficult (to learn anyway) yet much more powerful than,
say, windows. The Windows philosophy is: "don't think, everything should be
easy." With linux, you must think. The windows philosophy seems to rub off
onto the rest of one's life (or maybe it's the other way around). Som
Hi,
Steve Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[ snipped ... ]
> Simply stated, anything which requires Emacs to run
> is instantly lower than something that requires Windows to run because at
> least it /IS/ an OS and not an editor that is a wannabe script interpreter
> and OS rolled into one.
Has
Monday, May 01, 2000, 11:59:24 AM, Richard wrote:
> Emacs is far more useful than that... It's still the best
> mailer/newsreader/text based office program in existence.
That is highly debated, esp. for people who prefer not to have huge
bloated pigs in memory, don't want to learn a speech i
"Kovacs Istvan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(snip)
> Emacs, vi, development tools are fine for developers (I also decided
to
> learn Emacs and vi -- not at the wizard level, but to be able to use
> them when needed), and it's reasonable not to expect the masses to use
> them, but it's not the same c
On Sun, 30 Apr 2000 19:35:31 -0400, Rob Lilley wrote:
>Different Strokes for different folks.
>
>Emacs - "Show a newbie that and you will see the dust as he turns
>and runs back to the Windows camp" . Emacs and Linux/Unix
>for that matter is not for everybody - its there because of and
>for the
Different Strokes for different folks.
Emacs - "Show a newbie that and you will see the dust as he turns and runs
back to the Windows camp" . Emacs and Linux/Unix for that matter is
not for everybody - its there because of and for the growing few that want
to learn to swim upstream against the c
31 matches
Mail list logo
