LinuxSA? Bitch fighting

David Lloyd lloy0076 at
Thu Aug 19 19:58:37 CST 1999


> > >  and must include everything under the sun, including the possibility
> > > that the install is on a lowly 386 machine.
> >
> > This is the lovely Windows paradigm. If you're going to end up with a really
> > slow, inefficient system you may as well stick with Windows.
> Wrong.  The Windows paradigm is to increase the minimum acceptable CPU
> with each OS release.  You can't run Windows NT 4.0 on a 486.  But you
> can run Linux.

I think we can agree that Windows to a certain extent follows both paradigms. My
email wasn't intended to cover the entirety of the Windows / Microsoft paradigm.

> > It's not just an operating system so people can play "system admin/root"
> > god and tweak.
> This sort of statement always annoys me.

I fail to see how my statement either annoys you or is in any way contrary to
the statement you make yourself.

You said:
>  The Linux community is too
> diverse to pretend that the Linux community has a single aim like
> "as efficiently as Window 9x/Nt". <I have snipped the rest of this paragraph out>

I said:

> > It's not just an operating system so people can play "system admin/root"
> > god and tweak 

Your statement implies that ALL the linux community is too diverse to statement says that the operating system is not limited to just
one purpose, specifically playing root god. I did not say that this was an
invalid or non-existent use for linux. I did not say that linux was limited to
only one purpose, nor did I imply it. 

If you were to consult any reasonable textbook on classical logic, it's quite
valid to deduce what I said from what you said. Thus:

X has a diverse number of categories (Linux is [too] diverse to...implying there
are a diverse number of categories)
Y is a category pertaining to X (playing root god is a way [category of using]
to use linux)
Y is not the only category pertaining to X (linux has more uses than just
playing root god)

You have basically said and proven

The linux community is too diverse to categorise it into any one particular

I added:
  Playing root god is one category of the use of linux
  Playing root god isn't just the only category for the use of linux.

By definition, therefore, my statement can be inferred from yours. My statement
is a particular statement of something a sweeping "all" statement. If all birds
have feathers, then certainly some birds have feather, and a particular bird
also has feathers. 

You said there's no single category, I said that one particular category wasn't
the one-and-only category. 

*I must remember not to agree with people....they seem to get annoyed by this*

I singularly fail to understand how my statement annoys you :-(

> > I.E. You would literally build the various conf files, the kernel and such
> > yourself. The distribution would basically therefore act as a bootstrap
> > operation to getting the final installed components up.
> We are still at the stage where a lot of people want to try Linux.  So
> Red Hat must produce an install that works quickly.  This implies binaries.

If you referred to my original email I suggested a number of options during
install time. These options basically ranged from 1) blind windows like install
[i.e. stick in drive, press as few keys or mouse buttons as possible and you get
a working system] to what I suggested above.

I'm not altogether certain how long it would take a new linux user to work out

(..) Other more advanced options

Is the option for him or her to choose. Again, because my use of English can be
a little jaded and perhaps sometimes a little harsh and certainly not always
tactful I would welcome any improvements on "RECOMMENDED FOR FIRST TIME USERS",


Check out the LinuxSA web pages at
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request at with "unsubscribe" as the subject

More information about the linuxsa mailing list